Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
On President Obama's very first day in office he pledged that his would be the most transparent administration ever. He issued an executive order telling federal agency and department heads to change their ways when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests and err on the side of transparency rather than secrecy. And he was particularly adamant about the public knowing about government officials meeting with lobbyists. In fact, in his State of the Union address last week he said:
Because you deserve to know when your elected officials are meeting with lobbyists, I ask Congress to do what the White House has already done: put that information online.
The rhetoric sounds great. The reality isn't matching up. Right now, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in the process of making a decision on whether to greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline, which will carry highly polluting tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada all the way to Houston, Texas. And it just so happens that the deputy national campaign manager of her 2008 presidential campaign is now the chief lobbyist for TransCanada, the oil company that is proposing the pipeline.
A group of environmental groups filed a FOIA request for all communications on the subject between Clinton and Paul Elliott, her campaign manager turned lobbyist. The State Department rejected it. Those groups have now filed an appeal of that rejection, which will almost certainly be ignored (under FOIA law, no answer means a rejection of the appeal), forcing the issue into court.
But if the Obama administration actually meant what it says about transparency, they wouldn't have to.
Politics
Comments
During the 2008 election my apartment became a call center for Obama's campaign. We'd have up to 15 people on their cell phones, some of the sitting on the stairs leading up to the second floor apartment making calls off moveon.org call sheets that were coming out of two laser printers and a slew of laptops in here. We were a mini campaign headquarters.
I know wish I had spent all that time more productively.
Come 2012 I'm going to be taking a vacation with my motorcycle.
Fuck the Democrats. Bunch of spineless losers.
Posted by: Skip | February 3, 2011 10:24 AM
Hey Man, if no one wanted oil from the tar sands, we wouldn't go dig it up (Albertan-Canadian here).
People need to get their oil from somewhere, and no one has to prop up any vicious dictators to get Canadian oil to the US. It may pollute more, but it at least isn't mixed equal parts with blood.
The real issue here is the FOIA - not which one of the various shitty options for getting oil it pertains to
Posted by: Ursula | February 3, 2011 10:31 AM
As I recall, one of Obama's first meetings as president was behind CLOSED DOORS with representatives of the pharma industry, after which her performed one of his first cave-ins. To the pharma industry. And we still don't know what went on!
That's transparency?
My belief has turned to bleh. My hope for change has turned to cynicism.
Posted by: Reverend Rodney | February 3, 2011 10:33 AM
A challenge for you, Ed: name a more transparent administration than Obama's.
It's not his fault the bar is set so very low.
Posted by: mad the swine | February 3, 2011 10:34 AM
Ed's blog post title:
From my totally non-empirical perspective they are. Mostly because of technology advances our society has government exploiting rather than the marginal political will of this Administration vs. others.
In addition, I think this Administration has made advances in transparency beyond previous administrations as a conscious approach to government by exploiting this technology. I've used recover.gov and the White House blog numerous times to research a topic. In fairness to the past government(s), I've also enjoyed Internet access to budgets, economic results, and even earmark spending by state or Congressmen prior to '08.
However we still encounter purposeful opaqueness where none should exist, but I'm not sure we can answer the question of this blog post with the population considered here. I know one mark against this President is the lack of access to the press that allows topics not on the front-burner of the collective MSM's mind yet still strategically important to get asked, civil rights, reacting to Republican denialism, budgetary reform from a wide context, a roadmap on managing healthcare costs, and WTF he was doing cutting social security taxes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 3, 2011 10:49 AM
Bush43.
