Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

More Politics vs. ScienceFollow

#1 Jul 11 2007 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Chicago Tribune wrote:
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's first surgeon general testified Tuesday that his speeches were censored to match administration political positions and that he was prevented from giving the public accurate scientific information on issues such as stem cell research and teen pregnancy prevention.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried," Dr. Richard Carmona, who was surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. "The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation -- not the doctor of a political party."

Early in the Bush administration, when the issue of federal funding for stem cell research arose, Carmona said, he felt he could play an educational role by discussing the latest scientific research. Instead, he said, he was told to "stand down" because the White House had already decided to limit stem cell studies. He said administration appointees who reviewed his speech texts deleted references to stem cells.
[...]
Carmona's remarks were the latest from government scientists about what they say are administration efforts to control -- and sometimes distort -- scientific evidence to support policy decisions.

NASA scientists have complained of political pressure to tone down warnings about global warming. Dr. Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, recently dissented from the administration's position by saying its restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research were holding back progress.
Story

I once linked to a report detailing numerous occassions where science was being distorted or suppressed by the Bush administration in order to conform with their agenda but I believe this is the highest ranking person in the government/science community to testify about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jul 11 2007 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
When do we start the Witch Hunts? Its been quite awhile.
#3 Jul 11 2007 at 6:22 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Clinton did the same thing!

Right? I mean he must have.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#4 Jul 11 2007 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It does mention, at the end, that...
Quote:
Carmona testified with former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they had faced political interference on issues such as sexuality or drug use.
...but I don't know what Satcher's specific beefs were. The only transcripts of testimonies I can find from him are from 2000 and prior and they're all of rather benign nature.

Edited, Jul 11th 2007 9:36am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jul 11 2007 at 6:52 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Carmona testified with former Surgeons General C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations, respectively. They also told the committee that they had faced political interference on issues such as sexuality or drug use.


Well there you go, then.


but I don't know what Satcher's specific beefs were. The only transcripts of testimonies I can find from him are from 2000 and prior and they're all of rather benign nature.


Doesn't matter! Exactly the same. Just another case of Republicans being persecuted for things Democrats do all the time.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#6 Jul 11 2007 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
They also told the committee that they had faced political interference on issues such as sexuality


Oral sex is NOT "sexual relations".


Quote:
or drug use.


Inhaling doesn't count.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 Jul 11 2007 at 7:14 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
"The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation -- not the doctor of a political party."


Nice, except that he is a political appointee. He didn't get the job for being the best guy in the medical field.

Not only that but technicly due to being the head of (And holding the rank of Vice Admiral in) the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, he is actually subject to Uniform Code of Military Justice, if the president decides to declare that group a military force.

So while he may be right that his opinion was stiffled, exactly what was he expecting when he took the job? Free reign to say what ever he thought was best for the nation?


As far as Clinton, not sure what David Satcher's beef might have been but Clinton's first appointee, Joycelyn Elders, was asked to resign after makeing comments at an UN AIDS Confrence about encouraging ************ and its use among children as a means to control the transmission of STDs.

Most Surgeon Generals do use the post as a pulpit to preach what are often controversial (though usually sound) positions on medicine. Since they are however political appointees, those opinions reflect back on the administration so obviously the administration (any administration) is going to want to control that somewhat to stay in line with their political views.


Edit: David Satcher served till 2002 so his beef might have been with Bush as well. He also released a highly controversial report, The Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior. Lots of Cons didn't like it due to it being rather permisive of Homosexuality and Condom distribution in schools.

Edited, Jul 11th 2007 10:24am by Losttroll
#8 Jul 11 2007 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Losttroll wrote:
Nice, except that he is a political appointee. He didn't get the job for being the best guy in the medical field.
By that logic, all cabinet members and appointeed judges exist to serve the agendas of the party rather than the public interest in their field.

You may cynically claim that this is the case in practice, however it shouldn't be that way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jul 11 2007 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You may cynically claim that this is the case in practice, however it shouldn't be that way.

Whether it should or not isn't really the question. The fact of the mater is that the surgeon general is a politicaly appointed part of the executive branch, and while they do get alot of leeway (Dr. Richard Carmona is on record as saying smoking should be banned out right, and people should stay away from smokers)* what they say does reflect on the position and image of the president that appoints them, just like every other political appointee.

Which means that if the administration is trying to put together a message, and you want to say something exactly oposite, they are probably going to tell you to STFU. Thats part of the price of the position, if its too high a price to pay, you do not have to stay in that position and would then be free to criticize the administration at will. Case in point: Colin Powell.




*Nothing against a smoking ban myself, but there are some constitutional rights issues, and telling people to shun others based on a lifestyle choice is kinda harsh.
#10 Jul 11 2007 at 7:50 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
Whether it should or not isn't really the question.


Are you serious? It is precisely the question. Any judgment of ethics (or anything really) is based exactly on the premise that something is occuring that should be different than the way it is. If you accept things as they are, not because you agree with them (a good reason) but because you do not feel that the change of an institution is a worthwhile pursuit, then you really can't have any sort of prescription at all, about anything.
#11 Jul 11 2007 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Losttroll wrote:
Which means that if the administration is trying to put together a message, and you want to say something exactly oposite, they are probably going to tell you to STFU.


Except that the government should be not so partisan as to decide health issues on the basis of party politics.

I'd accept your justification if the subject matter was purely political, but something as straight-forward as stem-cell research? How can the government censor parts of his findings and present it as "research"?

Distorting scientific evidence to support policy decisions, which are then explained on the basis of "scientific studies", is completely hypocritical. Especially when the basis for those "policiy decisions" is some medieval interpretation of the Bible.



____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#12 Jul 11 2007 at 8:02 AM Rating: Decent
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
How can the government censor parts of his findings and present it as "research"?


