Well, I googled the story and loved this nonsensical quote from Carmona (here) :
"“Anything that doesn’t fit into the political appointees’ ideological, theological or political agenda is ignored, marginalized or simply buried,” Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, told a congressional committee. (emphasis added) “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation, not the doctor of a political party.”
But later . . . deeper . . . way towards the end . . . in the article is this paragraph:
Also testifying were former surgeons general C. Everett Koop and David Satcher, who served in the Reagan and Clinton administrations respectively. Carmona said their testimony showed that political interference was “a systemic problem,” but that several former surgeons general told him they had never seen it rise to the levels he encountered."Hmmm, on first blush, it appears William is right; this incident indeed proves what "we all know is true" . . . politics influence the job of the Surgeon General.
10 comments:
Yes, politics influence the job of the Surgeon General, but never to the levels Carmona encountered in the GOP War on Science. It's a slam dunk indictment of the Bush Administration - putting politics, ideology and theology over sound science.
From the NYT story:
Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.
When stem cells became a focus of debate, Dr. Carmona said he proposed that his office offer guidance “so that we can have, if you will, informed consent.”
“I was told to stand down and not speak about it,” he said. “It was removed from my speeches.”
The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni.
Are we surprised? No. It fits a well established pattern. This is the way authoritarians do business. They tell you to shut up and fall in line. Screw science or what's best for America, just carry out the Republican authoritarian agenda.
Is that the best you got? If so, I don't even need to waste my time to read the article.
"The Bush administration rejected the advice of many top scientists on this subject, including that of the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Elias Zerhouni."
Gee, I'm dying to hear the details of the "science" that Bush ignored. I know it COULDN'T be more egregious than the science folks like Zerhouni ignore in their trample-thon over the conscience of many Americans and the remnants of medical ethics in America.
Though I'd like to tell you to shut up and fall in line, you don't work for me and weren't selected to promote my agenda on public policy.
William, sorry if some of us don't want to shut up and fall in line with "top scientists" on things like "Global Warming" and fetal harvesting.
What's egregious is you comparing embryonic stem cell research to 'fetal harvesting'. Every biologist/researcher knows embryonic stem cells can become all cell types because they are pluripotent and can be grown in culture more easily. Shoot, you must have written off Bill Frist in short order. I see you get all your information from "christian" and "conservative" web sites and news outlets.
What's egregious and amusing is that you can give the Bush admin a pass on just about anything. If a republican does it, it's OK. If the a christian does it, he can be forgiven. If the president does it, it's not illegal. (Seems like I've heard that one before)
Two movies you should rent - 1)Jesus Camp, 2) Iraq for Sale
hell yeah, if a christian does it, it must be OK and if it's not, they're forgiven on the spot - like the 'get out of jail free' card. gawd works in wondrous ways for the cult members. kill, lie, maim... no problem, no responsibility for consequences, all is forgiven, all is good in christ-land. shrub gets a pass everytime.
So, the fact that it may/could be advantageous to destroy a human embryo obviates the fact that it is a human embryo?
William, I'm so tired of your crap, frankly. I know you feel like you're doing some public service by re-pasting every post from your blog in the comment section of my blog, but you needn't bother . . . if I'm crazy/hateful/biased/unreasonable then everyone who visits the site will see right through me.
I never said that I think the SG should be used for political purposes, but I sure as syrup don't think it constitutes article 173 for Dick/Bush's!! impeachment (coming July 23rd!!!--per my democrats.org email yesterday).
And yeah, I am pretty cool on Bill Frist. Never said otherwise.
And yeah, I sometimes go to a Christian or Conservative news outlet, but I more often than not rely on or link to so-called MSM sites--kind of takes fallacious arguments like yours out at the knees. But hmmm, where can I find a report about the successes of non-embryo-destructive stem cell research in the so-called MSM? Oh, that's right, it's not there. Be sure and let me know when you find something inaccurate in a link I've given.
And thanks for the movie tips. But if a hectoring, bigoted, close-minded, moralistic, fallacy monger recommends something, why would I bother?
Pam,
You must be thinking of someone else. And I certainly don't have a lower moral standard for Christians than others. But it is interesting to see how all of a sudden you and William are so concerned about moral standards of others.
Ned,
I am happy to hear your perspective and am thrilled that you're so open to comments, unlike most of your fellow conservative bloggers.
i.e - Blue Collar Muse has deleted 3 of my attempts to reply even though his blog says "Comments are open - post away!!" and "It would be nice if Liberals were open and available to being debated"
Funny.
Regarding comments and news sources, and the propensity of conservatives to delete posts, I am reminded that it is a classic authoritarian trait to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear, and use many double standards in their thinking and judgements. When confronted with documentable facts that they don't agree with, instead of doing the 'rationalization dance' or 'they did it too' or giving the 'christian forgiveness pass to the sinner'... they just delete and turn away. I appreciate the fact that you stand up for your principles and rarely delete my comments.
Hectoring, bigoted, close-minded, moralistic, fallacy monger?
I'll accept hectoring. I do enjoy bit of that. But you, a soldier in the war on science and rabid anti-abortion rights person has a lot of nerve to use those other adjectives toward ME.
"But you, a soldier in the war on science and rabid anti-abortion rights person has a lot of nerve to use those other adjectives toward ME."
Thanks for most of your sentiments, and as far as the above adjectives, you can be assured I deliberated before typing them.
Being "rabid" on principle is nothing I'm ashamed of. And I hardly accept rabid inasmuch as it means anything other than zealous (I suspect you intend it to mean much more than "zealous").
How 'bout going forward you debate me on issues and not on perceived "motivations"? And how 'bout you debate me and not phantom "Conservative bloggers"? Not interested? That's fallacious. That's bigoted. That's judgmental.
Now Ned, I'm counting on you to carry the water for the Bush Admin on such issues as we've talked about - executive privilege, bioethics, the war on science, Iraq, etc... when I host NiT tomorrow. Tune in. You just might find yourself quoted.
Been there, done that. Thanks, but I'll probably be too busy to visit NiT over the next couple days . . . busy doing Authoritarian Cultist stuff, ya know?
Post a Comment