Seriously. Based on FOIA responses/requests ratio, the Obama administration actually got worse than Shrub's.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | February 3, 2011 11:23 AM
Hi Ed,
I generally agree with you on most things and quite enjoy your blog. However, as a Canadian and an Albertan, I must take issue with your obviously loaded comment "...which will carry highly polluting tar sands oil...". Granted, the oil sands facilities are an environmental concern for all of us, especially Albertans and there is always room for improvement on that front, but you make it sound like we are the only country in the world that creates pollution extracting resources. I would love to see a pollution-free enrgy source, but that is not realistic in our lifetime. Your country's need for oil is the root cause of the Athabascan exploitation. The oil sands get shut down, where is your oil going to come from? If you think Saudi Arabia (or any oil exporting country) is an bastion of environmental responsibility, think again. If you think the US would be better off importing another two million barrels/day from the Middle East or Venezuela, please be our guest.
When the U.S. stops pumping out ten times the CO2 that Canada does and has even half of Canada's EH&S regulations or even comes close to Canada in general environmental performance, then you can come talk to us about how we utilize our resources. Until then, your welcome, and mind your own backyard.
Posted by: skeeter B | February 3, 2011 11:45 AM
skeeter,
Since the US has close to 10 times the population of Canada, if we're only pumping out 10 times as much CO2 then you're not actually performing any better. And according to this Union of Concerned Scientists chart, Canada is in fact only marginally better, pumping out 17.27 tons of CO2 per capita to the U.S.'s 19.18. Hardly cause for great boasting, when Japan, Germany, and the UK are around 10.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 11:51 AM
Ursula wrote:
I agree with you about the vicious dictators, but our tar sands oil (fellow Albertan here) isn't exactly blood-free. People may not get killed directly for it, but there are questions about how it's affecting the health of people in the region that need to be answered.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | February 3, 2011 12:07 PM
But I thought Harper was a vicious dictator?
Posted by: Devin Baillie | February 3, 2011 12:55 PM
re Albertan's arguments:
You're beginning to sound a bit like Colombian cocaine cowboys.
And bloodless? Only directly. That much more CO2 means that much human displacement, drought effects, possible resource wars etc. down the road.
Posted by: natural cynic | February 3, 2011 12:59 PM
@ James - You're right, as a developed western country we are right up there on a per capita basis. But it's not exactly analogous to compare us (or the US) to Europe and Japan as they are not "oil cultures", do not require the same use of transportation fleets and are very heavily taxed on gasoline.
My point was that Canada is unfairly being targeted as the 'antichrist' of the world because of resource exploitation that any other country would just as readily exploit given the opportunity. The overall environmental cost of importing oil is equally as bad exteacting it from the oil sands. I'm all about protecting the environment, but I'm also a realist. Shutting the oil sands will never happen. I believe in taking politicians to task for being lenient on environmental regulations regarding any project, but especially that one.
It's a blight on the landscape to be sure, but is it really any different than enormous open-pit mines found all around the world? Is it the first place to use tailings ponds? Remember that the oil sand outcrop at surface and have been leaching hydropcarbons into the Athabasca River for thousands of years. As has the Mississippi Delta and countless other natural seeps world wide.
Every energy source has a cost associated with it.
p.s. My apologies on turning this FOI into a discussion on the oil sands!
Posted by: skeeter B | February 3, 2011 1:08 PM
Gerald Ford's, of course. He pardoned Nixon openly, something which most of our so-called "leaders" would be afraid of doing today.
Posted by: Blotto von Bismarck | February 3, 2011 2:11 PM
In any reasonable world that is still making some use of fossil fuels, Canada will be a very high polluter per capita (relatively), simply due to heating needs.
And so would various island nations, due to imports.
Not that this is terribly relevant to Ed's point, which I, unfortunately, agree with.
I donated money to the Obama campaign back during the primaries, because he had stated a pro-transparency stance, and Hillary hadn't.
He's getting my vote in 2012 due to being better than any alternative the GOP is even going to spend two seconds looking at, but that's all he's getting.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | February 3, 2011 3:40 PM
Michael Ralston,
With all due respect, you ought not even give him your vote for one simple reason: When he wins, he'll believe that he's back in office because folks have liked what he's done so far, so he ought to stay the course.
