Slashdot Mirror
White House Clamps Down On USGS Publishing
An anonymous reader writes "The White House has begun implementing a new policy toward the U.S. Geological Survey, in which all scientific papers and other public documents by USGS scientists must be screened for content. The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.' Subjects fitting this description might include global warming, or research on the effects of oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve."
I can't wait, for the congressional hearings to start. Actions like this scream for the congressional oversight which has been sorely lacking over the last 6 years. Polowski has insisted that she won't press for impeachment, but I'm guessing that she is waiting for the evidence to come to light. The real question is where to start, the Energy policy dictated by energy companies, Halliburton corruption and it's 'loyalty tests' to get government work, or torpedoing the careers of military men who are unwilling to tow the party line. However, the squashing of 'liberal' scientific opinion is as good as any place to start, I suspect that hundreds of them would be willing to come forth.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
... your unfriendly neighbourhood big brother.
In all seriousness, does this actually surprise anyone?
Uncle Sam doesn't want the natives in a tizzy prematurely.
"The White House has begun implementing a new policy toward the U.S. Geological Survey, in which all scientific papers and other public documents by USGS scientists must be screened for content. The USGS communications office must now be 'alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.' Subjects fitting this description might include global warming, or research on the effects of oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Anything that might have a negative impact on the economy or the current Administration's plans for despoiling our environment must be inaccessible to those of us who live on this planet and will be adversely affected by changes allowed through keeping our population uneducated about the environmental impacts. Any scientific/geological information that will allow anyone to question current Administration's energy or (lack of) environmentally friendly plans must remain inaccessible to the general public."
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The Executive branch has forgotten it can't make laws.
Who knows what could happen if enough truth got out. Gives me nightmares just thinkin about it.
I have no proof, but I know they're doing wrong. They don't want people to see what is going on even though they're officially serving the people. They're doing wrong.
Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney
From the article: "This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,'' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. "I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.''
They aren't even trying to justify their actions anymore. They're just filtering science from public view, and insisting that it is improvement.
Ryan Fenton
... when you have god on your side?
Hate world, revenge soon, take out on everyone...oh wait, is that policy-sensitive too? I'm not supposed to talk about that...
We must ensure that our scientists are entirely in accord with the Marxist-Leninist principles of eternal socialist brotherhood underlying the glorious people's revolution!
Same shit, different century. And it worked out sooo well the last time.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Riiight, I'm sure the giant government conspiracy to hide global warming is the main reason that this is being set up. Nice spin there, poster.
I'm sure you can come up with an equally valid reason to have USGS information screened for "politically-sensitive" reasons?
Translation: either they want to be alerted in advance of stuff they can take credit for, or they want to tweak press releases of embarassing info. It's a classic CYA move.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
I don't understand why you Americans are so agreeable when it comes to having your civil liberties squashed. Why don't you all speak up and remind your representative that you used to live in a free country and would like to once again. Enough of the government spin masters controlling everything.
Riiight, I'm sure the giant government conspiracy to hide global warming is the main reason that this is being set up.
Things of a "policy-sensitive nature"? Is this the new codespeak for "think of the terrorists!" or are they actually serious about restricting the flow of information regarding stuff that is not a national security issue?
Until someone says otherwise, it's clear that this is specifically referring to things like global warming, which has always been a "policy-sensitive" issue for Bush.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I guess that puts the USGS between a rock and a hard place.
The only way to stop Bush from using "politics" to subvert our government to his destructive corporate agenda is to impeach him. He doesn't care about "accountability moments" anymore, because he's a "lame duck", no reelection carrot to discipline his manners. And losing his Republican Congress means he's extremely dangerous, because he has nothing left to lose except his Executive privileges. Which are huge, especially since Bush has spent his 6 years remaking the government according to the Unitary Executive "theory" that is his only real ideology other than unlimited money and power. He's spending OVER $3 TRILLION of your money (paid over the rest of your life) every year, on his priorities, not yours.
Stop him now. Impeach him now. It's the only way to stop the damage before he starts "upgrading" the impeachment process itself.
--
make install -not war
I happen to know this policy came from the Whitehouse and was specifically triggered by the caribou research. Someone from Georgia complained, and the administration wants the chance to add the appropriate black bars to any future caribou video.
"The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy."
The communications office must be notified "of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.' and finally.... "In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected."
So now, his Royal High-Ness is going to censor the USGS!
Next Bush is going to be calling the Magnitude of the nest California Earthquake.
Will somebody please send that "man" of questionable parentage back to Main.
Keep the whole clan out of Texas
Sue
When it's time it's time,
And it may be sooner then you think
For some of us change is a welcome thing,
In spite of the pain we must endure and
The choices we must make,
What part of Democracy does this administration not understand?
It's not that this administration doesn't have a coherent position, it's that that position is nearly impossible to audit because most individuals who might wish to don't command the resources that the government has, and it becomes a war of wills with the money (and hence the odds) stacked against the common citizen.
There are things in the world that require actual secrecy. It's useful to have the codes to launch the missiles be secret. But that doesn't mean it has to be secret that you have nuclear missiles. In fact, it's the kind of thing one might want to know in order to decide if one likes the government that they elect in a supposedly informed way. How can one be informed on a matter without information?
Democracy is a grand experiment. It seems an open question as to whether it works. But weirdly, though Bush and his cohorts speak about bringing Democracy to the world, they don't seem to believe in it. I'd think their position a lot more coherent and believable if they said "We're the party of 'Democracy has failed.'" They could be about political self-determination rather than democracy and they wouldn't sound like hypocrites. They could then say "You, the American people, decided democratically that "you can't handle the truth."". But I think they worry people might not be able to handle that truth.
