Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Same News Different Realities

Compare the LATimes top fold article:

Targeting the science behind EPA regulations EPA seeks to bar many health studies
Pruitt proposes to bar regulators from citing a vast range of health findings, a longtime goal of industry.
The Trump administration launched an attack on the science behind many of the nation’s clean air and clean water rules, announcing a proposal Tuesday that would in effect prevent regulators from considering a wide range of health studies when they look at new regulations.
The plan by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt would prohibit what he and industry advocates call “secret science” — studies that make use of data that are kept confidential, often for privacy reasons.
The embattled EPA chief, whose own secrecy on his personal finances and his activities in office has drawn the attention of investigators, framed the action as crucial to government transparency.
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said in a statement. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule-making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”
Many of the country’s most prominent research organizations, however, say the studies that Pruitt wants to ban are crucial to effectively protecting the environment.
The proposal threatens to cut off the federal government’s access to essential data and subject science to political manipulation, the research groups say. That is because many health studies involve large amounts of patient data, which can be accessed only under condition of confidentiality.
Banning such studies would prevent the EPA from considering many health impacts when looking at rules to limit pollution. Identical proposals stalled in Congress after protests from research groups, including the University of California system and the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.
Environmentalists said Pruitt’s motive is not to improve scientific integrity, but to stifle regulation.
“This is a blatant attack on science that undermines the EPA’s ability to protect our health and environment,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the chief Washington lobbyist for the League of Conservation Voters. She called the proposal a “sham” that would “limit the EPA’s ability to use the best research on the health effects of pollution, which form the basis for vitally important protections.”
The proposal gave Pruitt an opportunity to rally his most loyal supporters at a time his job is in jeopardy. He faces multiple investigations for alleged ethical lapses, and his support at the White House and among Republican lawmakers who long defended him has begun to fade.

_______________

And this from Whats Up With That:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt signed a proposed rule on Tuesday to prevent the agency from relying on scientific studies that don’t publish the underlying data.
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said in a statement. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process.”
Pruitt first announced his initiative to rid EPA of “secret science” in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation in March. The Obama administration relied on so-called “secret science” to justify billions of dollars worth of regulations.
“Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives,” Pruitt said.
EPA said the proposed rule would move the agency towards open data practices used by scientific journals and professional societies. The policy mirrors the HONEST Act introduced by Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith to end EPA’s use of “secret science.”
Smith and South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, who introduced the Senate version of the HONEST Act, spoke at the signing ceremony at EPA headquarters on Tuesday.
“Today’s directive is a significant step toward making sure these decisions are not made behind closed doors with information accessible only to those writing the regulations, but rather in the full view of those who will be affected,” Rounds said. “Administrator Pruitt rightfully is changing business as usual and putting a stop to hidden agendas,” Smith said.

_______________


Cognitive dissonance writ large. 

27 comments:

LBD said...

Big Al ain't going to like this! Fire up the mega pollution machine and everybody of same thought fly far away for a secret meeting!

Rob Dawg said...

I'm just gobsmacked at the progressive knee jerk reaction. Pruitt is returning the EPA to science and transparency and their reaction is that will derail all the progress we've made.

In a similar fashion I challenge you to find an honest example of the administration's recision of higher future CAFE standards until they can be reviewed. The MSM unfailing refers to this as a rollback or loosening of standards rather than the delay of future tightening.

Lawyerliz said...

Poo, they are against any thing that will cost money. Health findings are no good of course.

LBD said...

We need to solve the educated illiterate problem first. IMO

Lawyerliz said...

How

LBD said...

Start with not importing them. Allow parents reasonable discipline practices. Teach real useful skills when they finish HS. Stop the college troll to be somebody or a nobody. Quit lying to the youth they are victims for your own political beliefs. Stop student loans or limit including direct pay to tuition, books and on campus lodging/food.

Lawyerliz said...

Son says Va guy is totally unqualified

Lawyerliz said...

Stop football scholarships

Rob Dawg said...

Liz, the VA guy is "unqualified" for the most part because he supports Trump. Another part is that he is an experienced doctor and medical administrator. Pardon my French but those two combined are why the words dickhead and asshole are sometimes not sufficiently descriptive.

This is nothing about the nominees. This is all about a deep state attempt to deny Trump "his people" so that deep staters can be inserted.

Rob Dawg said...

> Stop football scholarships

No, tie any football [sports] scholarships to definitive education attainment goals. They need not be ambitious. We aren'y talking an engineering degree in four years type progress. Public Administration in five is fine. Just as long as it is real college work.

Lawyerliz said...

It says replies are going to gmail, why

Lawyerliz said...

Neither I nor my son are part of any deep state. I wouldn't know a deep state if it bit me on the ass. We just disagree with you.

Lawyerliz said...

I don't think you can be a superb football player--which is what they want and study at a college level both.
I think it is disgraceful that the coaches salaries could buy 5 or more good professors. It reflects the bad values that most of us share. And the concussions!

LBD said...

Education has become one big party as they are never held responsible for what they produce. Those who want to learn get it done, those who don't end up with a useless degree and a student loan they can't pay, Party on. Sports is a business using colleges for a vehicle.

Lawyerliz said...

Yep.

We partied too. But we studied too, and discussed stuff. And marched in front of the white house. I feel like b I habe more on common wit h the 17 and below, then the over 21s in my classes. The generations turned over fast this time. Sometimes they slide one into another.

Lawyerliz said...

Omg, Michael Cohen is gonna take the 5th!

Lawyerliz said...

The VA guy withdrew.

Lawyerliz said...

Now Pruitt is in the cross hairs. Remember how we asked, )How long will Countrywide last?
Now, it's how long will will Trump last?