The best plan for someone who believes that Obama should be reelected* is to explain to him that he has your vote if he straightens up, but you're willing to vote for Palin if Obama continues to flop on his back with his legs in the air.
*I do not, but I'm still optimisitic enough to believe that -someday- the American electoral process will produce a candidate worthy of my hard-earned vote.
Posted by: waggawiglefan | February 3, 2011 4:59 PM
I would think that being the most transparent administration ever would be a bit like being the most tolerant member of the K.K.K
Posted by: Paen | February 3, 2011 5:04 PM
As someone tangentially related to publishing gov't data I can say this: since this Administration said "be transparent" (and I'll assume a number of new publication laws), many agencies are trying to put their data out there. The problem seems to be that for many agencies and organizations (federal and state), this whole "Internet" thing is new and confusing. For example, the State of Washington is required to publish the salaries of state employees. And they do. As a text list on a web page in super basic HTML. Trying to read it, let alone search, makes your eyes water. But they are trying.
Posted by: JustaTech | February 3, 2011 6:07 PM
Though I'll undoubtedly vote for Obama again in 2012 - what real alternative is there. Still I can say 2 things. First, read Matt Taibbi's new book or columns and seriously ask the question - Is Obama a socialist - more likely he is an anti-socialist, moderate republican based on his actions (backroom deals with pharmaceutical companies, banks etc with different bills) not his rhetoric. Second, this follows Obama actually is more like Woody Allen's Zelig - ever changeable and adaptable to whatever works. The hope and change stuff was just a Rorschach test to whatever demographic he was trying to appeal to. Am I being just a little harsh - yes. But is it far from the truth - dissapointing but no. There hasn't been a real liberal in the Whitehouse since LBJ.
Posted by: mikeyB | February 3, 2011 7:12 PM
James Hanley "Since the US has close to 10 times the population of Canada, if we're only pumping out 10 times as much CO2 then you're not actually performing any better. And according to this Union of Concerned Scientists chart, Canada is in fact only marginally better, pumping out 17.27 tons of CO2 per capita to the U.S.'s 19.18. Hardly cause for great boasting, when Japan, Germany, and the UK are around 10."
To be fair, most of the difference between the Canucks and Japan is because of their giant bonfire that keeps away the Sasquatch. I saw what happened when the blaze died down and it got in to Fort McMurray. It messed up the Canadian Tire and Tim Hortons there real bad. Motomaster batteries and Mastercraft tools scattered among the shredded Canadian Tire money...dazed truckers and office workers stumbling around, dipping their Timbits in spilled double-doubles...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 3, 2011 9:28 PM
James Hanley:
I see little value in looking at per capita rates of greenhouse gas emissions. From a responsibility perspective the only compelling argument I've encountered is the cumulative amount of emissions per country and from a goal-seeking scenario the total amount of emissions emitted per annum and projected to emit per annum. From this perspective it is the U.K., Japan, Germany and especially the U.S. which has the responsibility for leading an effort and disproportionately bearing the costs. China and the U.S. are the countries with the biggest opportunities to exploit in reducing emissions.
China's argument that they didn't create the mess we're entering now and therefore shouldn't suffer in mitigation efforts equal to their current emission rate resonates for anyone concerned with fair play and minimizing the culpable avoiding the costs of their actions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 3, 2011 10:05 PM
MO,
Fortunately Timmies is incorporated in the U.S., and has located an outlet 5 blocks from my house (for my kids, it ain't Sunday morning without Timbits), so I think you can call off the fires. We'll preserve the Tim Horton's legacy for you.
As for "spilled double-doubles," who do you think you're trying to fool? There aren't any In-n-Out Burgers up on the tundra.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 10:11 PM
James Hanley "Since the US has close to 10 times the population of Canada, if we're only pumping out 10 times as much CO2 then you're not actually performing any better. And according to this Union of Concerned Scientists chart, Canada is in fact only marginally better, pumping out 17.27 tons of CO2 per capita to the U.S.'s 19.18. Hardly cause for great boasting, when Japan, Germany, and the UK are around 10."
