The article isn’t about Trump banning anything. Obama didn’t do anything first, nor have I claimed that. This an article about a career bureaucrat doing what I experienced career bureaucrats doing when I helped them draft budget language. This is not about public-facing documents, scientific publications, or WH funding priorities. There is nothing terribly controversial to “buy” here.
I stated what I think about the article and why. I am asking SteveG1 to do us all the same courtesy so that we can find out what he thinks about the article and why, to see if he is similar ignorant about both the contents of the article and the United States budget process as you are, or if he has some additional information or interpretation that is worth considering.
The NYT is reporting that Ruken’s understanding is correct. This was a strategy by mid-level career employees (i.e., most likely Democrats) with regard to internal budget requests. It has nothing to do with scientific discourse or communications with the public, and it was not an action by the Trump administration.
Now this does not mean that the Turmp administration isn’t anti-science. In fact it looks like CDC employees think it is, hence the list.
But of course the NYT folks and I could both be wrong. I just haven’t seen sufficient evidence to dismiss this as anything other than expected behavior from competent employees who care about their science.
Sorry, Trump administration. And you’re doing little more than playing word games if you’re going to say both “I was involved in very similar discussions when Obama was president” and “Obama didn’t do anything first, nor have I claimed that.”
All he did was say that he didn’t believe what you were saying and instead of providing him with some sort of cite, you’re calling him and me ignorant.
Just piling on the fallacies here, aren’t you. Ad hominem this time. You still haven’t shown anything, you’re just attacking people.
How, precisely, have you decided that I’m ignorant about the United States budget process? I don’t think I’ve ever been part of conversation about it on this board.
“The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.”
So the head of HHS is telling his minions not to use these words in budget proposals. Stupid and silly but they’re not saying you can never say these words at the CDC. They can use these words anywhere they like except in budget requests. Its one thing to slap their wrist for their anti-gun bas, its another thing to tell an organization full of scientists that they can’t use science as a crutch for their arguments for funding.
The notion seems to be that this will de-politicize the CDC when in fact it is doing the opposite.
EVERY approved medical treatment is “evidence based”. “Evidence based” is the cornerstone of the CDC’s mission. Telling them they can’t refer to that, even in budget requests, is like putting Rick Perry in charge of the EPA.
Do they have to submit their budget requests to a bunch of fundamentalists? Does the CDC have to satisfy some kind of religious test going forward?
I get that there is a bone fide Fake News angle to the story. But the part of it that Is real still strikes me as sheer absurdity. If not evidence, on what is the CDC to pretend their work is based? And when has pretending ever led to valid conclusions?
Why did you link to the personal blog of someone who states they don’t get involved in political stuff (despite the contradictory evidence of this very llink), instead of linking to the actual NYT article directly?
The article itself is not nearly as clear as those here make it sound. Some people involved are suggesting it might be about trying to get a budget passed. But other people who should know about this sort of thing if it is standard practice are appalled by it. People actually at the C.D.C. apparently are worried about it and whether it means they can’t do proper science.
In fact, the article concludes with people saying it may never actually be clear exactly where it came from. That’s hardly concluding that it was definitely self-censorship.
Exactly, and this was my thought from the beginning. I’ve given Congressional budget briefings, and there’s an art to it. One CAN be completely honest and accurate while making careful choices with regard to wording and priority of placement. It’s a matter of protecting the work and the livelihood of one’s fellows.
Conversely, one can also word things in such a way as to place a failing project on the chopping block. It’s common practice to do this when you know budget short falls will necessitate a change somewhere.
Clearly a seasoned bureaucrat tried to give some excellent advice which was misunderstood. Seasoned bureaucrats have their place, and are extremely useful at times like these.
I’m betting the people who got up in arms about it were Fox News fans.
You have to season those bureaucrats thoroughly, otherwise they are tough and stringy. I suggest complete submersion in a brine solution for 24 hours, minimum.
“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.” – George Orwell, 1984
