Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
28. Context Shmontext. NSA aside,
Thu Aug 8, 2013, 04:10 PM
Aug 2013

"Obama administration now muzzles scientists and experts within federal agencies. When they are allowed to talk about important public health issues, a chaperone often supervises every word. These constraints keep the public from learning whether decisions are science-based or politically motivated.

Consider these few (non-NSA-related) examples:

l After last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, scientists and environmental groups accused the administration of hiding or underreporting the extent of the spill and its impact on the environment. Federal officials frequently deferred to BP in providing data on issues from cleanup workers’ health problems to oil spill flow estimates. The government also placed restrictions on airspace for weeks, keeping media photographers from seeing the scope of the spill.

l The Food and Drug Administration placed an unusual restriction on reporters when announcing changes to its medical device approval process this year. In exchange for providing the information to the media ahead of time, reporters were told they could not seek insights from outside experts before the formal announcement. This ensured the first version of the story contained only the FDA’s official position and ran counter to the way medical journals handle such embargoes.

l In more than a third of requests made for public records last year, the administration failed to provide any information at all, the Associated Press reported. Despite an increase in requests, the Obama administration is releasing fewer records under the Freedom of Information Act than the Bush administration did. And when a response is provided, it often is incomplete or comes years later. The AP noted ironically that the Obama administration even censored 194 pages of internal e-mails about its Open Government Directive."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/wheres-the-transparency-that-obama-promised/2011/03/31/AFipwHCC_story.html

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This message was self-deleted by its author darkangel218 Aug 2013 #1
Thanks for posting! FiveGoodMen Aug 2013 #2
Candidate says one thing, does another when President!!!!!! geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3
To this degree, 180* <-- is breathtaking & noteworthy imho ~nt 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #5
Should we call the Nobel committee again? darkangel218 Aug 2013 #6
Do as you wish, but when searching for the number, it will be under: Nobel Committee. eom millennialmax Aug 2013 #10
Still the same " committee" darkangel218 Aug 2013 #12
Then you haven't paid close attention to Presidential history. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #7
"They all do it" <-- in defense of the indefensible eom 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #8
meh, the realities of governing are a lot different than those geek tragedy Aug 2013 #9
You mean those "realities" of governing that some have died trying to change 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #13
no, the reality that talk is cheap, and that not all promises will or can be realized nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #18
But, but .. what about my pony? 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #25
Those who lie to get... onyourleft Aug 2013 #40
It's been said right here on DU that sometimes you need to lie in order to have the chance cherokeeprogressive Aug 2013 #50
Watch the video ... the "candidate" doesn't say what the OP claims. JoePhilly Aug 2013 #23
We are not spying on American people!! darkangel218 Aug 2013 #4
I think you are just misunderstanding the rhetoric. When he said "we" he meant him and Bo. nm rhett o rick Aug 2013 #11
So POTUS has no say in it? lol!!!!!! darkangel218 Aug 2013 #14
I am beginning to believe he has no say in it. rhett o rick Aug 2013 #20
I dont believe it. darkangel218 Aug 2013 #24
Without disparaging the President you should be able to see rhett o rick Aug 2013 #45
He already has pardoned them. nt darkangel218 Aug 2013 #47
No link? rhett o rick Aug 2013 #56
I'd vote for that guy. progressoid Aug 2013 #15
The OP you mean? darkangel218 Aug 2013 #16
Lucy has a football she wants you to kick. eom 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #17
You sarcasm so noted. I did vote for that guy. I wouldnt vote for the guy we ended up with. nm rhett o rick Aug 2013 #46
I wanted to believe it, but knew I shouldn't. I was right. GalaxyHunter Aug 2013 #19
Holding an elected official accountable for campaign promises is unAmerican. nm rhett o rick Aug 2013 #21
The video you posted does not show what you claim. JoePhilly Aug 2013 #22
Context is everything, isn't it? greatauntoftriplets Aug 2013 #27
Not around here these days. nt JoePhilly Aug 2013 #29
Context Shmontext. NSA aside, 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #28
Which of those refers to transparency in the legislative process? JoePhilly Aug 2013 #30
"The legislative process" 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #34
The ugly truth. You should make this an OP. nt woo me with science Aug 2013 #36
True, he didn't say "completely" as the OP states. progressoid Aug 2013 #32
An honest OP would have referred to those and provided JoePhilly Aug 2013 #33
This took about two minutes.... progressoid Aug 2013 #35
Hummm ... JoePhilly Aug 2013 #37
Missing the point again. progressoid Aug 2013 #41
You sure showed him. great white snark Aug 2013 #26
Nixon gave politics a rule, "Say whatever it takes to get elected first." Coyotl Aug 2013 #31
I don't know whether to laugh MissDeeds Aug 2013 #38
That's how I felt too, watching the video. it was painful. nt 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #39
But...we are told he really didn't say that...we only heard it and interpreted it KoKo Aug 2013 #42
Yes, I do believe you're 100% correct 99th_Monkey Aug 2013 #43
Indeed.. KoKo Aug 2013 #44
Candidate Obama debates President Obama on the police/surveillance state. woo me with science Aug 2013 #48
"No more National Security letters to spy on American Citizens WHO ARE NOT SUSPECTED OF A CRIME." cherokeeprogressive Aug 2013 #53
Maybe he meant "transparent" as in "invisible". You know, like secret laws. /nt Marr Aug 2013 #49
CNN BREAKING: GOVERNMENT PROMISES TO DO BETTER! Rex Aug 2013 #51
Stay out of the darkness Mr. President. Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. Very well said sir! Ed Suspicious Aug 2013 #52
Mind you, they will need to take special, extraconstitutional measures to KEEP YOU SAFE FROM TERRRUR Warren DeMontague Aug 2013 #54
Who CARES what PO says? He doesn't make those decisions. People like Sen. Feinstein do. cherokeeprogressive Aug 2013 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: Obama promises ...»Reply #28