Slashdot Mirror
Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration
UniversalVM writes "The NY Times is reporting that the former Surgeon General in damaging testimony given to the senate describes how he was repeatedly censored by the Bush administration while speaking out about topics such as global warming, Stem cell research and so on. The effort was to 'water down' or weaken reports on important issues to suit Republican Agenda. He describes how he attended one meeting where Global Warming was being described as a 'Liberal Agenda' and being dismissed. He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result? He was never invited back."
Science should never bow to political pressures. Bush is guilty of this, obviously...This is hardly the first evidence.
But, especially in the area of health care, he's far from the only one who has gotten involved in a negative manner. Reagan tried to squash talk about AIDS, Clinton poo poo'd needle exchange programs, Bush Jr. jumped on everything just as part of the administrations obsession about managing information.
This stuff really needs to be separate and non-partisan...I am so freaking tired of this or that issue being batted around because of peoples inborn prejudices. A reputable expert with actual facts puts together a well thought-out, scientific report, and they get defunded, their speeches are edited and pre-reviewed. People from within the administration work to discredit their testimony. It's just ridiculous, and there is no way good science or good policy is coming out of it.
Hell, while they're at it, they should add a scientist general, and do the same damn thing. This stuff isn't about opinion. There is a right answer.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion.
From the article:
The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues.
That's quite a list of important issues he wasn't allowed to speak about. Things like this shouldn't be allowed to happen. It's the guy's job to discuss these things.
But why didn't he say anything BEFORE?! Same thing with Colin Powell and the Army generals. You should say something while you hold the office. Why don't I see that much dissension? It sucks losing your job, and the have people talk crap about you, and take away your karma, but you have to say and do what you think is right. Why wait to the point where you are so beaten down, you would offer your life to say what you feel (ie, revolt)?
Hey, I guess better late, tho.
I used to be furious that our soldiers were dying for a lie in the desert...then I learned that the military voted Bush in 2004...88%...and they kept spouting the usual lies on TV. I quit caring about them.
Then, amazingly, I just quit caring about Iraq. Nobody I care about is over there fighting that honor-less conflict.
*shrug*
Patriotism is for suckers. Citizenship is a business relationship, and that is IT! It's give and take. What can the country do for me, in return for my support.
Blar.
I will assume you mean our illicit drug laws (as opposed to the law about importing prescription meds which I largely agree with).
I have to think that if most illegal drugs were treated like alcohol (specifically relating to public intoxication, DUI, coming to work drunk earns a pink slip) then the black market economy would collapse (a good thing), and we could focus on treatment for those who want it (a good thing), and better enforce the few remaining drugs that are genuinely bad. While I personally would tan my kids' hides if I caught them doing X or speed (and related) I see that as my right (and responsibility) as a parent.
Back on topic though,
I am really saddened by my government's actions, and it's not really the president's fault (sure he's complicit), it is our system's fault. If either we had both parties agree that social support programs were necessary and the only difference of opinion was how to implement the programs, or if both parties were focused on private charity and support being the way to go, this country would be vastly improved. Fact is, that career politicians look after their career first and the public second. That is the root of the problem. One of my co-workers said he felt that every term in office should be followed by a term in jail, I'm almost inclined to agree.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
And few western countries have ingrained jingoism into the mentality of their society as the US has. Nowhere else will you see people with flags on their lawn, will you have mandatory recitations of the greatness of the country in all the schools and all social activities, etc. For a large number of the US population, there is just the US and some kind of vague area populated by savages in huts dotting the wilderness. All those "the world as seen from the US" maps you see floating on the net are only half tongue in cheek.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
This is what really irks me about Americans. Why aren't you Americans revolting over things like this? In Canada, the Liberal party lost an election because a few bad Liberals stole a mere $1 million. Dick Cheney lets Haliburton steal BILLIONS from the American tax payers, and Bush got re-elected. Suppressing the words of the Surgeon General for political purposes is detrimental for every single American. This is quite scandalous. I suppose it doesn't help that the mainstream news (CNN, Fox, etc) is reluctant to exposing things like this.