And hiding one truth soon begets hiding another, until soon it seems like it should be S.O.P., where we just don't let the people have access to any facts, not even political facts, because they might misinterpret them.
And that's like a cancer. Because every fact you withhold becomes political by virtue of withholding it. So it feeds itself.
The whole reason science uses something called "peer review" and not just "review" is to distinguish it from other kind of "review". Like, say, "government review". Blurring the two is to give take meaning from the word "peer". Which sounds quite a peery-loss endeavor to me.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
The USGS is one of very few federal agencies that is actually useful to the people. Their research is valuable to all of us, and it should not be tampered with. I regularly check their seismic network web pages and read the Oat Mountain drum recorder. Why does the administration think it's bad for people to see this stuff?
The world is my oyster. That's why it's always in a stew.
It may be that the government doesn't want to be caught unaware when the media gets a hold of a report with newsworthy or politically sensitive information. Other parts of the government already have similar practices in place.
The people VOTED for CHANGE. And dammit they deserve a change for course.
and good luck with that.
I used to love going to the official MS terraserver site and seeing a big black blob over the PAVE PAWS defense radar installation on Cape Cod.
I guess MS thought they needed to do the gummint's bidding and protect us from seeing a classified thing.
Then you moused over to jef poskanzer's acme mapper and get everything in it's full glory anyway.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
What charges? Your rant didn't mention what "high crimes and misdemeanors" he's committed to justify impeachment.
The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told -- prior to any submission for publication -- "of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.''
Yeah. They have to be sure that the public isn't unneccessarily exposed to things like "facts". What kind of "communication strategies" need to be developed to communicate a new finding? What's wrong with just reporting the science? I guess that some facts have too much "truthiness" behind them:
In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.
Damn facts... always getting in the way of MONEY.
Some years ago, President Lula, from Brasil, got a little upset with some data published by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geographics). The published data was relative to poverty reduction and kind of contradicted what government was saying. After that, it was officially ordered that the IBGE should submit every publication to the presidency, 48 hours before public delivery.
Here in Brasil we have a joke about Bush and Lula that goes along the line that both of them don't know English (well, Lula also is not very good with portuguese, our official language). It seems to me, that being authoritarian is another common trace between the presidents of the US and Brasil.
Your ad could be here!
The rule of the state, in importance ranked above the people that make up society.
Scientific facts don't stop being scientific facts, just because the administration demonstrates the political need to ignore/bend/distort and supress such facts. Thus, the scientific governmental organization founded for the good of society is overruled by the good of the current administration of the state. That is a fascist method of operation.
My dream is that both republicans and democrats will condemn these attempts. My sense of reality says that will never happen.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
For what it's worth:
"Recent news reports suggesting the Bush administration is trying to muzzle scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products are off base and misinformed about the intent of the changes being formalized at the agency. Speaking as the senior biologist at the USGS, I am deeply concerned that longstanding legitimate scientific peer review processes that have been the basis of scientific practices at the USGS and other scientific agencies and organizations have been mischaracterized as inappropriate political controls on research. Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization that ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent and objective.
The USGS has had such processes in place for many years. As with any science enterprise, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes in the organization. Our recently revised policy is an effort to do just that and has been developed by scientists and science managers (not political appointees) in an effort to coordinate existing review processes.
Research supervisors in the review chain are simply charged with ensuring all USGS information products have addressed peer comments and are in compliance with USGS procedures with regard to the review and release of scientific information. Furthermore, the notion that senior leadership in an organization should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decision-making is disturbing. Under current policy this information is transferred to policy makers as it is released to the public.
Characterizing these reviews as an attempt by the Bush administration to control and censor scientific findings is inaccurate, is a disservice to those scientists who developed those processes in the spirit of continually improving our commitment to excellent science and undermines the bedrock of the peer review process as an arbiter of the credibility of individual science products and facilitator of science progress and discussion."
Whatever evil conspiracy theory you want to believe about restricting the data that comes out of the USGS, you have to acknowledge that anything even a little bit controversial will be leaked by some of the career staffers on the project. The entire employee pool doesn't get changed out between administrations so that absolutely everyone is a total unthinking tool of the prez. There is always going to be someone who strongly disagrees and dumps the story into the press as a way of sticking it to the man.
Though I agree that all of the science on climate change should be available. All of it. Including the data and methods used to create the hockey stick model. I wonder what *that* guy is hiding.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
Plate tectonics? Fossils? When the USGS has reports that involve even basic science which goes against the literal word of God, will we see omissions and redaction? "Peer review" should not include a political pass.
Polowski?
That's what I get for doing a Google search on my best guess, I ended up getting someone else's mispelling. However, I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi has seen many misspellings of her name.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Geeze, it's so hard to choose. For starters, how about picking on a few of his more egregious violations of the law:
And those of you who've been paying attention will realize that we're just scratching the surface here. These are only a few of the more obvious crimes for which there is publicly available evidence, despite complete lack of congressional oversight for the last six years.
If the Dems have any balls at all we should be swimming in viable charges by this time next year.
--MarkusQ
If science is going to be censored now (and that's what this amounts to) we may as well pack it in. The same sort of sad neocons that cling to the sinking cryptofascist ship that is this government (the Democrats are hardly blameless, we need to admit that) are the same sort of sad individuals who will try to either downplay or rationalize this criminal censoring of facts and truth...but then again, the manipulation of facts and truth has been the hallmark of probably the most criminal American administration of the modern era.
