Tightening control over media and science is just the beginning.
“We’re taking a look at everything on a case-by-case basis, including the web page and whether climate stuff will be taken down,” said Doug Ericksen, the communications director for the EPA transition team, in an interview with the AP. “Obviously with a new administration coming in, the transition time, we’ll be taking a look at the web pages and the Facebook pages and everything else involved here at EPA.”
What next? “Religious review” by political staffers? Would they be allowed to go through churches, temples, and mosques to ensure that the dialogues complies/align with the government message and standing?
Isn’t this far, far greater government overreach that the GOP typically preach against? What happened to this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/sarah-palin-donald-trump-carrier-deal-crony-capitalism-232139 and their outcries? Or, is this only selective outcry when it does not benefit them?
“Scientific studies would be reviewed at the level of a branch or a division or laboratory,” said Gray, now professor of public health at George Washington University. “Occasionally things that were known to be controversial would come up to me as assistant administrator and I was a political appointee. Nothing in my experience would go further than that.”
Scientific studies are already peer reviewed by experts in the field before publication. It’s a process that’s been in place for a long time and it’s not like a blog. The rest of the world is watching and laughing as our brain-drain is taking another step into oblivion. What’s to stop the government from issuing a similar ordeal for all publically/government funded institutions? Are they going to burn textbooks and install some government-approved text?
This is starting to sound like the fictional character of Dolores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
“There again, progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering. A balance, then, between old and new, between permanence and change, between tradition and innovation because some changes will be for the better, while others will come, in the fullness of time, to be recognised as errors of judgement. Meanwhile, some old habits will be retained, and rightly so, whereas others, outmoded and outworn, must be abandoned. Let us move forward, then, into a new era of openness, effectiveness and accountability, intent on preserving what ought to be preserved, perfecting what needs to be perfected, and pruning wherever we find practices that ought to be prohibited.”
We need some centaurs.