LBD said...

Good Morning!

T is fine. I think most wonder why the Dems weren't attacked in the same manor. The swap is alive and fighting back. What happens if they find dirt on Comey Clinton and the rest? Stay tuned for the next episode of Who Really Cares!

Firemane said...

You think the Dems weren't attacked in the same manner?!?!?! Seriously?!?!?

Heck, the Clinton's were accused of secretly murdering Vince Foster.

Here's the thing. Starting with Nixon, we have had a press corps that is rewarded for reporting CONTROVERSY. If it is sensational, especially if it is of a prurient nature, it dominates news cycles. And the notion this is completely one-sided is utter and complete B.S.

Nixon got caught doing horrible things - and then admitted he believed was above the law because he was President.

Carter was a lousy President, and PLENTY was written about that - but he wasn't embroiled in scandals.

Reagan was largely a good President (and got plenty of press supporting that - LONG before Fox news existed) - but he also did some questionable stuff (Iran/Contra).

Bush Sr. had no scandals - but ended up losing because of an ill-timed recession.

Clinton spent 8 years being investigated - with a never-ending litany of scandals, investigations, and eventual impeachment attempt.

"W" had lots of Iran/Iraq related 'scandals' (Abu Graib, lying or fudging about WMDs). But, nothing like the reality with Trump - though he was castigated for putting "Brownie" in charge of FEMA **AFTER** the Katrina mess.

Obama was loathed by the Right for 8 years - but largely avoided scandals.

============

It is par for the course for partisans to be in denial when "their" person is the one being attacked. But, history shows us the press is looking for smoke regardless of the party in power. And some Presidents don't produce it, (Bush Sr. -- Obama) - while others produce it in spades, (Clinton, Trump).

Yes, Trump nominees often get attacked for partisan positions - just like liberal nominees get attacked by those on the right.

But, it's important to remember that for Cabinet nominees, the filibuster was removed, (by the Dems). So, they really don't have any say in the matter - and a number of Republicans had voiced concerns with Ronny Jackson long before the "candy man" stuff hit the press.

Frankly, everything I had read (outside of partisan spin), suggested Jackson was a smart man and fine Doctor - but had never been in charge of an organization of any size. And given the state of the VA, questioning whether he had the EXPERIENCE in management to fix the problems was not at all unreasonable.

But again - these days, the press reports anything salacious. It is not about partisanship or political bent - it's about sales and making a rep - and driving traffic to your website.

LBD said...

I think it is fear of the old guard on both sides. T is not excepted by the Repubs. Some times a person with out qualifications can see the problems and push for results. Obviously those who where qualified can't do it. Box thinking, the only way is to try. Yes times have changed and news is a real buyer beware ad driven business. I didn't care for the off track which hunt on Clinton either same that is going on now. IMO

Lawyerliz said...

Hah ha. I shouldn't but I do.

Lawyerliz said...

Amen. Horrible.

Rob Dawg said...

My BiL is a high ranking admin/treating doctor in the VA system. There probably should be a promote from within process to get these people together and identify actors ready for greater authority.

Rob Dawg said...

New post.

Lawyerliz said...

Amen

Firemane said...

My opinion on the "witch hunts".

Where there is smoke - it is reasonable to LOOK for fire.

There's no doubt the Clintons lived their lives in legal gray areas. The repeating pattern from the 90s to present has always been -- well, what they were doing was probably immoral and unethical, but it's either not illegal, or not provable. There were REASONS for the investigations. Of course, once underway, taking as much political advantage of the investigations BEFORE outcomes is predictable, and distasteful.

But, the lack of such "witch hunting" with the Bushes or Obama goes back to my basic premise - which is it is not *ALL* about partisanship. There are legitimately questionable practices that invite scrutiny - and Trump (like the Clintons) has lived his life dealing in gray areas (with NY Real Estate and Casino operations: Which are both arenas with long, long histories of corruption, graft, and shady dealings.)

As for the concept of outsiders being able to fix something -- I think government is the one and only arena where anyone actually believes that.

You going to hire your plumber to do your colonoscopy?
You going to hire your dog walker to install your plumbing?
You going to hire your lawn care guy to fix your car when it breaks?

Understand - there are BAD plumbers and dog walkers and auto repair guys. But, when you run into one - you look to replace them with someone trained and with experience.

And, the idea of getting someone non-government with a track record of taking over badly run businesses, fixing them, and turning them into profitable ones would be an "outsider" that has experience in what you are hoping will occur. That's not Jackson.

Yet, with government service, (since Nixon), we have nationally adopted the notion that experience in government is itself BAD. So, we began electing governors, (at least that's executive experience in government, just not Washington insider experience). But, the only WASHINGTON insiders (VP Bush and Senator Obama), elected since Nixon coincidentally happen to have the smallest scandal profiles, and (IMO - though I admit I'm in a minority here), are the two MOST successful jobs of actually governing since Nixon.

It doesn't seem to me that since the '90s, (when the Contract with America "outsiders" arrived en masse in Washington), that this has IMPROVED the working of our government. In point of fact, it has gotten progressively WORSE. The Tea Partiers won't compromise with their OWN party (much less the Dems). The use of filibuster has gone from a rare thing to SOP.

Even if I dismiss all of the Trump-specific (out of his own mouth) baggage - I personally think it is a bad idea in general to assume ANY CEO with no government experience is a good choice for President. President is NOT CEO. And I believe a large chunk of Trump's year one issues were a direct result of his lack of government experience. As CEO, you say "do this", and expect it to be done - and if it isn't, you fire people. That's Trump year one in a nutshell.