.::
User-agent: whsearch /cgi-bin /search /query.html /help /sitemap.html /privacy.html /accessibility.html
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
Disallow:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/robots.txt
Make an escape plan before walls are built.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
While I find the idea of political interference with scientific processes reprehensible, the fact remains that the USGS is an organ of the USG, United States Government, and what you can or can't say is limited just like it would for any other employer. The general public and media doesn't understand that honest and reputable scientists can interperate a given data set in different and opposing ways and it seems that when that happens it's a repudiation of the very basis of science. People want the government to have THE answer, the government looks to science to give it THE answer, but the reality is there is no THE answer, there is only an optimum solution bases on our limited knowlege.
It might be nice to know beforehand so you can call your wife and tell her your going to be late for dinner because somebody at USG just published something and the press is going crazy over it!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I guess people would rather just bushbash than take a critical look at the USGS in specific...
In case people don't remember, the USGS was the same agency that in 1998-2000 (under the clinton administration oversight) was accused of falsifying many research documents in support of the proposed nuclear waste processing facility in Yucca Mountain. I believe some of their scientists that were involved with this research falsification are under federal investigation for this today.
I'm not saying all of their scientists are bad apples (they do some good research there), but the agency as a whole untainted as unbiased scientific researchers (as they know who butters their bread) and all the stuff that comes out of the door there should be taken with a grain of salt.
In response to this and other problems, in 2004 (under the bush2 administration oversite), the USGS started a procedure of external peer review for their papers. This new "alert" of course goes beyond external peer review, so isn't all that great news, but I think the USGS has a long way to go to clean up their act before they cry idea censorship.
Just my 2-cents worth...
Possibly the electorate's attempt to sew some on may have bolstered them, but I don't have much hope. I suspect in their attempts not to rile the heartland up to the 2008 elections, we'll merely get a lefty-flavored version of big-government theocracy.
I hope to be proven wrong, but I see little evidence of balls or spinal cord in either side.
Support Scientists and Engineers for America:
"1. Federal policy shall be made using the best available science and analysis both from within the government and from the rest of society.
2. The federal government shall never intentionally publish false or misleading scientific information nor post such material on federal websites.
3. Scientists conducting research or analysis with federal funding shall be free to discuss and publish the results of unclassified research after a reasonable period of review without fear of intimidation or adverse personnel action.
4. Federal employees reporting what they believe to be manipulation of federal research and analysis for political or ideological reasons should be free to bring this information to the attention of the public and shall be protected from intimidation, retribution or adverse personnel action by effective enforcement of Whistle Blower laws.
5. No scientists should fear reprisals or intimidation because of the results of their research.
6. Appointments to federal scientific advisory committees shall be based on the candidate's scientific qualifications, not political affiliation or ideology.
7. The federal government shall not support any science education program that includes instruction in concepts that are derived from ideology and not science.
8. While scientists may elect to withhold methods or studies that might be misused there shall be no federal prohibition on publication of basic research results. Decisions made about blocking the release of information about specific applied research and technologies for reasons of national security shall be the result of a transparent process. Classification decisions shall be made by trained professionals using a clear set of published criteria and there shall be a clear process for challenging decisions and a process for remedying mistakes and abuses of the classification system."
This isn't strictly a reply to this post, but an observation arising from several in this thread. I work for a Fortune 500 company. I am not allowed to post any information anywhere that would be related to the company or its policy. Period. End of Story. So for the Head of the Executive Branch to take the same position for any of his employees does not seem all that earth shattering. Congress or the Press can all expose these policies so that we can consider this when we evaluate what the agency says in their "findings". Actually that is why most members of the Public really don't know what to believe. You have government agencies issuing findings that support the government's policies. You have Universities and Research Centers reaching the findings that the people paying them were hoping for or findings that will bring in more donations and grants.
Are you seriously comparing the government to a company?
You work for the company. It owes you your salary, but not much more.
The government is supposed to represent you. It is, by definition, public. It is accountable to you. It shouldn't keep (too many...) secrets.
I wish they would start with the chocolate. Considering the size of the average american waist, rationing chocolate would be an improvement, probably save billions in health-care costs.
Ah but dark chocolate is good for the heart. It also contains antioxidants which may help fight cancer. you've gotta love chocolate.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I've done research in academia and industry, and I currently work for the US government.
Having works reviewed by my agency (NASA) is always interesting. In academia, there is usually very little interference from the parent university (one of the basic tenets of tenure). The researchers opinion is never considered that of the university proper.
It doesn't work that way in government, the distinction between the researcher and the parent agency doesn't exist (although if it did we would probably get better research). A paper put out by a government lab is sometimes construed as government policy, with the ensuing political or legal fallout.
The last thing any senior administrator wants to deal with is a call from legislative affairs complaining about the conclusion of what was seemingly an obscure paper, or the lawyers from a company that was badmouthed in an environmental paper. I don't think these rules are active efforts to stifle information, it's simply folks trying to keep their agencies below the political radar (or by extension, department managers trying to keep their name from being attached to some problem that is showing up at agency headquarters). It's a shame really, but it's the way the world works.
Government employees are in an odd gray area - if you worked for a private company, you most definitely would not have a "right" to expressing your opinion in a company paper - they are paying you, and would fire you. Government employees have a bit more freedom, and their management struggles to define what opinions do and do not belong in government works.
