That headline is from this article in The Atlantic. Below is from Globalwarming.org
What EPA Transparency Looks Like in Most Open, Honest Administration Ever
This time, we got actual emails … that revealed a lot … about the fine art of redaction. Remember, this is the production of the most powerful regulatory agency of the most transparent administration in history. “We have nothing to hide,” the EPA has told us. Sure doesn’t seem that way to us:
BTW, note the date.
The date of 8/15/2009 is pre-climategate. I had thought that this need by the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson’s secondhand email account was a response to the leaked emails Climategate and the FOIA attempts.
Apparently they just planned this deception from the get-go.
Read more at: http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/02/22/what-epa-transparency-looks-like-in-most-open-honest-administration-ever/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s how the intelligence services got information on what the Axis forces were up to before they cracked their codes. You see who was talking to whom and when and where from, with this you could learn a lot of what was happening. the best one was the Fuhrers birthday when they all sent greetings.
James Bull
jorgekafkazar says:
February 22, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Obama lied.
There’s novel. :))
It would appear that the art of redaction is now more universal than FOI. This is the BBC’s version in relation to a paedophile operating on their premises with their knowledge. No one is to blame obviously. Perhaps a new definition of transparency is needed both sides of the pond.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282667/So-BBC-transparency-90-pages-BBCs-Savile-report-blacked-DG-goes-ground–blamed-fiasco.html
Ivor Ward
Nick Stokes says:February 22, 2013 at 7:02 pm
>>DBS,
>>“See, this is about a current FOI request, not the Bush boogeyman.”
Well, the headline says it’s about presidential standards of transparency.
No, the headline is quote from and about a specific president and his ‘standards of transparency’.
Nick, I didn’t like Bush and I don’t like Obama, nor their respective administrations. Now that what appears to be your fish tactic has been nullified, what do you think of the redactions? If their discussions and decisions were based on “science”, and consensus science at that, why redact anything?
Grrr! With my own particular focus on anti-skeptic enviro-activist people, I was curious to see if ████████████████████ or ██████████████████ or ████████████████ at ████████████████████████ were exchanging emails with ███████████████████████.
Nick and others,
Pamela Gray has it right. But she didn’t go far enough. Distrust all people who have the power to take the fruits of your labor at the point of a gun. Theft is always wrong. If it is not right for an individual, it should not be right for a crowd, a mob, or congress. Strong arm robbery might land you in jail if the District Attorney thinks you case will make big enough headlines. Far too seldom does the taking of property or money by the government get called to task because of the inequity of power of the individual v. the government.
The US system of government was crafted with the intent that we could keep an eye on the B#$%@s, hence FOI and other transparency means. That it failed with republican or democrat scumbags is much more a reflection of the character of our politicians than it is any particular party. They are nearly all crooked, and the ones who are not in all likelihood soon will be.
We need to get over the ‘my crook is better than your crook because he stole from the right people and gave it to me’ mentality and begin to realize that ALL those who have no honest means of earning money are trying to steal from all of us who do. Get over it quickly and watch your back and your family’s back and your neighbor’s back.
The sooner everyone understands the real rules of the political game, the more comfortable you can be with the process. Recognize politicians for what they are. Oh, and always look at every politician and political appointee the same way. Down!
pbh
Someone mentioned end the EPA &, as a former, small town mayor, I concur. They have totally abolished local government which is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. They are just evil
Every time Obama begins with “Let me say it as simply as I can” or something similar, you know that what follows will be a lie. (Stammering a lot is also a good “tell” for lying).
He’s an easy president to “read” and the worst in our nation’s long history.
From the story linked above:
Hmmm … eerily similar to the incompetence demonstrated in producing this .pdf document:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
If any one care to open the above document, one will note a number of not-so-insignificant ‘elements’ (e.g. signatures, with portions overlapping the form’s lines) are separate, distinct ‘editable’ elements … it is NOT one uniform, picture-element (like a jpg) scanned from a paper document (WHICH is what/how it appears, and would purport to be!)
Strange … very strange … if I tried to pass this off as an official, supporting ‘document’ in the application for a job involving a security clearance I would be bounced back on my az -er- buttocks so quick I’d land in the middle of next week …
.
.
PS. I just checked the doc above and it’s still composed of a number of distinct, editable elements.
.
ALL this over a non-issue, eh Nikc? (Do you recall the issue Nikc?)
Do you recall that ALL the US Attorneys were fired by Xlinton, Bush only fired a few (8) …
Why did Bush receive effectively an ‘anal’ examine for only partially practicing a prerogative whereas when it was practiced en masse by Xlinton -er- Clinton nothing similar mushroomed out of proportion?
“Nets Ignored Clinton Firing 93 U.S. Attorneys, Fret Over Bush’s 8″
http://www.mrc.org/node/34099
Does this refresh your recollection, Nick?
.
Those heavily redacted mails look like the letters my mother used to get from my dad during WW2 when he wrote home from his prisoner of war stalag.
Let her introduce herself, she’s Mr. Richard Windsor.
==================
If they were indeed discussing personnel issues through an unofficial backchannel as the subject seems to suggest then that is very naughty of them. Attorney privilege is mentioned. Is it possible that they were discussing firing someone? through an unofficial back channel? Very very naughty!
The mention of attorneys hints at a case for unfair dismissal. Was such a case brought? If so then was this conveniently unofficial email address used to hide from discovery? That would be very very very very naughty. I can quite see why they want to black the entire thing.
During the period for public comment on the EPA’s proposed “endangerment” finding, I responded to the EPA with a comment. The comment was that underlying the IPCC’s climate models was no statistical population. Thus, I claimed, the scientific basis for the proposed endangerment finding was nonexistent. Subsequently, the EPA found CO2 emissions to be an endangerment and published a document that, according to the EPA, responded to each of the comments which the EPA had received. When I read this document, I found that it did not respond to my comment. I wrote to the EPA’s adminstrator, Lisa Jackson, to point out that the EPA had misrepresented the truth in claiming to have responded to each of the comments the EPA had received. Jackson did not reply.