What happened to the Republicans of old? When exactly did they turn into what is in power now?
Is this seriously not really fucking obvious to you?
It was 1980 when the Republicans rejected Barry Goldwater (Republican) in favor of Ronald Reagan (fascist). They'd already fallen pretty far (Nixon's treason and Ford's folly), but that was their chance to save their party. They chose instead to brutally rape it in the ass until it was dead.
There's really nothing particularly complicated or even non-obvious about it.
I like cutting of taxes, but, it has to go with smaller govt. spending too!! I want a candidate that is for that, that fiscally conservative, slightly liberal socially....and most of all, respects and honors the Constitution.
Vote Libertarian then. They're the only party that believes in anything of the sort.
Seriously, if you're asking these sorts of questions now then you've obviously never put any thought into it at all.
This shit ain't new and it ain't difficult to figure out with an hour of research tops.
Ron Paul is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican, but I personally wouldn't vote for him if he did win the Republican nomination (ha! the douchebag republicans booed him at the debate for stating simple facts and cheered Giuliani for spouting idiotic lies. That's the state of that party in a nutshell right there) as that would lend support to the Republicans. As I'm not a fan of big government I'm certainly not voting for the party of biggest government. However, if you can stand to vote Republican, Ron Paul is the only one who believes in *any* of the things you say you do.
According to this website, Haliburton has a cost-plus contract, which encouraged them to waste money. The movie "Iraq For Sale", which points this out. Unfortunately I know these sources are biased, so they're unreliable. Really, I have no clue what the truth is anymore. I've seen this debunked, but I've also seen the debunker debunked as well. Everything is BS... But something doesn't seem right when Haliburton receives a contract without any competitive bidding.
As an Aussie who's recently come to the US to work, I would add one more that is seems few Americans bring up in political discussions: Optional voting. In many of the major western democracies, you MUST vote. If you don't you are fined, but more importantly it is ingrained in you as part of your civic duty to spend a few minutes on polling day numbering piece of paper.
This is extremely important since it forces politicians to address the mainstream electorate in preference to special interest groups which seem to have become adept at hijacking the democratic process in the US.
Mandatory voting combined with a preferential voting system would make the US a much better nation IMO.
You dislike the Republican party right now and think that they at least had some dignity in the past; you know a candidate for the Republican party that actually DOES stand for what you want, and because he is running on a Republican ticket he has a chance of winning. And you refuse to vote for him?
If you can't say something nice, make sure you have something heavy to throw.
Disclaimer: I am an Australian and I don't hate the US, this is just an honest observation. Most of the Americans I meet are good people.
Maybe not the bully in the revolution, although some of the things you yanks lumped on the British were exaggerated.
The problem is that you essentially became bullies, victims of your own success in your revolution and as a result you are unable to untie your nation from war and violence. We hear volumes of about the great America at war, but next to nothing about the great America at peace. Like I said this is due to being victims of your own success early on, up to and including WWII, then you made the worst mistake possible, you believed your own marketing and got into a few unwinable wars at it has cost the US. A great many social and political problems would be greatly diminished (some would disappear completely) if US society stopped glorifying violence.
As I said I don't hate the US, I was and still am a staunch supporter of the ANZUS treaty despite the quagmire you got us involved with in Iraq and the terrible trade policies the US has against us (Australia).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Clinton deserves criticism, and so does Bush. Does that make them equal? Does not the quality, the nature, or the scope of the criticism matter? To the simpleton, it clearly doesn't.
Are you honestly foolish enough to hold that both Bush's and Clinton's actions have negatively altered the world in equal measure? I wish people would realize that voting for the lesser of two evils isn't helping the problem. Wait, lesser of two evils? I thought your whole premise is that they are the equal of two evils.
Tell you what, I'll take a realistic shot at the lesser of two evils over the astronomically improbable shot at the perfect candidate (as though, somehow, your third-party guy is a saint) any day, the same way I'll do something undesirable (say, saw off my own leg) to stave off something worse (like remain trapped under a log, destined to die of dehydration--or worse). I prefer reality to fantasy. But if you wish to believe in faeries and third party presidential candidates, as you wish, just try not to infect the rest of us with your lunacy, if you wouldn't mind.
