USDA disavows gag-order emailed to scientific research unit

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-usda-idUSKBN1582OB

by ArtDev • 9 years ago

241 213 9 years ago

st3v3r5• 9 years ago

It is the duty of every scientist working at all of these government agencies to ensure that data continues to be made public, no matter who is in the White House.

kafkaesq3• 9 years ago

They also have (as bullies like Trump know all too well) a duty to feed their families, pay the mortgages, and save for their children's education. At least until they find another job (in the wonderfully lucrative and liquid job market for research scientists of our current era).

And probably wouldn't appreciate outsiders telling them which duty is more inviolable, or sacrosanct.

st3v3r5• 9 years ago

Then they should have taken private sector jobs.

I'm sorry, but if they do not resist Trump, then they are complacent in his bullying.

clumsysmurf• 9 years ago

Its sad that out president is a bully. The problem of how the establishment bullies the rest of society is only going to get worse.

"Bully Nation: How the American Establishment Creates a Bullying Society"

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0700622608

noobermin2• 9 years ago

(in the wonderfully lucrative and liquid job market for research scientists of our current era)

Surely you jest. I think you mean in the private sector.

A scientist joins a national lab or institution not for the pay, but for academic and research reasons.

headcanon2• 9 years ago

They're not mutually exclusive. Scientists have been putting together open data repositories as a "Trump shelter" ever since election day. Data that is publicly available today can be downloaded and stored anywhere, and the government can't do anything about it other than cast FUD.

Honestly, assuming all our data is preserved in some form, I think its almost a blessing in disguise. finding and downloading public datasets involves wading through a cornucopia of terrible websites that feel like they're deliberately trying to keep people out. Government science shops don't typically hire UX people, so allowing those people to get their hands on some open data services can't be bad.

SapphireSun• 9 years ago

It's true that there are competing concerns, but that is why we hold up dissenters that safeguard the public interest as heroes. They are making a noble attempt to protect the public in times of adversity.

noobermin2• 9 years ago

Another point to make is the USDA is not the NSA or the CIA, you can't keep a cap on mostly left-leaning scientists and expect it to hold. It won't work.

mi100hael• 9 years ago

Hell, look how many leaks were coming out of the FBI in the weeks leading up to the election. Keeping a blanket gag on any bureaucracy is a futile endeavor.

omegaworks2• 9 years ago

mostly left-leaning scientists

I know it's popular to say "reality has a liberal bias" but I don't think it does us a service to keep promoting that myth.

mark_l_watson• 9 years ago

Bummer. I use the USDA nutrition database. I wonder if updates to that also would not be released publicly.

stephancoral• 9 years ago

With all these gag orders going around (USDA, EPA) we are gonna need some deep throats...

ceejayoz2• 9 years ago

We've got our first one today. http://time.com/4645927/badlands-national-park-climate-chang...

c0nducktr• 9 years ago

...aaaand the tweets have already been purged.

dmode• 9 years ago

I am wondering the legality of this gag order. Doesn't the US Taxpayer own scientific research and data in these agencies ? Unless these are national security related, how can a government branch prohibit release of taxpayer funded research data ?

zbyte64• 9 years ago

Devil's advocate: The public can still get the research data through a FOIA request.

elastic_church• 9 years ago

Meta devil's advocate: you might be surprised how often an agency "can't find" or otherwise denies a FOIA request

Check out Government Accountability Office reports.

losteric• 9 years ago

Simple: They want to shut down taxpayer funded research.

If they shut down public data access, you can bet the programs will be shut down soon after.

cloakandswagger• 9 years ago

Ask yourself this: Do I, a US taxpayer, own everything the government buys with my money? Think I can take a trip to my local military base and use one of "my" tanks?

And before you counter that there is a difference between data/research papers and "real" things like tanks, the government (and the media industry, and the scientific industry, and...) don't see it that way. It is intellectual property, owned by the US government.

seanalltogether• 9 years ago

I get the point you're making, but the USDA's job is to publish documentation and guidelines for the food industry. If USDA wasn't capable of releasing documentation, it wouldn't have much of a purpose. The military doesn't have to interface with the public to justify its purpose.

anigbrowl6• 9 years ago

In the United States, works produced by the government that would be copyrightable if they originated in the private sector are public domain by law. Other than that information classified for national security purposes (let's not get sidetracked in a debate about the phenomenon of overclassification), the government's property interested is limited to real/tangible items.