Executive Privilege.
#13 Jul 11 2007 at 8:10 AM Rating: Default
So do you think, if the Secratary of Defense decided that the best policy in the middle east was to institute a scorched earth policy and wanted to present it to the American people, that:

1) the Administration should not try to stop him (or fire him)?

2) that the president should face no negative press or attacks due to the sec def's actions?

3) congress should have no reason to investigate what the hell the Sec Def is smoking since he has a right to speak his mind?

If you answered yes to any of these, congratulations, you are an idealistic twit, and have no idea what reality is like. Perhapes you missed the last several months where actions of several adminstration appointies or officials are being investigated by congress to determine what influence the white house had on them. (see DoJ Firings, Scooter Libby trial, Huricane Katrina relief, and just about anything else where the executive branch acted and someone in congress didn't agree).

The Commander in Chief is the guy that whether he said it, did it, or even knew about it, what ever his subordinates actions are, reflect on him.

#14 Jul 11 2007 at 8:14 AM Rating: Good
Losttroll wrote:
if the Secratary of Defense


End of the argument?

Seriously, how can you compare military planning with medical science?

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#15 Jul 11 2007 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Losttroll wrote:
So do you think, if the Secratary of Defense decided that the best policy in the middle east was to institute a scorched earth policy and wanted to present it to the American people...
Are you honestly comparing military planning to medical science?

Carmona's grief was that he was censored while trying to give "accurate scientific information" on politically sensitive issues. That is hardly the same thing as "I think maybe we should just nuke 'em all..."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Jul 11 2007 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

So do you think, if the Secratary of Defense


You're a fucking idiot.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Jul 11 2007 at 8:24 AM Rating: Default
because like it or not as soon as it enters a political playing field, image an opinion are greater than all. Saddly a significant portion of the US, looks at the bible for science lessons (and generally miss the most important moral lessons). These people also vote alot, so telling them they are wrong isn't exactly good politics. (And they don't all vote republican contrary to what people think).

The former SG could be dead on (I happen to think so) but the office of the president is a political one and if Bush, during his first term had gone along with the recomendation of the SG, and supported open stem cell research, he would have lost a noticeable chunk of his supporters come re-election time. Whether or not you think Bush loosing in 2004 would have been good, you have to assume that he was not actually trying to **** off his core voter base.
#18 Jul 11 2007 at 8:26 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
You're a ******* idiot.


Smiley: lol
#19 Jul 11 2007 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Losttroll wrote:
Quote:
You may cynically claim that this is the case in practice, however it shouldn't be that way.
Whether it should or not isn't really the question.
Of course it's the question. If the office has been reduced to "mouthpiece for the administration" then we don't even need a Surgeon General. Just have Tony Snow report on the administration's version of medical science.
Quote:
Which means that if the administration is trying to put together a message, and you want to say something exactly oposite, they are probably going to tell you to STFU. Thats part of the price of the position, if its too high a price to pay, you do not have to stay in that position and would then be free to criticize the administration at will.
Which is what is happening here. If the administration is ignoring science in lieu of an agenda which is actually harmful to the public (promoting pure abstinence to the exclusion of birth control education) then the public should certainly know about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Jul 11 2007 at 8:41 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
Which is what is happening here. If the administration is ignoring science in lieu of an agenda which is actually harmful to the public (promoting pure abstinence to the exclusion of birth control education) then the public should certainly know about it.


True, but do we really need congress having a hearing to determine that presidential administrations influence what their personel say!


Quote:
If the office has been reduced to "mouthpiece for the administration" then we don't even need a Surgeon General. Just have Tony Snow report on the administration's version of medical science.


That be great if it were not for the fact that the surgeon general actually has official duties, advocating public health issues is actually only an informal part of his job.

#21 Jul 11 2007 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Thanks, but I understand why Bush censored those findings.

But I also understand why people would think it's a sad joke when a government censors the findings of his SG because they runs contrary to the religious belief of religious litteralists.

And then produce a censored version they call "science".

In a country which is supposed to have gone through the whole Enlightenment period.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#22 Jul 11 2007 at 8:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Office of the Surgeon General's website, first statement under "About the Office..."
Quote:
The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury.
You don't think it's an issue when the primary function of the SG is crippled by politics?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Jul 11 2007 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll go one better and quote from the "Duties of the Surgeon General"
Quote:
Duties of the Surgeon General

* To protect and advance the health of the Nation through educating the public; advocating for effective disease prevention and health promotion programs and activities; and, provide a highly recognized symbol of national commitment to protecting and improving the public's health;
* To articulate scientifically based health policy analysis and advice to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the full range of critical public health, medical, and health system issues facing the Nation;
[...]
It would seem that "advocating public health issues" is the main role of the office, not an "informal part".

Edited, Jul 11th 2007 11:47am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Jul 11 2007 at 9:00 AM Rating: Default
TBH I put more weight on what an outside source says the SG does than what the SG says. But even if it his primary duties involved going door to door and telling each American what the best things they could do to lead a healtier life was, to think that he could do that in a political vacume is rediculous.

My point isn't that Bush was right to shush him, but rather that does congress need to waste time far better spent else where to determin that a political appointee was told what to do by his political bosses.


Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
In a country which is supposed to have gone through the whole Enlightenment period.


Hi, welcome to America, when the Enlightenment was going on, our forefathers jumped on a boat to get away from all of that "Heritical nonsense". Some people still haven't caught up.

#25 Jul 11 2007 at 9:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
TBH I put more weight on what an outside source says the SG does than what the SG says.


Pretty sure the Surgeon General didn't write his own job description.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#26 Jul 11 2007 at 9:24 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
Pretty sure the Surgeon General didn't write his own job description.


pretty sure that specific description is not down in any law books.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 189 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (189)