Worst...sig...ever!
not tow
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The USGS is an organ of the United States government. You're right that it should be answerable to its employer. Its employer is the people of the United States, not Mr Bush.
They just want to make sure the scientists only report goodfacts, for the sake of truthiness. Are you against truthiness?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Let's see .... people who travel are screened in case they're problematic for the government, scientific data is screened in case it's problematic for the government ... haven't I seen this movie before?
You could have at least used scare quotes around that last "impeached". I'm definitely not in favor of changing the word impeached to mean what the average American thinks it means. As you said, Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't removed from office.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
When a company does it, it's "good policy" (well, no, not for anyone outside of the company, especially if they were on vioxx or some other case where such suppressed information led to death, but I digress on an already digressed digression) when a government does it, it's "censorship".
Look at it this way: if you work for a company, your boss pays you for your time and tells you what to do with it.
Now, who is paying for the USGS to do this research, and who should have the right to decide what to do with it?
As Colbert would say, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
I strongly resent our tax dollars funding cherry picked "research" and propaganda. I don't want this administration in office, I don't want their cronies in Congress, and more than 50% of the American people agree. And yet our tax dollars are being used to suppress research and facts at odds with their faith based "science" and policy, while filtering and twisting that same research to produce a "knowledge" base of faux-scientific papers and documents to be used as propaganda against their opponents and against the will of the American people to keep them in office and keep us bent over.
Just another 2 years of trying to weather the storm and they will be out. The scary thing is what they can still do in the time they have left, considering what they have done in so short a time already. We could be bombing Iran and have lost another 2,000 troops and hundreds of thousands more civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran before they leave. We could be drilling in Alaska and doubling our logging in protected forests. And there seems to be very little we can do about any of it. The administration seems to do whatever it wants, regardless of what Congress says. And the Supreme Court is now stacked with pro-Executive judges. A large majority of the American people strongly disapprove of what they are doing, but it seems we are powerless to do anything but wait and hope we still have the liberties and the economy to start to clean up when they leave.
It's as though we are under siege, and a majority of us agree, but can't seem to do anything about it. Something is wrong.
Attention moderators -- being woefully misguided is not flamebait.
Try this one on for size. Your division is supposed to make 20 million dollars selling new improved widgets. You've been telling the main office that they've way underestimated the development and production costs all along. Now the financials this quarter make it undeniable: if they don't pull the plug immediately, the company will lose $20m not make it.
So... the main office lays down a policy that any data going into the SEC filings has be cleansed of information that indicates that their product plans are, financially speaking, a load of bullshit.
Is the business run to guarantee senior management their bonuses, or to make money for the stockholders?
We the people are the United States are the stockolder of US Government Inc. It's fine if management wants to make policy conclusions about the findings, that's their job. But they can't cook the books.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And this will be met with millions of slashdotters claiming that their civil rights are being taken away because the administration gets to control what kinds of information comes out of one of the agencies it controls.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Why are people, shocked, shocked, when they find that government-funded science is censored or altered, one way or the other?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
There goes my reason to feel superior to Sweden.
You have tried to support your argument with faulty reasoning! Go directly to jail; do not pass Go, do not collect $200!
That's why America is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. The constitution was designed to protect us from the good intentions of the people on both the left and the right.
Even before George W took the oath of office, I knew this was the type of man to do this sort of thing.
I'd seen too many guys who lucked into a position way over their head not to recognize the type. When confronted with unpleasant truths, ignore them. Operate in an alternative world where everything is wonderful, and any subordinates thinking unhappy thoughts get wished out under the cornfield.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
On the upside... it would keep nutjob loonies from publishing articles like;
"THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH, GIANT METEOR HEADED TO EARTH WILL DESTROY ALL LIFE..."
But on the down side it may also keep legit loonies from publishing articles like;
"THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH, GIANT METEOR HEADED TO EARTH WILL DESTROY ALL LIFE..."
Great job team! Go America! What next, the great firewall of USA?
> I guess the ultra-liberal-"Bush-is-stoopid"-tree-huggers have mod points, today.
Ultra-liberal or not, mod points or not, hugging trees or not... has nothing to do with Bush being stoopid.
I really find this offensive. I'm a programmer by trade, and despite working for a for-profit company, consider my trade to be part of a community of research and science (and I understand if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't have the said job). Just like medical researchers work for drug companies, they also work with academic institutions on disease research.
Censoring science for political reasons is nothing short of censorship. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that explicitly dictates that all science with data can not be censored by any act of government. It apparently isn't covered in the first amendment, since it's not universally considered expression. Why not? Would anyone in sound mind vote for a politician who disagrees with an amendment protecting truth?
Sorry, but I value freedom of sharing knowledge and data even more than freedom of speech. Speech can be full of lies and inaccuracy's. Data is just organized facts. How is it we protect the rights of people who insist certain minorities are genetically inferior... yet we can't share data on global warming? Has the country gone mad?
I respect any scientist who continues to fight for science, research and truth. IMHO those are core values of America. We wouldn't be the country we were if it wasn't for science, research and truth. From Ben Franklyn, Thomas Edison, and Ely Whitney among many, our country was shaped by science. If it wasn't for these guys, we would have never hit the information age, or even the industrial age.
Perhaps "American Values" aren't so much about being a certain christian denomination, but about freedoms and truth? Maybe I'm nuts for suggesting that?
Just my personal $0.02.
How about really accurate terrain and topographical maps? New exploration and data techniques? Just knowing the locations of some things is politically sensitive.
