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."
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!
Come to think of it threat of impeachment may be a more useful tool than actual impeachment. Besides, if Bush were booted out who would take over? Cheney, and no one wants that.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Sad to see that all of the west's criticism towards the Soviet Union, Iraq, North Korea, etc. is hypocritical considering this form of censorship.
At least in the SSSR you had some kind of social justice...
Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
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!
1) Most Americans don't vote.
2) When they do vote it is often meaningless due to gerrymandered districts. If you're a Brit the analogy would be the 'rotten burroughs' of the 18th and 19th century in Britian.
3) When congress does pass laws against a president's wishes he simply issues a signing statement saying he will not enforce them. This is blatent nonfeasence, something that should get the pres. removed from office. But niether the courts or the congress have the backbone to challenge him on it.
4) The courts are being packed with activist judges who toe the right wing agenda. Judge Alito on the Supreme Court for example is a huge suppporter of the concept of the 'unitary executive'. Meaning the president gets to do whatever the president pleases.
All this points to a drift toward right wing authoritarian rule. The president as emporer or god-king. Lately I read some posts on the net about the only solution to this being to amend the constitution to dissolve the executive branch, go toward a bi-cameral parlimentary system. I am starting to agree with that POV.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Don't forget directly violating the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law [...] shall not be questioned."
Bush repeatedly referred to the US Treasury Bonds in which Social Security is invested as IOUs of questionable value back when he was trying to dismantle Social Security. One might argue that this section of the 14th Amendment, which largely deals with Civil War issues, is probably one that needs a little re-interpretation. But presumably Republicans would be against such "activist" meddling.
E pluribus unum