To be fair, most of the difference between the Canucks and Japan is because of their giant bonfire that keeps away the Sasquatch. I saw what happened when the blaze died down and it got in to Fort McMurray. It messed up the Canadian Tire and Tim Hortons there real bad. Motomaster batteries and Mastercraft tools scattered among the shredded Canadian Tire money...dazed truckers and office workers stumbling around, dipping their Timbits in spilled double-doubles...
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 3, 2011 10:12 PM
Twice? That's too much!
James Hanley, "double double" is Canadian for "coffee".
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 3, 2011 10:15 PM
Michael,
Yeah, the U.S. can do more to reduce CO2 emissions than Canada, because our production is greater in absolute numbers. Imagine we do that and Canada makes no moves. CO2 production declines (or at least the rate of growth declines), and the U.S. becomes poorer while Canada free rides on our efforts.
OK, that's fine if we're actually talking about effective policies. But if we're making moral judgments, as skeeterB did, then it's not quite so fine.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 10:16 PM
skeeterB,
Sorry, I didn't notice your second comment earlier. It's cool--I'm actually sort of relieved that Canada's not much better than us per capita. You guys are so good at looking down upon us, it's nice to have at least one thing where we don't need to suffer the shame.
And for what it's worth, I think Canadians are being quite rational in exploiting the tar sands. I'm not real thrilled about the idea of a pipeline across the U.S., though.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 10:19 PM
MO,
If I understand your strange and mysterious culture correctly, "double double" refers to your unclean practice of mixing milk and sugar with your sacred coffee? Heathens, the lot of you.
Now if you ever have a chance to have a holy and sacred In-n-Out Burger--the platonic ideal of the fast food hamburger--you will be converted to the true faith of the double-double.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 10:25 PM
James Hanley, to be fair, politically on the federal level Canada's environmental direction has been hi-jacked by the Canadian version*1 of the loons that did the same to the USA. (Also, Alberta*2 is Canada's Texas. And "double double" is two cream/two sugar)
*1. Wingnuttis Canadianus
*2. Wingnuttis Canadianus Westernus
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 3, 2011 10:43 PM
(Note to self: preview)
James Hanley, to be fair, politically on the federal level Canada's environmental direction has been hi-jacked by the Canadian version*1 of the loons that did the same to the USA. (Also, Alberta*2 is Canada's Texas. And "double double" is two cream/two sugar)
*1. Wingnuttis Canadianus
*2. Wingnuttis Canadianus Westernus
Posted by: Modusoperandi | February 3, 2011 10:44 PM
waggawiglefan said:
"With all due respect, you ought not even give him your vote for one simple reason: When he wins, he'll believe that he's back in office because folks have liked what he's done so far, so he ought to stay the course."
That's a really bad reason unless you care more about you fantasy world in which ideals mean anything than about the improvement of this country. If Transparency means anything to you, Obama should be the obvious choice. Not to get all Machiavelli on you, but when faced with a choice between two evils, choosing the lesser of those is not only morally correct, it's morally necessary.
"The best plan for someone who believes that Obama should be reelected* is to explain to him that he has your vote if he straightens up, but you're willing to vote for Palin if Obama continues to flop on his back with his legs in the air."
Yes, because when Obama reads you hand-written, tear stained note I'm sure he'll smack himself on the forehead and change everyone of his policies. I'm going to try and be as nice as possible in explaining something to you, but I apologize if I fail.
The world doesn't revolve you and your ideals. Period. It never will. What you consider to be good and bad is one opinion of 300+ million Americans who seldom agree on anything. Even if your opinion was somehow brought up to Obama and he agreed with everything you think, the government bureaucracy doesn't just change things. Obama has made set a decent list of policy changes for transparency which are fairly ambitious and also entirely unlikely to happen during his presidency. Our government is large enough that major change takes quite a few years and lots and lots of effort. Since the President a a few other things he must attend to, like two wars and a depression and an insane Political opposition and a incompetent congress,not everything can get done in a day.