C|N>K
When North Korea conducted an a-bomb test a few months ago and the US government denied that it had happened, seismic data from the the USGS website embarrassed the government's stance by clearly showing the blast. Someone even pointed it out on slashdot. I wonder if the present censorship has anything to do with that.
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
big deal...
Hitler did it
Mussolini did it
Stalin did it
Hussein did it
"The Party" did it (1984 by George Orwell)
Communist Party of China DOES it
Gates WILL DO it (TCG fka TCPA)
sooooo since this is such a common action - why bother?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
MEMORANDUM
December 15, 2006
To: All U.S. Geological Survey Employees
From: Mark D. Myers (signed) Director
Subject: Peer Review is the Bedrock of Credible Science
The heart and soul of the USGS is objective, unbiased science. Our science is recognized as the gold standard because of the quality of our scientists and our high internal standards.
When I became Director, my priority was to ensure that the USGS's scientific standards and ethics are continued and maintained. And I quickly learned that the USGS has been resolutely upholding its principles for many years with a steadfast, scientific code--the peer review process.
Our process, however, has been called into question in recent news reports that suggest our Fundamental Science Practices (FSPs) are an attempt by the current administration to muzzle USGS scientists by placing new controls on approval and release of research plans and products.
This is, in a word, absurd.
In any organization, policies are periodically reviewed and updated to keep pace with changes. The FSPs are a result of a multi-year effort to make sure that our peer review process was consistent across the science disciplines, and they were developed strictly by scientists and science managers.
The FSPs solely require our research supervisors to make sure that our products address peer comments and meet USGS and Federal policies--the notion that they go any further to bias or suppress our science is misguided, and I would not tolerate it if they did.
The notion, as stated in the media, that senior leadership should not be alerted to significant findings that will directly impact policy development and decisionmaking is disturbing.
Scientists and science managers need to keep government leaders informed of relevant scientific findings. Under current policy, our information is given to policymakers as it is released to the public. We do nothing more than expedite the flow of information to decisionmakers in a timely manner.
The policy applies to all USGS employees and science activities, and these principles and practices support our scientific objectivity and reputation and underscore our mandate to provide reliable science in service to society.
In a press release responding to the news reports, Sue Haseltine, USGS Associate Director for Biology, said this:
"Peer review is the bedrock of processes in any credible science organization, and it ensures scientific conclusions or findings are robust, independent, and objective. The USGS has had such processes in place for many years."
I think she captured this principle superbly.
I invite you to learn more about our Fundamental Science Practices and see how they serve the integrity of our work at the USGS. I also encourage you to contact Andrea Alpine or Rama Kotra of the FSP implementation team if you have questions or comments--I will be working closely with them to support their efforts.
As with any change, there will be growing pains. I appreciate your patience and involvement.
Mark Myers Director"
The Bush administration's secrecy mania is about to run into Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). He's the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee. On January 20th, he will become chairman. And he will then have subpoena power over the Executive Branch.
This is the congressman who published "Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq". He is totally fed up with the lying and secrecy. Expect to see many officials of the Bush administration being questioned by Waxman's commiteee on TV. Under penalty of perjury.
Remember when all the cigarette company CEOs had to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it about addiction and hazards? That was Waxman.
And climate is on his agenda. He's very interested in things like the Clean Air Act; he represents Los Angeles.
If you goto google news and read through more than just the one article it seems that although the White House was the originator for the changes - I havent seen anything saying that the White House has to be informed about anything - just the leadership of the USGS itself (who in turn report higher, but thats nothing new). I often have to show my presentations and outputs to my boss and dont automatically cry censorship - as do most of the people on this site I suspect. I understand that people are reacting to the concept layed out in the Slashdot lead and original article but sometimes you need to read a little further to have a reasonably well thought out opinion. I think the posts to the effect that Bush should be impeached, whether he deserves it or not, are way - way offtopic.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
that's what. If you want proof, just read the news. He should get the death penalty.
Register the editry.
And here, have an organic cookie with real chocolate chips, its good for the heart.
Just... two... more... years...
I guess the ultra-liberal-"Bush-is-stoopid"-tree-huggers don't like being called ultra-liberal-"Bush-is-stoopid"-tree-huggers.
How much longer are we going to put up with this Neanderthal thinking before we do something about it? We can sit here and bitch on Slashdot and feel superior about ourselves or we can raise a stink and ask our colleagues to join us in opposing this kind of action. We can go to the public through the press. We can get Stewart and Colbert to make fun of it. We can essentially raise such a stink that they have to reverse themselves or suffer political damage. The only way they will change is if we hurt them at the ballot box.
I can think of a reason: submerged facilities. Location of weapons-storage, oil-storage, even toxic waste locations are things the general public doesn't need to know about, because the terrorists will.
And yeah, it's a good idea.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
In defense of the ultra-liberal-"Bush-is-stoopid"-tree-huggers, Bush *is* pretty stupid. That's just a fact. Feel free to refute it by showing results from tests, or perhaps excuse him by identifying whatever learning disabilities he has, but refuses to acknowledge. But in the absence of such information, we can only go by the evidence we have, as Rumsfeld might say. Not least among that evidence is the enormous cost in lives, money, and public relations that the U.S. is currently suffering, to attain an unachievable goal. Consider it a lesson in the cost of putting a stupid guy in the White House. Hopefully now that they've brought in the minders from his Daddy's administration, things might improve.
