Bikepacker67

Gee... I wonder why the Administration is muzzling its employees

DevLaVaca

Could be because they know that every opportunity will be taken to twist the words to the worst meaning possible.

FYI, this is already standard practice for any Executive Branch employee who can be seen as representing the USA (and is standard practice throughout the world, might I add). Adding a category to it is not that exciting.

BTW, a "Soviet-style directive"? Come on, people. Either someone knows nothing about the Soviet Union, or someone thinks lying is okay as long as it serves their cause.

Sounds like a good time to invoke a modified Godwin, though.

genericbikedude

they are muzzling scientists, and trying to hide facts.

bragi

It's one thing to tell a diplomat what to say, and quite another to try to censor scientists. If the facts lead you to an unpleasant conclusion, you still have to share your findings with others. That's what science is all about. It's also, ultimately, about common sense. If someone tells you that your train is going to roll off the edge of a cliff soon, you really shouldn't muzzle the messenger so you can sell the passengers more snacks before the catastrophe occurs...

mtnroads

Well our administration certainly seems to think it's okay. I think that is becoming obvious, on a range of issues.

twochins

i still can't believe people voted for this administration twice

maddyfish

What exactly is wrong with that? You can't have all kinds of people from your own government running around contradicting government policy. If this Mrs. Williams doesn't like it, maybe she should run for President and then she'd get to set policy.

kc9eog

We could change this slightly. What if these officials, acting in there capacity as government officials, gave speeches about alien conspiracies and time-travelling monsters? Every government wants their people spouting the official line, not just our current administration.

CaptainTandem

So "they" boiled it down to 3 items, eh?

Roody

In a democracy the government does NOT set policy. The people do. The job of the government is to carry out the will of the people, within the constraints of the Constitution.

Climate change is probably one of the most complicated issues we have ever faced. We the people will never be able to make a wise decision if government (or anybody else) is withholding relevant information.

DevLaVaca

Please notice that this only applies to foreign travel. When they are home, the scientists can say whatever they want. When you travel as a representative of a government, you have more restrictions.

Done with the thread. Those who want to be outraged will be, no matter what the truth is.

vulpes

Surely you jest. What makes you think America is a democracy? The job of the government is to protect and expand the capital assets of it's corporate constituents. In the United States, our only democratic choice is to vote for someone to represent us and our interests in Congress. But “our interests” always seem to turn out to be the interests of the rich and powerful. When we have the opportunity to vote on issues directly, they are referendums written by those same congressmen and their ilk that decide mainly which interest gets an economic advantage over another. David Sirota, as former chief spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, has had ample opportunity to observe this process first hand.

This is why our life changes so little, and so seldom for the better, no matter who or what we vote for. Is it any great wonder that turnout at the polls is so low in what is supposedly the most democratic nation on Earth?

TimJ

That is not true. You and DevLaVaca and maddyfish have it wrong.

Directing civil servents of independent agencies in such a specific manner is new to this administration. All of these different agencies are filled with civil servants- scientists and specialists in their field- and their job is to conduct research. That research is supposed to inform government action and serve as a baseline of knowledge about the state of the nation. For the most part administrations leave the scientists alone, the people gathering the data. The heads of the departments change hands and can be purely politcal appointees, but for the most part the grunts are left alone. Not so with the Bush administration. They have been unique in their politization of science, going so far as to not just replace directors of agencies with ideologues, but all the bureaucrats all the way down the line.

This is a bad thing. These are the agencies that figure out how much lead will make your kid ********. How much pollution will increase instances of cancer. Whether or not Acme corp. is killing you by dumping chemical X in your water supply. Before Bush the scientists were allowed to do their job. The administration wouldn't always be happy with the data, but the scientific work itself was pretty much left alone. Not any more.

You have no clue what you're talking about. First of all, someone who talks about aliens woudln't have been able to get within 100 yards of a civil servant job prior to Bush because the hiring of experts and scientists was vetted by independent agencies. Basically you coudln't get an important government job without strong credentials. Those standards have changed. Scientists are being asked thier views on abortion, whether they supported Bush in elections, what religious affilitation they are, etc., etc. The people charged with figuring out how much mercury you can breathe till you get sick are being replaced with political hacks. This is new, this is different, this is very bad.