I want to point out that I'm not defending Obama's transparency record. In many ways it appears he has not put sufficient time and effort into the task. But that's not an excuse to be a child. Your vote is your single power you have, so if you decide not to vote and Palin wins? Well, there is a saying about good people doing nothing and where that ends up.
Posted by: Tamarron | February 3, 2011 10:49 PM
James - Don't go the HK. There they ask you if you want your coffe hot or cold. If cold, it's served strong and in a milkshake glass, mixed with generous amounts of condensed milk! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2011 10:57 PM
Horrors! As I said on another thread, there are so many more ways to do things wrong than to do them right.
By the way, Dingo, I was just thinking about you.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2011 11:04 PM
http://coffeeonlinemagazine.com/instant-coffee/
Apparently "Instant coffee has been a topic of controversy for decades." I did not know that. I hope they don't get "the vapors" and have fainting spells or whatnot with their delicate constitutions. Even Scarlett O'Hara, the biggest drama queen in history, made the best of hard times. For crying out loud.
Posted by: 386sx | February 3, 2011 11:07 PM
James - Are you aware that the 'Thorpedo' is going for a come-back in the 2012 Olympics? Perhaps Eric Bana could give him some tips (if he not starring in too many American movies, that is)*.
Re: CO2 emissions. Clearly all the US has to do to reduce emissions (by ≈39.5%) is invade Mexico**. Then the US per capita emissions would be only 11.61, problem solved. Right? :) - Dingo
-----
* Why is it that Americans star in frat-boy 'comedies', but when you want something other than mugging and telegraphing, Hollywood hires English or Australians?
** We could beat you by invading Indonesia (or vice-versa) and going down to 11.075 (down ≈46.8%). Or perhaps both invasions could take place that would make the greenhouse problem so much better.
Posted by: DingoJack | February 3, 2011 11:43 PM
I don't what everyone is getting all "uppity" about. I could go all day on a baloney sandwich and a glass of water. "It all goes to the same place" is what my father tells me, as he's smooshing his mashed potatoes and apple sauce and chicken and gravy all together.
Posted by: 386sx | February 4, 2011 12:16 AM
The Obama administration is transparently establishmentarian.
What else do you need to see?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2011 12:59 PM
Pierce - antidisestablishmentarianism? :) - Dingo
----
The second time I've got to use this word on this nlog! FTW!!!
Posted by: DingoJack | February 4, 2011 1:14 PM
DingoJack @ # 36 - Congratulations! (But aren't your prefixes a double negative, leading us back to the same situation only more convoluted? Oh, never mind - that does describe the present situation better...)
... on this nlog!?
C'mon, if you're going to coin new intertubes vernacular, the least you can do is post your neologisms on urbandictionary.com.
Or do you write your comments first on a typewriter, then scan them and run them through OCR before uploading?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2011 1:26 PM
DJ @30 -
I actually used to have a Thai coffeemaker, the one that sits in the top of the glass, slow dripping coffee over the ice and sweetened condense milk. That style of coffee is also what inspired me to make coffee fudge (no chocolate, just wicked strong coffee for the base), which works really well. I subsequently discovered that cold-pressed coffee works better than Thai with the sweetened condensed milk. It's great because you don't have to dilute the coffee concentrate as much when you use sweetened condensed milk - the next best thing to shooting up coffee (at least I suspect it is, I honestly haven't tried shooting coffee - probably the only sort of coffee I haven't tried).
386sx @34 -
That actually explains a lot about you. While I will take instant when the need arises, I am a hardcore fucking snob about my coffee. I can deal with drinking swill, but I draw the line at making it. If I manage to fuck up a batch of coffee, I will dump it and start over - especially if I am making coffee for guests. That said, most fo the time I make cold-pressed coffee (mainly because it contains less of the volatile oils) and it is virtually impossible to fuck that up - though you can fuck up how you serve the concentrate.