And to those tempted to mod me troll, I have a challenge for you: try to refute my point. Is Bush really smart, and just hiding it well? Or if you admit that he's stupid, is there some subtle value to putting a stupid guy in the White House? I really want to know!
BTW, I realize that for Cheney and the various neocons, there's value to putting a stupid guy in the White House: you can control him, and he acts as the fall guy for the fallout from policies designed to serve various selfish ulterior motives. However, that's not the question. The question is, what is the value for the average American citizen of having a dumb guy in the White House?
This is about dams, bridges, and power lines.
Sorry to ruin the conspiracy theories with a fact.
Water supplies. Natural gas pipelines.
Notice in TFA the parts that are direct quotes, and those that are reporter inferences, and of course there's the submitter's obvious bias too.
Railroads. Communications networks.
We now return you to your regular insane paranoid conspiracy whackjob theorizing!
Let's take alook at Mr. Bush's 'accomplishments'
Many More reasons why Mr Bush is the most hated president in US history. The way he managed to destroy the Twin Towers was using thermite.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
President Clinton did nothing wrong, he never deserved to be humilliated by being impeached. Mr Bush on the other hand should not only be impeached for war crimes and crimes against the US and the world, he should be removed and executed for all of his crimes.
Sorry, but the fact outweigh you ranting and raving for a failed president who stole the election so him and his buddies would get richer while the poor would get poorer.
Get your free pr0n atSoft-tits.com
Updated Daily
Private satellite companies could well benefit from this, providing the censored information as promotional matter. After all, they can't really control what's under their satellites, and considerable swaths of information probably don't conflict with the requirements they have for collecting data for their paying clients. Of course, it might be a problem too many of their clients actually belong to the camp so fiercely defended by Republicans...
If you're an American, can you imagine the uproar if anyone even considered passing a law making it illegal to portray the use of illegal drugs in a positive light?
High school kids aren't generally allowed to, for instance, wear shirts that even depict illegal drugs. I can well imagine a lot of mothers thinking the logical next step is to keep all those rappers from rapping about it. Someone, they might well think, ought to pass a law!
I'm certain that someone in Congress has proposed a law like this. The "protection of minors from indecent drug propaganda" law or something. All kinds of crazy things go on in Congress that nobody really hears about except the people who pay close attention to that stuff. It's already illegal to advertise cigarettes and alcohol to minors, or to use characters that are either well-known by children or even seem to be designed to attract minors. I believe a large number of Americans wouldn't think this is such a big step.
I guess we just have to hope he doesn't have a stroke or stroke-like attack.
Just look at the blurb in the original article:
[i]"Patrick Leahy, USGS's head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would [b]improve scientists' accountability[/b] and "harmonize'' the review process. He said they are [b]intended to maintain scientists' neutrality[/b]."[/i]
I thought that scientists were accountable mostly to their peers when they publish things
Well
I think I recognise this sort of situation from European countries like France (heavily politicised in all its aspects), The Netherlands and Britain (carefully screened so as to not release politically sensitive information unless it's the undisputable outcome of Government-mandated studies).
So what's happening isn't that strange
The Bush administration believes that the USGS is part of the executive branch--- a unitary executive branch, at that.
That's right, this is all routine. Having some political operative with a 2-year degree from a community college review the work of scientists makes perfect sense.
I mean, we all know what kind of commie-symp terrofascists geologists tend to be, with their anti-God sentiments and pro-abortion beliefs. First it was that "big bang" nonsense and now global warming. They're likely to write any kind of anti-American nonsense, like dinosaurs WEREN'T on Noah's Ark.
When I read TFA, I wanted to see if the pro-Bush authority-lovers here would actually try to make excuses for this crap.
Sure enough...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yes this is absurd. Do not get too upset, for in two years this kind of insanity will all be over regardless of witch party gets the whitehouse in '08.
"1) Most Americans don't vote."
Most slashdotters don't bathe.
Most slashdotters masturbate.
Most slashdotters engage in groupthink.
Most slashdotters are athiests.
See I can generalize too. I just don't get a +5:interesting out of it.
Our illustrious leader has the jump on the US. He already started muzzling scientists at the CSIRO in February or even earlier. The Man of Steel has been shoulder-to-shoulder, "fighting the good fight" with GWB on behalf of anyone who wants to sell oil or coal
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
You are woefully uninformed (despite your absolutely ridiculous "informative" moderation), not to mention completely wrong. I say this because:
Bush and crew lied about the reasons for attacking Iraq. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was not threatening us or our interests. Iraq was not threatening an ally or an ally's interests, someone with whom we had treaty obligations to defend. In fact, subsequent to the first gulf war, Iraq was not threatening anyone or their interests. Not even tiny little Kuwait. All of Iraq's pitiful military actions were confined to within its own borders. Therefore, in fact, there was no reason for the USA to attack them. But it isn't this simple, is it? No. Because in order to generate popular support for his attack on Iraq, Bush and his crew lied to the public. They claimed that aluminum tubes were being imported to centrifuge nuclear materials. Yet no such thing was occurring; the only tubes being imported were not of the type that could be used in that application, which was a known fact at the time. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld specifically claimed they knew where the WMD were. And were they there? No. The administration repeatedly and specifically claimed that Iraq's administration had direct and unequivocal ties to Al-Quida. And has that been found to be so? No.
Now, let me remind you of the federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
This is the basis for both calling these acts a foundation for impeachment, and for calling the war itself illegal. It does not, unfortunately, address the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in pursuit of this illegitimate war; nor the loss of Iraqi lives; nor the loss of US soldier's lives, and the lives of those soldiers from other countries who ill-advisedly entered into combat with the US in this criminal action.