If you know what you're talking about, if your opinion is informed, if you're just not bs'ing about something you really know nothing about please enlighten me. Otherwise, stop and think before deciding something. Ask yourself "do I really know anything about this or am I just going off of half-formed ideas, vague suspicions and my need to have an opinion on everything?".

I'm sorry to get so angry, but I'm just sick of bs like this. The Bush administration is terrible, and in unique ways, and I want to f***ing scream every time someone says "oh, that's how they all are". That's not true, not by any stretch of the imagination, and anyone who says that is, I'm sorry, and ignorant fool. I simply can't be polite about this kind of stuff any more. It's too important and people are too self-obsessed to ever question their assumptions even if I were nice about it. So a hearty: You don't know what you're talking about, why don't you get clued in, to you.

This is just a small sampling of examples from two minutes of googling. The adiminstrations assualt on independent data has been going on for years.

https://rawstory.com/news/2007/Heckuv...ogus_0515.html

https://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020...ackerman081902

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/po...0731d8&ei=5090

https://www.motherjones.com/news/outf...ma_151_01.html

https://webexhibits.org/bush/17.html

TimJ

You're done with this thread because you've got nothing but your made-up bs. That doesn't make any sense. Scientists can say whatever they want in what capacity? They can talk about climate change at a domestic symposium, they can say whatever they want when acting in official capacity at home? A bureaucrat isn't a representative of the government when in the US?

What's really absurd about your brief posts is you're skirting the issue- the politization of science, the politization of usually independent bureaucracies. You seem to be saying "this is no big deal, that's how it is with everyone because technically this and that."

That's not the point. The point is the minute, specific control this administration demands so that data will not run foul of their political message. That is the issue and it IS NOT like that in liberal democracies and wasn't like that here since the Nixon administration when congress set standards on the qualifications and independence of civil servants.

mtnroads

Well said, Tim. Both posts.

kc9eog

How is yelling at me on a message board constructive? Why would you take your frustrations out on us? I don't support what Bush is doing, not by a long shot. I wish we would elect people who would use their position as a bully pulpit to right some of the terrible wrongs in our society, such as the climate change issue. Instead we elect people who create useless crap like fighting gay marriage; isn't there real issues we can face? They make up stuff to get other uninformed people to vote, to "mobilize their base" so to speak, and we get stuck with it. The reality is that in our government "the victor gets the spoils" and it has been that way since at least Andrew Jackson if not before. Hell, I never voted for him and I think what is going on should criminal.
On the bully pulpit topic, it isn't just people of the "Liberal" persuasion who feel entitled to this line of thinking. The people who voted for Bush and crew want to keep their collective heads in the sand (pardon the cliche) on the climate change issue for whatever reasons the have. Bush is simply expressing that.

TimJ

Why? Because your first post was wrong on all counts. You didn't state any position but you basically said "that's how they all are", which is basically what maddyfish and DevLaVaca were arguing as well. It's ignorant, for one, and two it avoids the issue. It's a way of having an opinion about something you don't know anything about. I only quoted you because yours was the last post.

I'm sorry for being so obviously angry, I really am, I just simply can't stand uninformed posturing any more. This is important stuff. We're talking about the people who basically set the conditions we have to live our lives in. It's important to me to point out- and I do so agressively because I'm just fed up- that indeed this is not how it always is, this isn't how everyone does it, and it is of consequence.

So why take out my frustrations on you guys? You, actually more so maddyfish and DevLaVaca's comments, are the source of my frustration. I'm not taking out my frustrations on you, I'm frustrated with you directly. I shouldn't have quoted your post, one of those other guy's would have been more appropriate.

ModoVincere

Best post I've read here.

bragi

I've enjoyed your posts -they're easily the most thoughtful and intelligent ones on this thread- but please, let's not get personally nasty. Among other things, attacking people directly, rather than taking issue with their arguments, makes your own arguments lose their power, because then people will be focused on your anger and not your reasoning. (Which would be a shame, because your reasoning is quite good.)

Roody

+1 TimJ rules.

