Meet the Deep State

anatta said:
On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop “future plans for scientific integrity” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names.
The administrative state. The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to “restore science to its rightful place”—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.

Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement “scientific integrity” policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone had chosen to “hire a senior level employee” whose only job would be to “act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency.”


In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were “under siege”—according to a report she helped write—by Republican “political appointees” and “industry lobbyists” who had “manipulated” science on everything from “mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science.”

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science “incidents” at the agency, and even “investigate” science problems—alongside no less than the agency’s inspector general.

And get this: Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration.

Ms. Grifo perhaps wasn’t too busy in the Obama years, since EPA scientists were given carte blanche to take over the economy. She seems to have been uninterested when EPA scientists used secret meetings and private email to collude with environmental groups—a practice somewhat lacking in scientific integrity.

She has been busier these past few months. In March the Sierra Club demanded that the EPA’s inspector general investigate whether the agency’s newly installed administrator, Scott Pruitt, had violated policy by suggesting carbon dioxide might not be the prime driver of global warming. The inspector general referred the matter to . . . the Scientific Integrity Official. So now an unelected, unappointed activist could pass judgment on whether the Senate-confirmed EPA chief is too unscientific to run his own agency. So much for elections.

There’s also that “scientific integrity” event planned for June. Of the 45 invitations, only one went to an organization ostensibly representing industry, the American Chemistry Council. A couple of academics got one. The rest? Earthjustice. Public Citizen. The Natural Resources Defense Council. Center for Progressive Reform. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Environmental Defense Fund. Three invites alone for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Anyone want to guess how the meeting will go?

This is a government employee using taxpayer funds to gather political activists on government grounds to plot—let’s not kid ourselves—ways to sabotage the Trump administration. Ms. Grifo did not respond to a request for comment.

Messrs. Pruitt and Trump should take the story as a hint of the fight they face to reform government. It’s hard enough to overcome a vast bureaucracy that ideologically opposes their efforts. But add to the challenge the powerful, formalized resistance of posts, all across the government, like the Scientific Integrity Official. Mr. Obama worked hard to embed his agenda within government to ensure its survival. Today it is the source of leaks, bogus whistleblower complaints, internal sabotage.

Pitched battle with these folks is no way to govern. The better answer is dramatic agency staff cuts—maybe start with the post of Scientific Integrity Official?—as well as greater care in hiring true professionals for key bureaucratic posts. The sooner department heads recognize and take action against that deep state, the sooner this administration might begin to drain the swamp.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/anatomy-of-a-deep-state-1495753640
Click to expand...
That sounds like she is a political commissar, straight of the mould in the old Soviet Union

Sent from my iPhone 25 GT Turbo
 
Last edited:
anatta said:
On May 8 a woman few Americans have heard of, working in a federal post that even fewer know exists, summoned a select group of 45 people to a June meeting in Washington. They were almost exclusively representatives of liberal activist groups. The invitation explained they were invited to develop “future plans for scientific integrity” at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Meet the deep state. That’s what conservatives call it now, though it goes by other names.
The administrative state. The entrenched governing elite. Lois Lerner. The federal bureaucracy. Whatever the description, what’s pertinent to today’s Washington is that this cadre of federal employees, accountable to no one, is actively working from within to thwart Donald Trump’s agenda.

There are few better examples than the EPA post of Scientific Integrity Official. (Yes, that is an actual job title.) The position is a legacy of Barack Obama, who at his 2009 inaugural promised to “restore science to its rightful place”—his way of warning Republicans that there’d be no more debate on climate change or other liberal environmental priorities.

Team Obama directed federal agencies to implement “scientific integrity” policies. Most agencies tasked their senior leaders with overseeing these rules. But the EPA—always the overachiever—bragged that it alone had chosen to “hire a senior level employee” whose only job would be to “act as a champion for scientific integrity throughout the agency.”


In 2013 the EPA hired Francesca Grifo, longtime activist at the far-left Union of Concerned Scientists. Ms. Grifo had long complained that EPA scientists were “under siege”—according to a report she helped write—by Republican “political appointees” and “industry lobbyists” who had “manipulated” science on everything from “mercury pollution to groundwater contamination to climate science.”

As Scientific Integrity Official, Ms. Grifo would have the awesome power to root out all these meddlesome science deniers. A 2013 Science magazine story reported she would lead an entire Scientific Integrity Committee, write an annual report documenting science “incidents” at the agency, and even “investigate” science problems—alongside no less than the agency’s inspector general.

And get this: Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration.

Ms. Grifo perhaps wasn’t too busy in the Obama years, since EPA scientists were given carte blanche to take over the economy. She seems to have been uninterested when EPA scientists used secret meetings and private email to collude with environmental groups—a practice somewhat lacking in scientific integrity.

She has been busier these past few months. In March the Sierra Club demanded that the EPA’s inspector general investigate whether the agency’s newly installed administrator, Scott Pruitt, had violated policy by suggesting carbon dioxide might not be the prime driver of global warming. The inspector general referred the matter to . . . the Scientific Integrity Official. So now an unelected, unappointed activist could pass judgment on whether the Senate-confirmed EPA chief is too unscientific to run his own agency. So much for elections.

There’s also that “scientific integrity” event planned for June. Of the 45 invitations, only one went to an organization ostensibly representing industry, the American Chemistry Council. A couple of academics got one. The rest? Earthjustice. Public Citizen. The Natural Resources Defense Council. Center for Progressive Reform. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Environmental Defense Fund. Three invites alone for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Anyone want to guess how the meeting will go?