Yes, telecomm law. That's the specific set of laws that says that no one, including the government, may tap a US citizen's phone call, no matter who they are talking to, without a warrant. but Bush and crew did that. There is a another set of laws that sets up the FISA court, which says that taps may be made if permission is gotten from FISA within a certain number of hours after the tap; but Bush and crew did not do that. This leaves absolutely no door open to make tapping a US citizen's phone call legal. The bottom line is that yes indeed, Bush and his crew broke the law in this regard.
I mean the company that gets all the major contracts in Iraq. All of them.
In order to suspend any part of the constitution, you have to modify the constitution. Otherwise it will be (and always has been) found to be illegal. Bush has not modified the constitution; ergo, he violates it. The constitution, which you so blithely dismiss (as does Bush) is the single operating legal document that authorizes our government. It is the framework that describes not only how it functions, but what the specific limits of its operations is. If the government operates outside the constitution, it is completely illegitimate in its actions. That is why in the president's oath of office, this phrase has primacy: "I promise to preserve, defend and uphold the Constitution."
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
On the other hand, Bush is more making an ass of the whole governmental situation for the US. And there is nothing about his actions that can actually draw a smile. All actions seems to be like going hunting for mosquitos with a hammer. You are rather sure that you get the mosquito when you hit it, but you will never get to the coordination center because there isn't any. Same thing with terrorists - get one cell and an another pops up behind your back.
Anyway - restricting the publications of data from agencies is outright counter-productive. You will cut into the effectiveness of the agencies and you will also lose any initiative by the employees. Assume that somebody at the USGS figures out that there is a risk of a landslide coming up in a large city, but since that may actually run the risk of being screened out the person in question tones down the report or fails to report it. Who is then responsible when the landslide occurs?
A thing that governments often fails to recognize is that they are actually the servants of the citizens not the other way around.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
USGS reply
The USGS release seems to be dammage control. I lack the skills to understand if the new rules are a reasonable way to manage an agency full of scientists (Although it is clear that at least one scientist doesn't like them.)
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=706
"Washington, DC -- In an extraordinary letter of protest, representatives for 10,000 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists are asking Congress to stop the Bush administration from closing the agency's network of technical research libraries. The EPA scientists, representing more than half of the total agency workforce, contend thousands of scientific studies are being put out of reach, hindering emergency preparedness, anti-pollution enforcement and long-term research, according to the letter released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
"In his proposed budget for FY 2007, President Bush deleted $2 million of support for EPA's libraries, amounting to 80% of the agency's total budget for libraries. Without waiting for Congress to act, EPA has begun shuttering libraries, closing access to collections and reassigning staff. The letter notes that "EPA library services are [now] greatly reduced or no longer available to the general public" in agency regional offices serving 19 states."
These are not 10,000 tin foil hat wearers, he has a long history of censoring information that doesn't fit his agenda.
"The entire employee pool doesn't get changed out between administrations so that absolutely everyone is a total unthinking tool of the prez"
It only takes one crony at the top of the agency to change it's direction.
Look at the CIA and the WMDs, the CIA analysts reports said no evidence, and Niger Uranium documents false.
Those reports went through a special office of hand picked (by Cheney) staff.
Out came the report, WMDs proven and Niger Uranium memos true.
Another Plan plagiarized from '1984'.
So the question is begged:
What are they trying to hide that is so important?
Runaway global warming (aka Venus Scenario)
Coming of the next ice age (The ice age follows our 'big melt' in a few years - don't worry it wont be a long one. The next ice age is predicted to last just shy of 10,000 years.).
Is someone getting paid off or bought by special interest groups?
Silencing scientists reeks of special interests manipulation.
Perhaps the Kansas Intelligent Design Board of Education needs to screen these apostate scientists for heretical blasphemy?
COCKSUCKER!
Where it gets fuzzy is when a scientist is employed by the USG, she's/he's generally paid salary, which means 24 hrs. a day 360 days a year minus leave time, because of this, and because of credentialing and acknowledgments of sponsors in journals, it can confuse the lay public and media as to what is the scientist's own professional opinion, and what is the official government's opinion on a scientific matter; these scientists really have no "off-the-clock" time like many government workers so when are they going to do personal research?
As far as political speech while in the employ of the government, it's been a while for me, but basicly it's a minefield few venture into willingly, one slip and it's likely to dead-end your career; that's what PACs like the Union of Concerned Scientists do.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What the hell does marijuana have to do with the USGS? Ignorant fool. Think China, think any nation in which the government screens the press; it's plain and simply wrong at any level, regardless. Free country my ass, you all ought to look at the rankings of the US in terms of free speech. It's sad every day we give up civil liberties, including freedom of the press. It ought to be like the Netherlands, Sweden, etc.
No, in Russian it's -(Es)(Ka)(I)(short I). (Stupid Slashdot filtering.) You're free to Romanize it however you see fit.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
My grampaw weren't no monkey!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Man, I hope nobody ever tells you what happens when you buy stock in a company, or put money in a savings account. You're going to be very disappointed.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Well, malicious is definitely an option, but there's evidence of stupid as well. The "look into Iraq, Saddam" stuff right after 9/11, showing that he'd made up his mind and didn't want to look at evidence of any sort. The complete denial of the administration that we might not be "greeted as liberators", not only in their own words, but in their lack of a plan to deal with that eventuality. Their credulousness in dealing with Ahmed Chalabi because he told them what they wanted to hear. It all speaks of a "wishing makes it so" attitude, which is more stupid than malicious.