Of course this doesn't mean people can just hack into the EPA servers, so to speak, but I would imagine it will not be very long before the administration is deluged in FOIA requests and is forced into making difficult choices about which information they will attempt to withhold from public scrutiny. If past experience is anything to go by, Congress will attempt to slow that process by continuing to underfund the judicial branch, but once the suits start to pile up you'll begin hearing the phrase 'writ of mandamus' a lot.

Edit: I left out the italicized bit about the government in the original which may have confused some readers. Sorry.

plg• 9 years ago

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to do this in Canada. It was bad. Thankfully he and his ideas were soundly rejected in the most recent election.

jpgvm2• 9 years ago

"President Donald Trump has cast doubt on whether man-made climate change is real and has railed against ex-President Barack Obama's efforts to combat it."

How is this sort of writing even a thing?

He hasn't cast doubt on anything, he has merely made a fool out of himself.

mmanfrin2• 9 years ago

... and then got himself elected.

ixtli• 9 years ago

That's neither here nor there. He hasn't cast any doubt, he's simply said things that are contrary to reality. Much as he has done in the past and continues to do.

slg7• 9 years ago

Could anyone here make a legitimate argument why these gag-orders are a good idea?

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the population. I feel bad for anyone that has legitimate conservative viewpoints on things like fiscal policy. The only people in government that seem to agree with them also happen to be bigoted, anti-science, authoritarians.

EDIT: For those responding with some form of "the Democrats are no better", do you honestly not see a difference between the first few days of the Trump administration and every other modern presidency? It isn't about political moves involving topics like abortion, Obamacare, or how to deal with the Middle East. Smart people can have reasonable disagreements on those. However in the last few day he has had his press secretary lie to the American people, suggested the US should commit war crimes, and forbid government agencies from speaking to the public. Things like this used to just be "wrong" but they have now been turned into partisan issues.

CobrastanJorji• 9 years ago

When your side does it: "government sucks, bureaucrats suck, politics is terrible."

When their side does it: "Their side sucks."

When it's time to vote: "Well, their side sucks, and government sucks. Maybe my side will fix it."

natermer• 9 years ago

There is no 'my side' in government. Both the Democrats and Republicans are frauds, hucksters, and criminals.

Government sucks, period.

Maybe most people are not paying enough attention, but election results have no substantial effect on the policies or actions of the USA Federal government.

davidw• 9 years ago

When "it" is flat out lying, it's bad. "Period".

I tend to think some things like gag orders are also mostly bad, whoever is responsible.

Florin_Andrei• 9 years ago

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the population.

Party before country. And before reason. And before reality.

wallace_f8• 9 years ago

The only people in government that seem to agree with them also happen to be bigoted, anti-science, authoritarians.

I don't support Trump, but the first thing in understanding the movement against the DNC and the establishment is understanding that it is not primarily rooted in bigotry, anti-science or authoritarianism. If you stop there, you are selling yourself short on understanding current world politics. If you want a nugget of something to stimulate your mind: Hillary's primary foreign policy objective was to escalate the Syrian proxy war with Russia.(1) Is it really that surprising? Bush's primary foreign policy objective was to start a war, primarily in the middle east and centered Iraq. Actually, the Bush administration desperately tried (and succeeded in mainstream media) to hide the fact that Iraq was at the same time, desperately trying to prove they did not have chemical weapons and offering to bring inspectors and sign the OPCW. No such weapons were every found (what a surprise).

Also, some of the perceived bigotry is perhaps actually perpetrated by people who believe they are fighting against bigotry. For example, right now Blacks are admitted to med school with an average MCAT score around 61%, while Whites and Asians are admitted with an average of about 91%.(3)

So it's not as black and white as your remarkable viewpoint.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE45OsLNVAQ&feature=youtu.be 2 - https://theintercept.com/2016/12/15/if-donald-trump-is-so-up... 3 - https://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medic...

jasonlaramburu• 9 years ago

The fact that affirmative action exists for med school admissions does not prove or disprove the assertion that Trump's movement is rooted in bigotry, anti-science or authoritarianism.

ojbyrne3• 9 years ago

Perhaps I'm confused but your third link makes no mention of race.

wvenable2• 9 years ago

You mis-read the comment you're replying to; you both agree.