As for other foods, I will eat virtually any swill set in front of me (though I have my limits), but refuse to make shit food. I am perfectly capable of making ramen noodles, a tin of sardines and creamed corn work - as long as I have a few basic spices. I know that I can make that one specifically, because I had to make that work once. As Ed has said on occasion - though for different reasons, I learned to cook in self-defense. Ed because of the bizarre food our dad apparently used to make, me because our dad can't eat most spices - so my mother cooks incredibly bland foods.
James @24 & 26 -
I have wondered on occasion, if it would be possible to distill fuel from my coffee. I am quite certain that it would be a very clean fuel.
As for milk and sugar in the coffee - it really depends how you do it. For instance, when using sweetened condensed milk you use a very strong brew (I mean something close to the consistency of syrup - before any sugary substance is added) and end up with a beverage that is not unlike cold cocoa. When brewing a high altitude Guatemalan that's fresh roasted, a splash of whole milk sets the flavor off beautifully. Though if you have that privilege, you should taste some sans milk first. If you need a particularly hard jolt in the morning (or throughout the day), putting a tablespoon or so of raw cane sugar (or evaporated cane juice) into cold-pressed concentrate and taking it undiluted is fucking great - but you absolutely need to add that sugar. Cold-pressed concentrate makes espresso taste like the brown water they serve at shitty gas stations. Likewise, sweetened goat's milk is a treat in medium/light roasted Columbian coffee, while a touch of refined sugar is wonderful in a uber-dark roast, high-altitude volcano grown coffee (Jamaican Blue Mountain is from such an evironment, there are cheaper alternatives from exactly the same sort of environments).
While I am all about good coffee and eschew cream/milk and sugar as a matter of course, there are circumstances that call for it. And believe me, I tend to take my coffee rather seriously. I used to roast me own - ironically until I moved to Portland and could no longer find relatively inexpensive green coffee. It averaged $2.56 per pound in Lansing (1# green = abt 3/4# roasted), costing between $8.95 and $17# in Portland. It cost a lot more to get it green than it did roasted...Anyhow, suffice to say I like good coffee and know how to do good coffee and still find uses for sugars and dairy products in my coffee endeavors.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 4, 2011 2:29 PM
Somewhere around chapter three, it should be noted that all children under the age of puberty, plus 144,000 Jewish virgins, have mysteriously vanished at exactly the same time.
That should provide a classic lit'ry allusion for devotees of advanced thriller fiction - especially since no other changes in the world or the plot need occur in consequence. That way we can be sure no segment of the reading market is left behind.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2011 10:34 PM
Oops - 'scuze me, everybody, please. I was certain the latest Pharyngula thread was on my screen when I clicked that "Post" button...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 4, 2011 10:38 PM
Pierce - 144,000 Jewish Virgins* for a pound of coffee? Doesn't sound like good deal to me. ;)
Duwayne - I was pretty happy when I bought 2Kg (ca. 4.4lbs) of coffee for $30. That's arund US$6.667/lb, roasted and ground. - Dingo
-----
* Where did they find such a thing? [Yes, I am joking] :D
Posted by: DingoJack | February 4, 2011 11:45 PM
Pierce -
I really wish you hadn't provided your followup comment. I was confused until I read it, but very amused by the implication.
DJ -
I am actually rather used to buying tea by the kilo, so I actually knew the exchange to the idiotic U.S. American standard - though that is about the only one I know well. I am sad though, that coffee that is bereft of most of it's flavor costs so much there.
That is kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from being in Jamaica. I had a boss who goes bi-annually (he and his wife may retire there) and he always brought back green bean Blue Mountain, which he would procure for abt $5#. That, and he would buy a select Appleton rum that doesn't get exported - a case at a time. Mind you, I'm not a fan of rum in general, but I loved using that for rum and cokes, hold the coke.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 5, 2011 7:12 AM