None of this, of course, excuses any of it. But it does, I think, make them more dangerous in some ways.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Lying us into the war was a monumentally stupid move, and it may go down in history as the worst foreign policy move in our nation's history, right up there with the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, but it's far from the sum of his malfeasance. Claiming executive power to break laws he doesn't like, disappearing people on his say-so, authorizing torture, making up rules as he goes along, violating an executive order which he himself renewed (the one saying you can't classify information to hide lawbreaking), and breaking our treaty obligations.
So, we've violated the body of the Constitution, several articles of the Bill of Rights, at least one executive order, and a treaty. What exactly does someone have to do to get impeached around here?!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He's regarded as one of the greatest presidents because of the New Deal, because of his handling of World War II, his skill at international diplomacy at a time when it was sorely needed, and other things. He is not regarded as one of the greatest presidents by anyone other than Michelle Malkin because he interned the Japanese. The Japanese internment is regarded as one of the more shameful periods in our nation's history, especially because it took so long for the government to apologize and make reparations.
So, should Roosevelt have been impeached? Possibly. Does it give current and future presidents a blank check to behave similarly? Not really.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Okay, we've got Lincoln, who was possibly covered because of that whole "times of rebellion" thing, and possibly Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese. So... who else?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Perhaps you'd like to tell of that damage, then? Apart from NAFTA, nothing is springing to mind at the moment.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Until they dust them with that flavor junk, they consist of oil, corn and water. I've taken a tour of a Doritos plant, and gone through the assembly line. (Fascinating stuff.) They soak corn, mash it into meal, run it through some cutters to cut out triangles, and run them through an oven before tossing them in a cylinder with the flavor-dust. Without the dust, they're actually regular corn chips, and by mass, that's mostly what they are.
Of course, that stuff they spray on it is overpoweringly foul. But it's sprayed on actual food.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
No, no. Bush bashers. Alliteration makes it truer.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's cold there! And you have cell phones! And... okay, I got nothin'.
Say, how do you pronounce "Tarja"?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Seriously, though, I was thinking of vacationing there for a week or two; what's fun? What should I know? Is it really as scenic as it looks in all the pictures? Where's the best place to go to take pictures of unusual wildlife?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Can you tell the difference between facile common-sense "reasoning" and actual data? I suppose not.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
All those people were dismissed as unserious Saddam-loving anti-American hippies who thought it was 1968 again, and just had to hop on the bus and realize that the ghosts of Vietnam had finally been laid to rest. Y'know, again. I suppose by heaping more ghosts on top of them. The kind of bullshit that famed "libertarian" Glenn Reynolds was saying back in 2003. And yet, for some reason, nobody's suddenly said "gee, maybe the people banging the wardrums were the fundamentally unserious ones". For some reason, they're still marginalized and ignored, despite having right.
It's enough to make you spit, you know.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Turunen. I'm a sucker for metal with classic-style female vocalists.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Why is USGS being given this requirement? For things like global warming, NASA and NOAA are much more dangerous than the USGS.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
"We did not know one way or the other until we had troops on the ground."
... there is literally no point in being there. At all. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-stupid ...
Exactly my point. The administration assured us they did know; they lied.
They had bad intelligence from the CIA, and they are hardly the first administration to suffer from that. Recall that Clinton bad intelligence regarding chmical weapon precursors and bombed a civilian pharmaceutical plant. Also recall the bad intelligence where Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy in the Balkans. Using the word "lie" simply demonstrates a political agenda, not a historical one.
"Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft."
Let me actually finish that sentence for you: "Iraq regularly fired upon US aircraft flying in their airspace." And let me also point out that if Iraqi aircraft were flying in our airspace.
The no-fly zones protecting the shiites and kurds was established as part of the Gulf War cease fire. They surrendered, the agreed to terms, they violated those terms and continued to engage in hostile actions.
"Iraq was involved in assassination attempts of US citizens, a former president for example."
You mean like when Bush tried to kill Saddam in the very first bombing of the war?
Again, they did so after they surrendered.
When we sneakily dropped all manner of high powered weapons on a major city in Iraq using aircraft that were invisible to Iraqi defenses?
Saddam was warned prior to the attack. He was given a deadline.
Yet you exhibit stupidity by failing to recognize that your arguments are against the invasion, and not applicable to the current war. Again, today there *is* and al-quaeda presence, today there *is* an internation johadist presence, etc. That is what is relevant today, not WMD years ago. Again, the fixation and yesteryears WMD issue indicates a fixation on politics.
A real live scientist at the USGS noted that this story is blown out of proportion and that no new requirements were being placed on her work. Another response in this thread call this article 'damage control', but I am assured that it more fact than spin. The process has been in place for a long time, it's generally referred to as 'peer review'. I'd love to jump on the geeks-bash-Bush-bus, but this ride's got no gas.
It was fascinating. For instance, the baking part of the process involved passing the chips on the conveyor belt through about six feet of oven; they were particularly warm and crispy-good when they came out the other side. Stuffing them into bags was done with a roll of bags and a clear plastic chute, and involved flushing the bags with nitrogen gas to keep them from going stale. They also made potato chips there, but I didn't get a chance to see that part of the process. Cheetos were a different facility entirely.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
That's awesome. I've only seen that done with the "French Erotic Film" song, and with "Yatta". Do you have the rest?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca