USDA disavows gag-order emailed to scientific research unit

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."

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

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...

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.

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.

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."

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!

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 )?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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.

"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."

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