Comments on: “Medaling” with Free Speech at the Olympics http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/medaling-with-free-speech-at-the-olympics/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:13:54 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: john andrews http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/medaling-with-free-speech-at-the-olympics/#comment-26322 john andrews Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:49:00 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/?p=2505#comment-26322 But notice he said it with a smile on his face, showing that not even he missed the irony. But notice he said it with a smile on his face, showing that not even he missed the irony.

]]> By: Donald Hawkins http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/medaling-with-free-speech-at-the-olympics/#comment-26296 Donald Hawkins Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:02:51 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/?p=2505#comment-26296 DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah. And that’s another strange thing, because they don’t even admit that it’s going to the White House. You know, it goes to NASA headquarters, and then it sort of disappears for a couple weeks. And where is it? Well, it’s very often at the White House, and I mentioned that. And now, they tried not to make that known, you know? And that’s, again, something that’s very inappropriate, in my opinion. And again, it’s happened in both administrations. DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the point is that scientists should be able to give the results of their science. And this—both in the case of testimony to Congress and in science that is presented to the public through the media, it makes no sense that it should be censored by the White House before the scientist is able to speak. I mean, what is the rationale by which the White House can review and change testimony to Congress before it’s given? I mean, that’s—there’s no rationale. And our democracy assumes that the public and Congress is well informed. The story that I was told when I was asked, why do I have to have my testimony reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House before it’s given to Congress, and they said, “Well, your testimony needs to be consistent with the President’s budget.” I mean, it doesn’t make sense. it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah. And that’s another strange thing, because they don’t even admit that it’s going to the White House. You know, it goes to NASA headquarters, and then it sort of disappears for a couple weeks. And where is it? Well, it’s very often at the White House, and I mentioned that. And now, they tried not to make that known, you know? And that’s, again, something that’s very inappropriate, in my opinion. And again, it’s happened in both administrations.

DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the point is that scientists should be able to give the results of their science. And this—both in the case of testimony to Congress and in science that is presented to the public through the media, it makes no sense that it should be censored by the White House before the scientist is able to speak. I mean, what is the rationale by which the White House can review and change testimony to Congress before it’s given? I mean, that’s—there’s no rationale. And our democracy assumes that the public and Congress is well informed.

The story that I was told when I was asked, why do I have to have my testimony reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House before it’s given to Congress, and they said, “Well, your testimony needs to be consistent with the President’s budget.” I mean, it doesn’t make sense.

it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t make sense

]]>