It's interesting that you seem so eager to equate Bush and Clinton, even though by any rational measure, they are not equal except in the most superficial of ways. It's clear that you must hold this position in order to justify your hopes for that Knight in Shining Armor to come rescue you from the undesirable aspects of reality, that knight known as "Third Party Candidate".
The biggest single mistake the Founding Fathers made was their system led to a two party system. That's the state it finds equilibrium at. You can throw a third party into the mix, and sometimes it shuffles things around, but it invariably settles back to two parties. The second biggest mistake, if you're curious (not that I hold the illusion that you are), is the second amendment was so poorly worded that two it can reasonably support two completely contradictory interpretations.
Your single biggest mistake (at least, on the topic at hand) is to step so far back, to hold yourself so far away, from the politicians in question that the differences seem miniscule, but when you look at them up close (or even from a normal perspective) those differences become exceedingly apparent.
You want to criticize Clinton, I'm right there with you. You want to equate him to Bush, you stand alone.
I would expect a physicist to understand mitosis enough to be able to object if some ignorant polictal hack tried to say that the theory of cell division is just a conspiracy by the opposition. Richard Feynman, IIRC, did some graduate level work in biology, and could probably have given a fair layman's explanation of mitosis.
I would expect the surgeon general to be scientifically literate, and be able to explain that the Earth moves around the Sun, that burning hydrogen creates water, that objects of different masses fall with the same accleration (disregarding air resistance), and that the biosphere is warming and it seems that human activity is at least partly responsible.
Excuse me, but are there any reproductive structures in the mouth?
Leave cunniligus and fellatio out of it, what are you doing kissing?
If it's "unnnatural", how do you explain ass-fucking homosexual sheep? Did somebody sit them down and make them watch Brokeback Mountain and turn them gay?
(Oh, and you do realize that many heterosexual people enjoy anal sex, right?)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
180 degree double take. A Prison Nation where we are highly controled through fear? How on earth can you blame liberals for the things the Bush administration is working like mad to implement right now? Have you not been paying attention to the play by play? Need proof? Try taking a walk through downtown New York wearing a head scarf and take a bunch of tourist photos sometime. Try lighting up in a public place and see what happens. Try preventing your kids from being immunized in some states. Try owning a gun in others. Try getting an abortion for your girlfriend. Try wearing a teeshirt which says "Impeach Bush" to the Whitehouse. Heck, try buying Organic food, (the Bush government just made it legal for non-organic food producers to use the Organic label.) Try taking a book out of the library about how to blow stuff up. Try making a phone call through AT&T and expecting privacy. And on and on.
In this case the Surgeon General took money from the pro-global warming lobbyists [. .
Give me a break. You can't back that up. The Surgeon General doesn't even have the power to do anything about fossil fuel emissions. Heck, the major sticking point had more to do with Stem Cell research than anything else.
I don't think Wester Medicine is all too great, and I'm not even a liberal. (I don't play the tweedle dee and tweedle dum political division game.) --But I have noticed that people who cleave to the conservative side often exist in a state of perpetual delusion and anger.
Take a deep breath and rethink your statements because they don't make sense.
-FL
(6) Sexual practices that DO lead to reproduction aren't necessarily healthy. Much as you may like to, having sex with a different person every weekend is not in your best interests.
I also noticed that 80% of Americans hip-hip hoorayed a war in Iraq killing 100s of thousands of innocent people and providing a hotbed for global terrorism.
I recall quite vividly that every critic of the war, was derided, smeared, insulted and partially threated for their lives.
I noted that this administration, elected (at least the second time by a majority of US citizens) leaked the name of an undercover intelligence operative for no better reason then to smear her husband, who the administration didn't like.
I recall a hell of a lot really bad and rotten things for which this administration and ultimnately the people that elected them are responsible.
That, quite likely, includes you.
So please don't give me this "we're all so much against it, but those in power..." bullshit.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk