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."

16 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. I can't wait, by rednip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I can't wait, by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Informative
      Really, though, doing the job badly isn't a high crime or misdemeanor

      How about...

      • Attacking a sovereign country for no reason, and lying about it
      • Violating the wiretapping (telecommunications) laws
      • Violating the FISA laws
      • Torture of enemy combatants in violation of everything we stand for
      • Gangsterism as manifested in the Haliburton monopolies
      • Subversion of the constitution he was sworn to defend: Habeas Corpus
      • Holding US citizens without trial or access to a lawyer
      • Misusing the "findings" system to enable gangsterism

      ...or is all that just "doing his job poorly" to you?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  2. Or translated into "Reality" instead of "Spin" by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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."

  3. Republican War on Science. by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Republican War on Science. by Jabrwock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Classic 1984'ish stuff. You take away, then proclaim the reduction as an "improvement". I believe in the book they were using chocolate rations, but hey, information can be rationed too...

      --
      Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
  4. who needs science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... when you have god on your side?

  5. Da, tovarisch! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Riiight by Jabrwock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  7. Another right bites the dust by pbailey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Another right bites the dust by Amouth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      do you memeber video of bush's second election night? the streets where filled with protesters.. in fact it was the first time in history that the pres couldn't walk in because they where afraid he would be shot - no one saw this in the us.. except for the people there. the news didn't cover it - sure they had people covering it but it never ever got to the air. 90% or more of the US doesn't know and doesn't give a shit what happens.. and that is how they want it.. it saddens me..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  8. Re:Riiight by grendel's+mom · · Score: 5, Informative
    Try reading the article:. Since you're obviously too lazy, I'll post some of the essential points:

    "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."

  9. Re:Riiight by residieu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Riiight by hey! · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  11. Scientific method? by Potor · · Score: 5, Funny
    Indeed.
    Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.
    I am very curious to see how Bush and co. can improve on the scientific method.
  12. Re:It may be.... by macs4all · · Score: 5, Informative
    Which is why no federal agency will ever release a report that even hints at the dangers of marijuana being previously overstated. If such evidence were ever discovered it would be promptly destroyed in order to keep from undermining the highly lucrative drug war.

    Actually, you're wrong (sort of).

    My mom, Ethel McIntosh, worked as the Executive Assistant to Chairman Raymond P. Shafer on the 1972 National Commission on Marihuana[sic] and Drug Abuse (sometimes called the "Shafer Commission").

    Their report, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding, which was QUITE well researched, concluded that MARIJUANA SHOULD BE DECRIMINALIZED.

    Without going into all the fascinating details about how Nixon wouldn't let them present the Report to him in the Oval Office (as is the norm for these types of Commissions), but rather made them go to some little hotel on the other side of town to "present" it to an AIDE (thus GUARANTEEING zero Press coverage!), suffice it to say that this report p.o.'ed President Nixon SO badly that he BURIED the report. Which is why you could make your statement with a clear, but ill-informed, conscience.

    BTW, I do agree that this report WAS buried for no good reason, and that the 'War On Drugs', just like every other 'War on [x]', is little more than an excuse for Gummint to encroach further and further upon our liberty as Amurikans.

    Although I have not personally read this book (but I will now), apparently, the rejection and burial of the "Shafer Commission" report has been very well researched and documented in this book, Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure, by Dan Baum.

  13. Civics 101 by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are woefully uninformed (despite your absolutely ridiculous "informative" moderation), not to mention completely wrong. I say this because:

    Iraq was not attcked illegally

    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.

    Telecomm law? WTF? The Dems were pissed they didn't think of it first, because no law was violated.

    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.

    Gangsterism . . . Halliburton? You mean the Hurricane machine?

    I mean the company that gets all the major contracts in Iraq. All of them.

    Every war we have ever fought has suspended Habeas Corpus. What else is new?

    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."

    Holding the US citizen who was making plans to detonate a radioactive bomb in a major metro area? You mean t

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.