This is a government employee using taxpayer funds to gather political activists on government grounds to plot—let’s not kid ourselves—ways to sabotage the Trump administration. Ms. Grifo did not respond to a request for comment.

Messrs. Pruitt and Trump should take the story as a hint of the fight they face to reform government. It’s hard enough to overcome a vast bureaucracy that ideologically opposes their efforts. But add to the challenge the powerful, formalized resistance of posts, all across the government, like the Scientific Integrity Official. Mr. Obama worked hard to embed his agenda within government to ensure its survival. Today it is the source of leaks, bogus whistleblower complaints, internal sabotage.

Pitched battle with these folks is no way to govern. The better answer is dramatic agency staff cuts—maybe start with the post of Scientific Integrity Official?—as well as greater care in hiring true professionals for key bureaucratic posts. The sooner department heads recognize and take action against that deep state, the sooner this administration might begin to drain the swamp.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/anatomy-of-a-deep-state-1495753640
Click to expand...

Fake news... You guys have been crying the main steam media is fake news and now you quoting it??lol
 
x said:
deep state is bad

pretending scientific reality doesn't exist is also bad
Click to expand...
it;s not so much the science behind it,it's the political appointment to a career position that could easily go the other way.

Here was a bureaucrat with the authority to define science and shut down those who disagreed, and she could not be easily fired, even under a new administration.
Click to expand...
 
Bill said:
Fake news... You guys have been crying the main steam media is fake news and now you quoting it??lol
Click to expand...
c'mon Bill. fake news isn't generated as pulp fiction,
it's deliberate distortion to fit a pre-set narrative either by bias or omission of both parts of a story
 
anatta said:
c'mon Bill. fake news isn't generated as pulp fiction,
it's deliberate distortion to fit a pre-set narrative either by bias or omission of both parts of a story
Click to expand...

Yeah, shitstain.
Who would want scientists advising the EPA?
You are lower than worm turds.
 
Rune said:
Yeah, shitstain.
Who would want scientists advising the EPA?
You are lower than worm turds.
Click to expand...
gawd damn you are extra stupid today..how many blunts is it so far?
a constant slipstream of your cognition?

she is a political appointee ( agenda) but in a career civil service role.

Suppose Trump had appointed a global warmer denier,and the next POTUS Hillary couldn't fire that person?

would you be as sedatively content as you are now?

Rank partisanship coupled with willful ignorance glued together with too much weed is no way to go thru life dude .
 
anatta said:
gawd damn you are extra stupid today..how many blunts is it so far?
a constant slipstream of your cognition?

she is a political appointee ( agenda) but in a career civil service role.

Suppose Trump had appointed a global warmer denier,and the next POTUS Hillary couldn't fire that person?

would you be as sedately content as you are now?

Rank partisanship coupled with willful ignorance glued together will too much weed is no way to go thru life dude .
Click to expand...

And you focus too much on the "deep state." There is something there to complain about, but it's "deep state light." It's not nearly as organized or coordinated as you make it out to be.

But it gives you some cover for Trump. It allows you to not judge him objectively - to give him some sympathy vote.

We've elected a cartoon. At least start w/ that. Acknowledge that.
 
Thing1 said:
And you focus too much on the "deep state." There is something there to complain about, but it's "deep state light." It's not nearly as organized or coordinated as you make it out to be.

But it gives you some cover for Trump. It allows you to not judge him objectively - to give him some sympathy vote.

We've elected a cartoon. At least start w/ that. Acknowledge that.
Click to expand...
welcome back.
it's co-ordinated at the IC level w/leakage to the press,and driven by politicization of the IC and it's leadership.

at the bureaucratic level it's more locked in by politicization of careerists at what are essentially political appointees
 
anatta said:
welcome back.
it's co-ordinated at the IC level w/leakage to the press,and driven by politicization of the IC and it's leadership.

at the bureaucratic level it's more locked in by politicization of careerists at what are essentially political appointees
Click to expand...

Honestly, that conspiracy shite. It doesn't hold up. There would be someone involved who would spill the beans eventually - it's just like the people who talk about Roswell and the WTC. Too many people involved. I mean, look at the leaks we have w/ normal stuff. This wouldn't last.

It's just not at the level you think it is. There might be some coordination, but it's low-level and doesn't dominate everything as you portray.
 
Thing1 said:
Honestly, that conspiracy shite. It doesn't hold up. There would be someone involved who would spill the beans eventually - it's just like the people who talk about Roswell and the WTC. Too many people involved. I mean, look at the leaks we have w/ normal stuff. This wouldn't last.

It's just not at the level you think it is. There might be some coordination, but it's low-level and doesn't dominate everything as you portray.
Click to expand...

you do not see the coordination of leakage with the press? it's like a daily dump.

It's insidious, and greatly diminishes a POTUS powers by deflection to unsubstantiated what are essentially rumors.

The best word i can think of is it's"undermining"
 
anatta said:
you do not see the coordination of leakage with the press? it's like a daily dump.

It's insidious, and greatly diminishes a POTUS powers by deflection to unsubstantiated what are essentially rumors.

The best word i can think of is it's"undermining"
Click to expand...

You need to at least start considering the possibility that Trump undermines himself. With his carelessness, his tweets & his incompetence.

I know executives who could clamp down on what's happening easily. They could take control of the message. Trump is going about things in entirely the wrong way. And that's the reason the coverage is as it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top