The US military is the largest "economy" in America. It employees massive numbers of people, it requires a huge amount of industry, and massive connected government contractors to supply everything. The only thing that keeps this engine running is war. It's fundamentally baked into the system and it won't be easily stopped even if there was any political will to stop it (and there isn't).

finid6• 9 years ago

For example, right now Blacks are admitted to med school with an average MCAT score around 61%, while Whites and Asians are admitted with an average of about 91%.

Bigotry from that group predates Affirmative Action, so don't use that as an argument.

kafkaesq3• 9 years ago

Aside from the fact that one would have to be more than a bit muddle-headed (or simply lacking perspective and generally naive) to think that there might be some net "anti-bigotry" effect to expect from the Trump administration -- the document you link to doesn't support what you're saying. (It doesn't in any way mention the ethnic background of applicants, or how they scored differently).

hackuser11• 9 years ago

The American Enterprise Institute isn't a reliable source. It's a think tank that exists to provide intellectual 'cover' to the political desires of certain conservatives; it's propaganda for intellectuals.

That doesn't make your statements wrong, but IMHO it doesn't support them.

canadian_voter• 9 years ago

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. -- Donald Trump via Twitter, Nov. 2012 [Source: https://www.google.ca/search?q=twitter+trump+china+hoax&ie=u... ]

Thus spake The Donald. There are people at these agencies who contradict this. Whether they are foreign agents, foreign sympathizers, or misguided, misinformed or ignorant doesn't matter -- they must be stopped from spreading their lies for the good of the country. We must defend the truth!

I believe that's more or less how the argument goes.

scholia5• 9 years ago

One of the first moves of any tin-pot dictator must be to suppress all sources of truth, and if that's not possible, discredit them.

That is absolutely required if he is to lie with impunity, and Donald Trump has been a pathological liar for years.

It's sad to see the USA in this state, but it's what a sufficient number of citizens voted for....

thraway2016• 9 years ago

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the population.

Same way that "the other side" went from a staunch antiwar position to incessant apologetics for Obama's wars, extrajudicial drone murders, deployment of a massive panopticon surveillance state, and sabre-rattling against Russia.

It's always okay when my guy does it.

finid6• 9 years ago

Just for the record, Obama never wanted anything to do with Syria and Libya. And when he got involved, he did so reluctantly, and under pressure from the likes of McCain and Hillary.

As for Russia, remember the Reset button? That was Obama's idea, one that was counter to what the war machine wants. The disagreement between Obama and the military regarding Russia wasn't a small matter. At the end of the day, he lost that battle.

Now we have a Republican administration that's even closer to Russia than Obama will ever be.

Who's going to win this time. The White House or the military?

messick• 9 years ago

When exactly was the Democratic Party "antiwar"?

anigbrowl6• 9 years ago

I have argued on behalf of the Obama administration's choices many times, in the context of ongoing historical events. Don't pretend that the world was a harmonious garden of Eden until Obama came along and fucked everything up, because that's counterfactual bullshit. there are things which I would also defend Trump on where there is a good argument for the preservation of the United States' national interest.

Your choice to use a throwaway account, combined with several demonstrably false claims, suggests a predisposition towards arguing in bad faith, given the wide latitude that prevails here.

aeze• 9 years ago

You're making the assumption that we all have to be on one 'side' or the other, which isn't true at all. In fact it's very harmful.

yongjik• 9 years ago

I hear that often these days, but in the past 8 years conservative pundits constantly ridiculed Obama as "apologist" for talking to Iran, talking to Cuba, pulling troops off Iraq, not bombing Libya after Benghazi, dissenting with Israel's stance on Palestine, and other issues.

Maybe it's me, but I feel it is only very recently that most Republican supporters started to criticize Obama for "saber-rattling against Russia." Coincidentally, that timing roughly matches the rise of Trump.

Suddenly Russia is cool, and you are supposed to make friends with them, otherwise you are a warmonger. (But apparently not China---it's still cool to be hostile toward China.)

st3v3r5• 9 years ago

You know, you say that, but there really isn't much of anything to back it up.

pdoege• 9 years ago

The democratic party has not had any sort of antiwar position since at least as far back as 2000. In fact, in 2004 they had an overt pro-intervention plank. 1

I submit that "both sides" do not, in fact, "do it". The modern republican party seems to be uniquely off of the rails.

