More Politics vs. ScienceFollow

Do you want 100% of either serving political agendas or objective agendas in their field? How it should be is how it is--a mixture of those two agendas, balanced for the greater good of the country and the vision of the party/ideology in charge.

And we're allowed to criticize this balance and each administration's decisions and level of autonomy of appointees.

The committee serves a purpose in adding to the criticism of questionable and idiotic actions by the Bush Administration. But I don't think it serves a purpose in advancing a change in how appointees are allowed to operate.

There's little in the US Code related to the autonomy of the SG compared to the goals of his bosses. Citing generic job descriptions is irrelevant.

(Personally I think SGs are far too stifled, disagreed strongly with Elders' firing, and disagree with how Carmona was handled. But it's not "wrong" in any objective sense of politics/government operation.)

In your opinion their agenda runs contrary to the public good (from a medical standpoint). Your opinion is not the only one in this country. Your opinion should not set all the standards by which our appointed and elected officials disseminate information.

The Surgeon General's field of duty isn't any more objectively simple than whether the US should war with a particular country, or apply/remove trade sanctions on another. In all cases information can be selectively chosen and applied. When it's overt we have committees to oversee such things and comment on them or foment actual process change, but the original "offense" is not wrong in regards to typical government operation. If you think it should be wrong, then lobby Congress to enact new laws, or the government to change to an oligarchy. Or pick individual offenses such as lying to Congress that are actually illegal. Until then, it's NOT WRONG according to how our government is allowed to operate.

And he got a chance now to voice that opinion (and could've voiced that opinion at any time during his tenure, to something called "the media"). What's the problem?

Wait, is this how some people see our hierarchy:

1. Surgeon General's opinion
2. Congressional committee
3. Surgeon General's job description as written by an office clerk
4. United States Constitution
6 (tie). President of the United States
6 (tie). Congress
6 (tie). Supreme Court
7. United States Code


Edited, Jul 12th 2007 2:09am by Palpitus

Anyone who views the disposition of fetuses as a part of the public good would agree that the issue is more complex than citing a couple of reports. Various contraceptive success rates mean absolutely nothing to someone who is opposed to any non-abstinence contraception. A health program that encourages not using contraception is not ineffective to such people. Nor is it against thier personal opinion of public good.

But we shouldn't be arguing these specifics at all. It doesn't matter what issue is in question, whether an administration chooses to influence its officers to downplay/uplay contraception, war, ************* or marijuana usage. It's each administration's prerogative to do so, and each society under those administrations to look at other studies that are readily available and form their own opinions. Each Congress' to from committees as have been formed to debate such issues of debatable influence, and attempt if they wish to give all facts equal standing.

And it's every Surgeon General's prerogative to show some balls and state their facts despite pressure and face firing, or to sit there silently until not given tenure and then disclose about how they were suppressed.

I don't think we'll come to any good end here. But it seems to me you're confusing your ideal of what a government official should say, with what 200+ years of government actually allows administrations to do. I haven't seen you advocating a Constitutional Amendment or change in laws, so it seems you just think no administrations should apply pressure to their employees based on ideology, or that all Surgeon Generals should be a fourth estate of government. And that without anything legal to actually force them to. Kind of naive (if that's your position, not trying to strawman but it appears to be.)

Anyone who views the disposition of fetuses as part of the public good should, by definition, be very interested in what methods of education most affect whether or not fetuses are made. Having valid and accurate success rates for contraceptives can only benefit a scientifically minded discussion on the worth of abstinence-only programs. Note that I originally said "from a medical standpoint"; someone's personal beliefs as to whether or not kids should fuck is irrelevent to the value of accurate data when printing up pamphlets.I haven't advocated any solution thus far. First, we'd have to agree that there is a problem. You have no issue with the government withholding, ignoring & subverting facts when creating its health policies because "That's what the government does", so we seem to be at an impass well before the "What do we do about it?" stage.Much like your role as blind apologist.

Nice conspiracy theory but, as previously mentioned, the GAO has already recorded a history of these issues. It's not as if the old SG is making them from whole cloth.

