The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information \ by Christopher C. Horner

The Liberal War on Transparency: Confessions of a Freedom of Information \ Reviews

• 
  Glen Stott

  I took a very long time to read this book because I kept losing interest. Horner likes to write complicated, legalese, multi-clause sentences that go on in ways that make it nearly impossible for simple-minded people like me to decipher, or to even connect a subject to a predicate, making it too much of a chore to figure out the point he is trying, somewhat unsuccessfully, to convey, which causes me to lose interest by the time I have finally figured it out and determined that particular sentence wasn’t all that important to the overall discussion he was leading on that page of the manuscript anyway. He also uses speculation to make some of his points. All that being said; I trudged through it, and in the end, I rated it four stars. The book has a lot of important, well-documented information on how the government and the private institutions the government supports work to prevent citizens from finding out what they are up to. From secret mtngs w/ medical insurance and labor unions during the Obamacare process, to Fast and Furious, to Bengasi, to Climate Change and on, the Obama Administration has been least transparent administration ever. About the only thing we hear are the leaks of classified information that make Obama look good to his acolytes.
  
  The chapters on Climate Change were the most interesting to me because I did a lot of research over a period of about 10 years to decide for myself what it is all about. I am not a scientist, but I do have enough science in my background to feel the itchiness when someone is pulling the wool over my eyes. The thing about science is that it is subjective as much as it is objective. For example; if you put a thermometer in boiling water at sea level, it will show the water is 100° centigrade – that’s objective. The results can be obtained by anyone who uses an accurate thermometer. But when you want to take the temperature of the Earth, you have a very different situation. You have to make a subjective decision about how many points you will sample and where they will be located all around the Earth. Then, you have to create a mathematical model to evaluate the data you collect. In the end, you cannot verify your choice against a known temperature of the Earth. When talking about global warming, the debate cannot be over because the whole discussion is subjective. On one side you have opinionated scientists working for energy companies (opinionated because they are paid by energy companies that have a preferred result from the research), but on the other side you have opinionated scientists working for government and academia, which is supported by government, that also has a preferred result. (Note: true science is not a democratic endeavor, i.e. real scientific truth is not a question of consensus).
  
  Government scientists and scientists in academia who depend on government grants to pay for their experiments and their salaries and benefits sign an agreement that all the data and results they produce belong to the taxpayers. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) sets out the rules for dissemination of that data. How is it that the so-called consensus scientists spend so much of their time trying to keep that information from us? Even the highly touted Michael Mann, who gave us the infamous hockey stick graph when he was at the University of Virginia, spends vast amounts of time seeking ways of hiding the backup data for “The Cause.” When he came up with the hockey stick, the peer review was limited to those scientists that agreed with global warming. It took ten years of requests and law suits to finally get the data released to scientists that questioned the result, at which time, the graph was debunked.
  
  Yes, it’s true that oil companies have billions of dollars riding on the global warming debate. However, the political hacks and utopian promoting progressives have trillions of dollars of global wealth redistribution and the ability to subjugate the world population to their control at stake. It is cynical and totally UNscientific for the “consensus scientists” to hide their data and their work while claiming the debate is over. This book does a good job of bringing this into the open.
  
• 
  Cliff

  Unlike Power Grab, while this book has a clear point of view and strong opinions, this book is something different. Less an opinion piece and more a cataloging of the way Government is currently behaving concerning someone who wants transparency, what it means, and what it could mean.
  
  While it is politically controversial now, it will be difficult to deny historically, I believe, that the Obama Administration, far from being the "most transparent in history" is it bragged, is amongst the most secretive, and certainly one of the most willing to use its levers to punish its opponents. Yet this isn't about the IRS scandal (which wasn't public when this came out) or other obvious abuses so much as it is to what degree will the bureaucracy to go ensure decisions that are politically unpopular will remain coated in language that makes them appear to be something else entirely. The stiff resistance the author encountered, and the shenanigans pulled to slow him and others down (see: Lisa Jackson's fictitiously named government email account, Richard Windsor) is revealing and troubling. Keep in mind, if he's a criminal, he's a criminal for asking the government to obey the law it passed and has a duty to enforce, concerning the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
  
  The last part of the book is incredibly useful, describing how to use FOIA, both legally and practically. It was intended for use by a wide variety of people for a wide variety of reasons. I've never read a how-to guide that seems to be both entertaining and practical at the same time.
  
  Truth be told, you shouldn't need to agree with the author's political stances in order to appreciate his points about transparency and the kinds of resistance he's encountered being both wrong and probably illegal. In the highly charged political atmosphere of the day, that probably won't happen. But it should, honestly. And I think in 20 or 50 years, this book will probably be looked at with interest, both because of what happens, and what it hopes will happen because of it. I guess by then, we'll know.