1) http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=3254

nikdaheratik4• 9 years ago

We traded having US army divisions on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan for a few flareups in North Africa, so as far as "Obama's wars" I'd say that's progress. The surveillance is definitely rolled back from Bush, but regardless this and drones are both driven by Congress, which hasn't changed that much overall. The President's job is to "faithfully execute" the laws, which were passed by Congress that wanted more surveillance and wanted fewer U.S. troops in harm's way (even if that means more drones).

astrodust3• 9 years ago

"I am consistently baffled why people are fans of sports teams that always lose!"

Chicago stuck with their non-winning team for a hundred years. Don't expect Republicans to change their minds any time soon.

ojbyrne3• 9 years ago

Just a (semi-)minor quibble. The US population is currently around 322 million. The number of eligible voters in 2016 was somewhere around 220 million [1]. Just under 63 million voted for Trump [2]

1. https://www.quora.com/How-many-estimated-eligible-voters-in-...

2. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

So it would be much more accurate to say he garnered "support of roughly 50% of voters." Or even "active voters."

finid6• 9 years ago

So he got 63 million votes, and Hillary got, say, 66 million. That a total of roughly 130 million.

Know that that means? About 90 million did not vote.

slg7• 9 years ago

I would counter-quibble because I didn't mention anything about voting. I used the word "support" as in "approve". From what I have read, there is rarely more than a few percentage point difference between the net favorability ratings of active voters and of the population at large. I therefore think it is fair to say roughly 50% of the general population approves of the platform of the Republican party.

hackuser11• 9 years ago

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support ...

I find that this hypothesis explains the observations:

It's an ideological movement. The test of support is not truth or good outcomes, but whether it fits the ideology. That's why you see some Republicans saying more and more outrageous things. They are demonstrating their loyalty to the ideology by saying things that are unacceptable from any other perspective.

I was reading some history of the Middle Ages and rise of the Enlightenment, and it reminds me a bit of that. Speaking very generally, in the Middle Ages a certain ideology ruled, facts be damned. In the Enlightenment, reason become preeminent even when it contradicted ideologies. Maybe we're headed for a new Medieval period!

battlebot8• 9 years ago

I hate to break it to you, but climatology is also an ideological movement.

strken• 9 years ago

Most movements seem to be ideological. See, for example, studies that find scientific literacy is equally appalling between climate change deniers and supporters[0].

In the case of climate change, and in everything else, the internal and private views of a politician and their inner circle are not necessarily the same as their public views. This explains why Obama claimed to be against gay marriage, why Gore made claims that he almost certainly knew were wrong about seeing a planetary catastrophe by 2016, and may explain Peter Thiel's cryptic comments on Trump and climate change from a little while ago[1]. The internal opinion may be that climate change is too expensive to fix, that the extent of the damage may be lower than predicted, that the billionaire Americans Trump hangs out with have no reason to care about poor Indians living in the Ganges delta, that climate change is too much of a talking point for the left for the right to backpedal on, or that doing anything more than we already are would not help/would not be cost effective.

Or, alternatively, the ship has an ignorant madman at the helm. Who really knows?

[0] https://m.phys.org/news/2015-02-climate-science-literacy-unr... [1] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/fashion/peter-thiel-do...

TallGuyShort• 9 years ago

It's too bad another political party continued defending gag orders for other reasons. It's a slippery slope and it suited them at the time. Now it'll be harder to take that power away.

ArkyBeagle4• 9 years ago

It's posturing.

Maybe it is just me, but I find the way folks get to these conclusions fascinating.

Just as an example - outside of people like John Muir ( who was a somewhat obsessive ... guy ) , ALMOST NOBODY was an "environmentalist" prior to say, 196x ( call it 1965 ). Zappa claims that (his) "Nine Kinds of Industrial Pollution" was the first use of that word in any popular ( read; non-scientific) literature/media.

The whole idea just sort of appeared, out of nearly nothing. What's interesting is that one of my favorite filmmakers, Adam Curtis, does an essay film, "All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace" where he ties environmentalism to ... the then-rising computer industry. The tools of Systems Analysis were turned on Nature, and we discovered Preferred Equilibria.