I'm having a hard time working up any righteous indignation over this story. The guy wasn't reappointed and is likely a bit bitter. The one example of 'muzzling' given in the linked article is, imo, pretty minor and not necessarily keeping important scientific health information from the country.

I've also heard some other stuff that has been dug up since this story broke, but still, I don't see this as a great example of the administration trying to push or smush any political agenda through a public health advisor.

The 'agenda of the party' and the 'general good' do not have to be mutually exclusive though, they may seem to be at odds depending on your point of view.

This whole story just kinda makes me feel like the left may be working a bit too hard trying to find and air the current administrations dirty laundry. Why make a stink about dirty laundry when the smoking gun is sitting there on the coffee table?

actaully its been all week, the old SG's were actaully before congress as part of the hearings on the new SG. Something that cast a whole diferent light on the OP news item. (also something the the Chicago Tribune failed to mention).

However the new guy (James Holsinger Jr.) is up before congress today and tomorrow. Should be interesting.

Do you not understand the meaning of the term "ineffective"? Teaching abstinence is not effective: it does not work. It has no effect. In some instances there is a negative effect.

You're right, though, in one regard: opinions don't stack well against facts.

True. Adult stem cell research gets around $300mil annually from the NIH.Again, true. Although it's applications haven't necessarily been towards the same conditions most often brought up in ESC debates.As I mentioned, Clinton approved NIH funding guidelines for ESC however Bush froze them before they were activated. Prior to that, ESC didn't exist as a science so it's kind of like saying no previous administration tackled stealing movies via BitTorrent. I'll also add that the administration does allow funding for research on 31 selected lines of ESCs, cultivated prior to 2001. However these strains are tainted with murine proteins and it's generally agreed that they are not suitable for therapies. Even research on them is questionable since, for any given finding, you don't know if a "pure" human ESC would act the same way.That is the general consensus in the research fields, yes. there's multiple reasons for this but the base answer is "yes".Indeed. He believes that it is immoral.There's a potential for anything if you want to be vague enough. Which quagmires are you speaking of specifically? The previously passed (and vetoed) bills opening up federal funding have been pretty explicit regarding which cells may be used (ones produced through IVF procedures and willingly donated for research with the consent of the parents).

Edited, Jul 12th 2007 2:21pm by Jophiel

It's ok Joph. Good Christians don't need to worry because the apocalypse is nigh. Why spend all that money on climate change if only heathens and the meek are going to inherit it. I mean, I'm all for generosity but going out of my way to help someone is the last thing I want to do.

BTW - The Government should never tell people about contraception. No one should ever have sex ... or dance.

Sorry just trying to get in a left field response before Gblahji blows this conversation up.

Edited, Jul 12th 2007 4:38pm by baelnic

It also wasn't the point I was making. So kudos on proving yourself right on your own point, I guess.Who said I expected the government not to do anything based on my feelings? I said that it occured and that I felt that it wasn't in the public good. This strange Pollyanna fascination of yours is your own strawman, not mine. I mean, if the best you have to contribute is some take on the old & tired "All politicians are corrupt so duh!" canard, you didn't even really need to post.More specifically, it was that the government censoring and twisting science in order to press an agenda based on falsified data is wrong.I never once said that the administration had done anything illegal. Good lord, man. Your entire post is a bunch of self-righteous crap born entirely from your own imagination or something. My mention of the SG's job was directly in response to Losttroll's mistaken claim that the SG's job wasn't to advocate health issues. Funnily enough, for as much as you and he try to diminish and mock the statements on the SG's website, neither of you have come up with anything remotely resembling a more official statement of his duties. Finally, what other administrations have done isn't relevent to whether or not this administration's actions were justified and in the best interests of the nation. Clinton or Reagan or FDR or whoever could have been printing HHS pamphlets saying to rub plutonium in your eyes and it wouldn't change the facets of this particular case.Well, stop pretending to feel that you have "an issue" with it then. You're much more noble saying "Yup, that's what they do!"