Bush and his cronies can't destroy democracy. But this cynicism that Tim railed against can destroy it, and will, if we're not very careful and very outspoken. It simply is not true that "they all do it." As Tim pointed out, Bush's evil is very new in America, and it lives on even if Bush himself is practically dead. The American Dream is the realest thing about our country, and if we stop believing it (vulpes!) then the dark side will win.

This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. Every American should fight against the evil that broods in Washington.

treefire

Personally, I think TV sends brain waves to us.;-) So you work eight hours, stress driving for two, get yelled at by the wife, then sit down with a beer and a bag of chips and chill to the stupidest fricking shows ever...... Get up tommorow, repeat. ("Oh....they are the government....they know what to do....)...."Honey, ya seen the remote?" "Gollee, time sure flies!" "They really outta fix that..." "It is all Bushes fault". "Well, if I didn't have golf on saturdays, and soccer practice, I'd sit down and help become being more helpful to society." It's all the liberals fault.....conservatives fault....Can I ask everyone to get off their *****ey little asses and fix it? I'll start. I turned off my TV and the fricking shlocks that seek to control and influence my opinion. And they are very good at it. When was the last time anyone was proud to wear a T-shirt that says .....nothing? Not: Nike, Shimano, Rocshox, Bass ass boats, Spiderman, or Nascar, but nothing? Why is owning a Harley and a BMW so fricking "cool?" How about football jerseys? Basketball shoes that cost 180.00? Marketing and salesmen (and POLITICIANS!)...Oh and movie stars.....WTF? Why are they are heros? Why do I want to see Britenys beav? (Ummm, never mind) Why does anyone care? I don't understand. As a people and as a society, we seem to be getting stupid.....er.

Ok, I'll get off my arrogant soapbike and go away now.

Smile ya all, it can only get worse.....

clayton

Roody

You're an angry man, clayton. Good for you!

Your post reminded me a little of Al Gore's new book, Assault on Reason. Part of it has been excerpted online. Here's a couple paragraphs you might appreciate:

I especially draw everybody's attention to the last paragraph (bolded) because it's very relevant to a couple discussions here recently.

TimJ

These are not arguments:

These are short, declarative statements presented as fact and/or short, patronizing dismissals. Attacking the statements would give them legitimacy as actual arguments, and they are no such thing. There are no ideas presented in those statements, there's nothing to engage. You can point out how the underlying assumption is incorrect, explain it in detail, but you see the point of such short, declarative sentences isn't to invite discussion, it's to provide the person making the statement with... something. Who knows? They seem to want to put their stamp on the subject in a noncommittal, vague way, that still says "I know all about this". The lack of ideas in their statements is part of the posturing- "I know this so thoroughly I don't even need to explain myself and I probably couldn't explain myself anyway, being so more knowledgeable than everyone else."

There's a word for it. "Bull**it".

Your attitude is also part of the problem, sorry. By asking me to engage the "arguments" instead of the speaker, you're elevating these non-ideas to the level of argument and you're legitimizing that entire mode of thought: that short, declarative statements are the same things as ideas, discussions, arguments, etc. That you can just throw out some idea or half-formed opinion you have and think you've had your deep thought for the day. Sorry, but if you're interested in arguments you should be able to tell the difference between an actual argument and just pointless posturing.

The problem isn't what they're saying, because what they're saying is nonsense. The problem is they think they're making an argument and other people accept these non-ideas as arguments in turn- AND THEY ARE NOT.

But the bigger issue specifically with your attitude is the idea that a person is somehow not responsible for their opinions or their mode of thinking. If someone was saying "I think black people are sub-human and should be used for fertilizer" would it be gauche to say to that person "you are a horrible, racist person and what you think carries no weight"? I mean, would you really ask people to not attack the person, just their idea? I don't know if you would or not, but I think anyone would say it would be perfectly reasonable to say that person is an awful racist and not dignify his "idea" by engaging it. Well, I'm telling you these non-thoughts that pass for discourse in our country do not deserve to be engaged. Because by pretending these non-thoughts, these ignorant statements of non-fact are arguments we are perpetuating non-thought and non-discussion as ideas and legitimate forms of argument. So you see, it's the person that's the problem here. They're not awful like a murderous racist is awful, but what they're doing is b.s. enough that the only proper response, in my mind, is to simply call them bullsh**ers until they actually start thinking and actually start presenting ideas, because that's what they are.