I don't even know how you'd evaluate Curtis' claim. It's a pretty whacky idea. But something about it... plus a few searches here and there, and sonofagun, there are no actual references to "pollution" prior to the '60s. That's hardly rigorous scholarship.

The reason I picked "environmentalism" is because then things like what "conservatives" hold up were similarly invented even since then, to show that it's not a partisan phenomenon. I think moderate environmentalism has immense value. But it fascinates me that it's sort-of a fabricated idea.

But we, as a species, apparently just do this. Isn't that what the original "meme" was ( before cat pictures )?

stuaxo• 9 years ago

However, there were areas with very heavy smog, and laws were put in place to try and address this before 1960.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/4-5/52/enacted

Clean Air Act 1956 1956 CHAPTER 52

An Act to make provision for abating the pollution of the air.

quantumhobbit• 9 years ago

I think you had people with environmentalist views prior to the label. In fact plenty of people would have identified as "naturalists" in the early twentieth century. Ken Burns documentary on the national parks shows this pretty well.

sien2• 9 years ago

Environmentalism has long historic roots:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_history_of_environ...

After the industrial revolution there was quite a pick up in valuing the natural world.

The Nazis were into environmentalism. Claiming that the German people had a bond with the natural world that was broken by pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism#In_Germany

They used the German word pollution in a non-scientific way.

tunesmith2• 9 years ago

My attempt at a legitimate argument: Perhaps they are an attempt to put government-wide "pause" on public communications from all agencies, so they can a) reduce the odds of these agencies making statements that are directly counter to the new government's strategies, and b) buy time to put those new strategies into place (confirmation hearings, realignments, etc). In other words, never intended to be permanent gag orders, more just in the name of implementing new message discipline.

As for your second point, I think much of this has to do with how the language of power is different than the language of truth. The Republicans in the USA have historically bought more into the language of power than the Democrats have. By that I mean, given the choice between clearly and honestly explaining your position, and instead communicating something different that you believe will better advance your agenda, the Republicans have generally seemed to be more in the second category than the Democrats.

This shouldn't be a politically controversial point. The latter style language is more common in business, negotiations, diplomacy, etc. Democrats can do it too, but it's less of a campaign style for them.

It's also not a secret, which is why it feels easy for Republican supporters to defend. To them, it's not ridiculous that the Republicans never came up with an alternative ACA plan during Obama's presidency. There was a very clear calculation that "opposition only" would be more effective than coming up with a plan replacement. And it's obvious, too, because as soon as you suggest an alternative, you open yourself up to attack. Meanwhile, the Democrats regularly mocked them for having no better alternative. For some of them, this might have been just a communications strategy, but for many others, they were actually upset and mystified that the Republicans were not advocating an alternative plan.

So, these "decisions that are objectively wrong", it's just because it's worth it to them. Be anti-science because it increases your odds of gaining power. Supporters agree, and generally believe that all that stuff (science, reality, etc) will be dealt with after they gain power. They're very trusting that the people they support are more competent than they are letting on, and that it will work itself out.

refurb• 9 years ago

I may not agree with your assessment, but you put some thought into it and avoided hyperbole, which is rare on HN.

I disagree with one big point:it's not ridiculous that the Republicans never came up with an alternative ACA plan during Obama's presidency

That's what Obama said, again and again (goes to your comment about the "language of truth"), but the Republicans did submit 4 bills into Congress as ACA alternatives.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yes-obama-republicans-have...

mr_tristan2• 9 years ago

support of roughly 50% of the population

"Didn't vote" was roughly 43% of eligible voters. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were only able to garner support around 26% each.

Thus, it's not like either party is close to having a mandate of "50% of the population". I'd guesstimate it's more like a third.

http://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

What's scary is that none of the modern US presidents haven't really gotten close to 50% at all, so you can never say any of the recent US presidents represents the interests of "most Americans". It's more like, "represents a vocal minority". And thus, a vocal minority can elect a figure who can run roughshod over the entire system.

I'd wonder, however, if a system exists where elected leaders regularly obtain the direct approval (i.e., vote) of 50% of all eligible voters. I'm pretty sure the US system isn't it, and won't ever be.

