3 ms·

That's a good argument that the president shouldn't formally be denied this power. But it doesn't rebut the claim that it's a bad sign, and that the public mig

That's a good argument that the president shouldn't formally be denied this power. But it doesn't rebut the claim that it's a bad sign, and that the public might reasonably want to keep track of those signs. Likewise, many tech companies have engineering blogs, and it's reasonable for people to interpret this transparency as a good sign. A better argument would say that these agencies have been staffed with folks who have irreconcilable ideological disagreements with Trump about the proper role and extent of federal regulation. If firing them en mass is infeasible, restricting their ability to undermine his agenda may be the next best option.

rayiner 10y ago
I agree it's a very bad sign.
- tptacek 10y ago
  On the other hand, it's not very smart: it cedes to low-level employees at these agencies a huge amount of control over the policy agenda. Before NPS employees at Badlands "went rogue" today tweeting about climate change, how much influence did they have? And how much do they have now?
  - patio11 10y ago
    They probably have as little influence over the agenda tomorrow as they did yesterday, but in the minds of people who don't understand how government works that does not feel true, which is perhaps dangerous, because it moves the ball from "actual policy" into "what ended up in my Twitter feed." Regardless of one's opinions on climate change it demonstrates a profound, profound lack of understanding of how government works to think that the big change this week in US policy relevant to climate policy happened on Twitter and not on the TPP.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I think I'm just making the observation that in the absence of the administration's crackdown policy, the NPS employee's ability to written up in the news media for climate change concerns was nil.
gozur88 10y ago
It's a bad sign if it's permanent. If it's a temporary thing related to the change in power, e.g. they intend to issue new guidelines, then it may be nothing at all.
- true_religion 10y ago
  I think it should be permanent. There's nothing about climate change that's an emergency situation, desperately requiring the officials in charge of the situation to communicate directly to the public---and in 140 character tweets no less. Talking directly to the public makes their role political, and not scientific or bureaucratic as it really ought to be.

rayiner 10y ago

I agree it's a very bad sign.

tptacek 10y ago
On the other hand, it's not very smart: it cedes to low-level employees at these agencies a huge amount of control over the policy agenda. Before NPS employees at Badlands "went rogue" today tweeting about climate change, how much influence did they have? And how much do they have now?
- patio11 10y ago
  They probably have as little influence over the agenda tomorrow as they did yesterday, but in the minds of people who don't understand how government works that does not feel true, which is perhaps dangerous, because it moves the ball from "actual policy" into "what ended up in my Twitter feed." Regardless of one's opinions on climate change it demonstrates a profound, profound lack of understanding of how government works to think that the big change this week in US policy relevant to climate policy happened on Twitter and not on the TPP.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I think I'm just making the observation that in the absence of the administration's crackdown policy, the NPS employee's ability to written up in the news media for climate change concerns was nil.

gozur88 10y ago

It's a bad sign if it's permanent. If it's a temporary thing related to the change in power, e.g. they intend to issue new guidelines, then it may be nothing at all.

true_religion 10y ago
I think it should be permanent. There's nothing about climate change that's an emergency situation, desperately requiring the officials in charge of the situation to communicate directly to the public---and in 140 character tweets no less. Talking directly to the public makes their role political, and not scientific or bureaucratic as it really ought to be.