Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

The Trump administration has instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants.

 

AP Link

 

 


Emails sent to EPA staff since President Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday and reviewed by The Associated Press detailed the specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency's social media accounts.

The Trump administration has also ordered a "temporary suspension" of all new business activities at the department, including issuing task orders or work assignments to EPA contractors. The orders are expected to have a significant and immediate impact on EPA activities nationwide.

The EPA did not respond to phone calls and emails requesting comment Monday or Tuesday.

 

The Trump administration also is moving to delay implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Obama's term, "pending review", including updated air pollution standards for several states, renewable fuel standards, and limits on the amount of formaldehyde that can leach from wood products.

 

The USDA's Agricultural Research Service also received a memo banning the release of news releases, photos and other material to the public, but it was later rescinded by the acting deputy secretary of the Agriculture Department.

 

 

I'm sure it's all completely innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All "time for a change" candidates, right or left, enjoy a huge edge with the crazy people. They push all the buttons for the emotionally labile. I'd go out on a limb and say that Trump probably has the edge on a Trudeau/Saunders/Perot type in that he's so obviously a huge risk/thrill ride in the making.

 

It's a coveted 27% of the vote (or so) in wave elections. The trick is to find a way of appealing to them without going on Alex Jones and denouncing vaccination as an international Jewish/Communist/Davos Man* plot, as this is generally deemed to lose more votes than it gains. You have to talk in code, send signals, and, of course, leave 'em at the altar once you're in. (Not that that's hard. They tend to be pretty annoying people in person.) The wacky thing about Trump is that he doesn't seem to graps the whole "talk in codes"  thing. Insofar as he inadvertently blurts out recognised codes (money=Jewish; crime=Black), it's because he's internalised them while channel surfing cable news. 

 

And yet he won. That leaves two possibilities. First, all the rules of politics are wrong, because we're hurtling off the edge of the abyss towards the international Nazification moment last seen in the 1930s. Now, I don't want to discourage that kind of thinking, because in the long run that's where we're headed, unless actual Davos Man gets his head out of his rear and stops pursuing the whole repress-aggregate-demand-to-repress-wages-to-build-profits thing.

 

So scaring some sense into Davos Man is a good thing. I just don't think we're there yet. Or, rather, that America is there yet. I mean, all other things being equal, you have a growing population**, a growing economy, and the most dynamic, consumerist middle class in the world. The fact that you're destroying these things at the same rate as Canada, Japan and Germany doesn't matter as much in the cosmic scheme of things when you're starting from safer ground. The other possibility is that Trump won the election in spite of being the second choice of the electorate, thanks to an electoral system designed in the Eighteenth Century. I like this theory. You know, on account of it being in line with the facts. So that said, conventional theory calls for crazy Trump supporters to alienate everyone else.

 

If we assume that the GOP is a fracturing party, like, say British Labour, we would model it as a party more interested in winning the internal battle against rival factions than with the proposed enemy. The primary system can't really resolve such fights, because the factions often dominate individual state organisations, and especially the most important primaries. (Above all, evangelicals and Iowa.) No showdown means no resolution of the tensions between the two.On the bright side, that means that the Republicans don't explore the depths of unelectability that loom below 40% of the vote. On the down side, they can't get much above the 46% that dooms them to be a counter-party. The marginal Trump voter is frustrated by this. I am guessing that this voter expects the crazies (understood to mainly populate the rival factions) to be read out of the Party, purging it of those factions and leaving it pure and free to explore the 30% popular vote frontier in search of the Silent Majority.  

 

*Important disclaimer: "Davos Man" is here to be taken as excluding Elon Musk, Peter Theiel, and Ray Kurzweil, because even though they might seem like relatively undeserving rich people who are completely out of touch with reality, in fact because they are in tech and stuff, they are super-awesome and tomorrow belongs to them and just thinking about them makes me want to explore the board's obscenity rules to find a euphemism that would capture the reason for my sudden need to change my underwear. This footnote is in no way ironic and is absolutely not motivated by one IT snafu at work after another. This footnote denies advocating ruthless anti-trust actions against Google, Sun, and probably others. This footnote is dead set against anti-collusion action against large cellphone providers in connection with their relationships with Samsung and Apple. This footnote rejects the idea of nationalising Microsoft as a de facto utility.

 

**This note is for the Zero Population Growth people. Give it up. Right or wrong, you've won, even if the United Nationsl Population people won't admit it yet. The point now is to salvage something from the wreckage. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Trump issued a gag order of the National Parks Service and USDA to not use Twitter, contact the press, or communicate to the public. 

Badlands National Parks Service spent the rest of the day tweeting Climate Change Data - until it was shut down. And then the scientists tweeted on personal accounts.

 

 

Today it seems that both departments have said that they won't be withholding information from the public (as far as I've read)

Long story short so to speak.

 

 

Mostly I mention it for this cartoon.

If this breaks discussion rules I'll delete it.

 

 

 

 

DRH8c0Y.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Trump issued a gag order of the National Parks Service and USDA to not use Twitter, contact the press, or communicate to the public. 

Badlands National Parks Service spent the rest of the day tweeting Climate Change Data - until it was shut down. And then the scientists tweeted on personal accounts.

 

 

Today it seems that both departments have said that they won't be withholding information from the public (as far as I've read)

Long story short so to speak.

 

 

This does raise an interesting question, though, and a potentially dangerous one (given the number of fake news stories):

 

Since a growing number of people are turning to social media to receive their news should social media accounts be provided the same protection under the first amendment  as the press? Or does being privately/publicly owned with its own terms of usage by said owners trump that (no pun intended.  Gah. Need to hit a thesaurus for the next four years.)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect court cases over the right of employees to free expression versus the right of employers, particularly government, to restrict that expression, are going to proliferate in the near future. If that forces the issue to be clarified, that just might be something to add to the plus column of the Trump administration, albeit inadvertently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entire State Department senior management team "resigns"

 

It's hard to overstate the impact this will have on U.S. foreign relations.

 

Head of DARPA resigned too.

 

 

I find this quite disconcerting. I mean, isn't important that, at least at some position in government, we have someone who's actually been doing this for a while?

 

(And by 'some position in government', I don't mean Congress. By and large, those yahoos have been there quite long enough, thank you. I mean people who actually have to do the work of governing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...