TheCoelacanth• 9 years ago

Why should we care about someone's opinion if they can't even bother to spend 30 minutes every two years to express it?

moduspol• 9 years ago

Could anyone here make a legitimate argument why these gag-orders are a good idea?

They're temporary and intended to have more clear follow-up later.

I don't even think this is stretching what's reasonable. He's the head of the executive branch and they're a federal agency reporting to him. If an evangelical right-winger created a "Department of Bible Studies," I would expect a Democratic President taking office to potentially ask them not to release any public statements until the new administration has met with the department to clarify what their role and priorities will be.

Besides, the story at hand is that the "gag order" was rescinded and the actual policy sent out is very similar to the previous administration's. It doesn't mention who sent out the original e-mail, why, or under what authority. If the administration overrules it 24 hours later, it's quite possible it didn't come from them.

wildmusings• 9 years ago

The same reason why a company's employees typically aren't allowed to make public statements.

Like it or not, Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States and the public relations of the executive branch are his prerogative.

Given his positions on climate change, deregulation, and energy production, he clearly doesn't want civil servants from certain agencies, many of who's jobs and powers he is threatening to cut, putting out communications that undermine his agenda.

maxxxxx• 9 years ago

I think this is what "running the government like a business" means. Companies are tightly controlled from the top so they want to apply the same blueprint to government.

nikdaheratik4• 9 years ago

Except that if his administration wasn't so far behind on staffing up the department, they'd already have their communications people in place and wouldn't need to put in a "gag order". On top of that, it's Washington, DC, if you tell them not to talk, that's probably the best way to get civil servants to start leaking. And then good luck trying to control the message.

kevin_thibedeau• 9 years ago

America is a faithocracy. You only have to manipulate people into believing something to get your way. There is no critical thinking among the masses to challenge this behavior. There is zero political downside as long as we have bread and circuses.

battlebot8• 9 years ago

Despite the derision on here, I think the answer is quite simply that the new executive branch wants to get its cabinet up and running and make sure that the messaging by these agencies is in line with the political positions of the leadership. I think the media is making more of this than really exists (as usual) and that these agencies need to remember who is in charge and who ultimately funds them and for what purpose.

lettergram2• 9 years ago

I feel bad for anyone that has legitimate conservative viewpoints on things like fiscal policy.

Most of us that feel that way either are libertarian (which never has hope of winning anything) or suck it up and vote Republican.

The real issue here is we have no voice, zero. Because both major parties are so ghastly to many Americans that we have to vote for a "lesser evil". I'm proud I voted libertarian to at least keep my conscience as clean as I could.

FYI I'm in California, so literally we had choices between two Democrats with the same views for.. Senate was it? Either way, my vote didn't matter

tjohns• 9 years ago

The real CA Senate vote happened during the June primaries, which decided the candidates that would appear on the November general ballot.

It's actually not a terrible system. A lot of folks are typically reluctant to vote for a third-party candidate because it feels like throwing your vote away.

Instead, CA's new "top two" system gives you a chance to freely vote for a third-party candidate (in the primaries), and if that candidate loses, you get to re-cast your vote for one of the more popular candidates during a second round.

It's just different than what we're used to. It's not perfect (I'd prefer to see something like approval voting, or instant-runoff voting), but I think it's an improvement.

ZenoArrow3• 9 years ago

" However in the last few day he has had his press secretary lie to the American people, suggested the US should commit war crimes, and forbid government agencies from speaking to the public."

He's also signed executive orders that will line his own pockets:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwFmVOY6cKk

tzs• 9 years ago

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the population

They have realized that at least half the population is one or more of {stupid, not paying attention, gullible}, and so they figure they can get away with anything.

Look at what they are doing in South Dakota. The people of South Dakota passed a ballot initiative, "The South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act", in November that makes it illegal for lawmakers to receive more than a total of $100 annually from lobbyists in the form of "any compensation, reward, employment, gift, honorarium, beverage, meal, food, or other thing of value made or given directly or indirectly". It also creates an independent ethics commission, increases penalties for bribery, and bans politicians from becoming lobbyists for two years after they leave office.

The South Dakota legislature is not happy with this. They have introduced a bill to repeal it. Normally if such a bill passes there would then have to be another referendum to give the public a chance to veto it, since it is trying to repeal an initiative passed by referendum.

To work around that, the South Dakota legislature has declared a state of emergency. That will allow their repeal to take effect immediately and there would not be a veto referendum.

OK, think about that a minute. The anti-corruption act was passed by a direct vote of the people. You would think that a legislature trying to overturn that would be worried about how that appears, right? You'd expect that the bill would have just one or two sponsors, carefully chosen from legislators who are planning to leave office after their current term anyway and so who don't have to worry about pissing off the public too much. The rest who want to pass it could then at least see what the public reaction is before deciding if actually voting "yes" on this thing is politically safe.

No. It has something like 75 sponsors. About 50 from the South Dakota House and 25 from the Senate. They are apparently so confident that the public will not punish them for this that plenty of them are signing on.

All Republicans, by the way. (As were the 2/3 of the legislature that had to vote to declare that there was a state of emergency).

dragonwriter2• 9 years ago

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the population.

No party in the US has support of "roughly 50% of the population"; the two largest are around 25% by polling [0]. With turnout at the last election around 55%, the voting in the last election is also consistent with each major party being supported by around 25% of the population eligible to vote.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

pilom2• 9 years ago

Yes the lack of engagement on social media will be sad but the article itself says that peer reviewed research will still be published. Please RTFA.

kjbflsudfb• 9 years ago

To whom are you responding? The original email directed ARS to "not release any public-facing documents." That has been "retracted" for now, but still awaits final clarification.

pilom2• 9 years ago

A number of different responses in the comments were along the lines of "but I/we all own research done with public tax money! how can they do this!" which alarmist given the actual text of the article.

smudgymcscmudge• 9 years ago

The article curiously omits who sent the email.

llamataboot2• 9 years ago

Their control is only equal to our obedience. Leak away patriots!

llamataboot2• 9 years ago

Up to date list of all gag orders:

https://sunlightfoundation.com/list-of-federal-government-ag...

finid6• 9 years ago

We have a firsthand account of what happens when govt scientists are not free to openly discuss the results of their work without approval from political appointees.

That happened during 9/11 when the EPA said the air around the World Trade Center was just fine. Remember that! Many have died, and are still dying because of that lie.

theparanoid• 9 years ago

Buried the lead "A copy of the interim procedures memo, dated Jan. 23 and seen by Reuters, shows many of the steps reflect either the same or similar measures taken by the previous administration."

theobon• 9 years ago

If you are going to post that why would you leave out the section immediately following that addresses why this is newsworthy

"The 2017 memo, however, differs in two main areas.

It centralizes the agency’s media inquiries and social media presence through the Office of the Secretary. As part of that, the memo asks USDA agencies to “review their websites, blog posts and other social media and, consistent with direction you will receive from the Office of Communication, remove references to policy priorities and initiatives of the previous Administration.”

It also rescinds the ability of USDA agencies to close an office or notify local delegations of office closures."

Sebguer• 9 years ago

*lede

openasocket3• 9 years ago

Question: with these gag orders, can't all the information still be gotten through FOIA requests? Sure, there are hurdles, but fundamentally the public has a right to access this information, right?

coldcode• 9 years ago

You think this law will be respected any more than any other? Laws—and even the Constitution—are only meaningful if they are enforced. Between Congressional and Executive branch actions, along with a party friendly Supreme Court (once a couple more Judges retire or die) why would you assume any law will be enforced?

deemize• 9 years ago

Rural American farmers backed Trump because they want their grants and subsidies back. (welfare) I say put your own fences up and build your own stack houses. Pay for your own water hookup. Most are polluting the air and water anyway. There should not be a ban of info released but FOIA is a joke in itself. I totally agree with the ban of grants. There's plenty of people in this country willing to grow food for a free market. Can't afford to farm then sell the land daddy gave you and let the REAL new and beginning farmers get a shot at sustainable farming. Look ate ewg.farm.org and see the many local politicians gutting taxpayer money. EPA and USDA shameful.

dragonwriter2• 9 years ago

This is probably in response to the OSC reminder that the gag orders without whistleblower protection language that have been issued recently are illegal.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/special-counsel-whistl...

USDA disavows gag-order emailed to scientific research unit

Related Stories