Looks like we have another level 5 Bush apologist alert at hand...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Bush legacy: It just keeps getting better...
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
I see nothing wrong with the concept that an administration official, otherwise known as a patronage appointtee, is expected to stick to official administration policy. If they feel it is so important to say something inconsistent, then go out and get yourself elected. Until then, obey orders. If they feel they are being required to do something wrong, they can always do the honorable thing and resign. The dishonorable thing to do is keep the plum job, then backstab those who appointed you after you're out.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I see nothing wrong with the concept that an administration official, otherwise known as a patronage appointtee, is expected to stick to official administration policy. If they feel it is so important to say something inconsistent, then go out and get yourself elected. Until then, obey orders. If they feel they are being required to do something wrong, they can always do the honorable thing and resign. The dishonorable thing to do is keep the plum job, then backstab those who appointed you after you're out.
So if you see something you think is being done badly and your opinion is later sought you should keep your mouth shut?
While they are in office I think the loyalty and chain of command argument makes some sense but why should they hold their tongues afterwards? Should loyalty to this administration trump loyalty to the country which is what I presume motivates concerned citizens to improve government institutions?
It is astonishing how loyalty is an issue with this administration to a degree that I don't remember it being in previous administrations. The number of high level officials who've left under a cloud of discontent seems to be greater.
As for your views on patronage appointees, I think you should reexamine them. A culture of patronage politics undermines effective government because it is directly at odds with the idea of a meritocracy. Politicization of the civil service is a crucial step towards totalitarianism and the breakdown of a democratic society.
Medical science and politics should remain independent of one another. I don't think I'd want a political functionary censoring or downplaying the scientific evidence supporting the extent of the potential hazards of second-hand smoke. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has done. Read the article.
This pressure to conform is unadulterated bullshit. Wasn't Nazi Germany a study in conformity? The constant association of conformity and patriotism is plain stupid.
This pressure to conform is unadulterated bullshit. Wasn't Nazi Germany a study in conformity? The constant association of conformity and patriotism is plain stupid.
Quote from Capablanca:
So if you see something you think is being done badly and your opinion is later sought you should keep your mouth shut?
While they are in office I think the loyalty and chain of command argument makes some sense but why should they hold their tongues afterwards? Should loyalty to this administration trump loyalty to the country which is what I presume motivates concerned citizens to improve government institutions?
It is astonishing how loyalty is an issue with this administration to a degree that I don't remember it being in previous administrations. The number of high level officials who've left under a cloud of discontent seems to be greater.
As for your views on patronage appointees, I think you should reexamine them. A culture of patronage politics undermines effective government because it is directly at odds with the idea of a meritocracy. Politicization of the civil service is a crucial step towards totalitarianism and the breakdown of a democratic society.
If they want to complain after they have left office, they are generally free to do so. To me, it appears hypocritical however. There will always be disagreements, but if it is something that is a major issue I would have thought the honorable thing to do would be to resign.
I honestly don't think this administration is any different from others in expecting officials to toe the policy line. Where there have been problems, they have typically come from career bureaucrats who want to enjoy civil service protections but dabble in politics at the same time. Their rights to publicly criticize their bosses or the policies they are supposed to be implementing are limited, just as any private employees' are.
Quote from Thunderdog:
Medical science and politics should remain independent of one another. I don't think I'd want a political functionary censoring or downplaying the scientific evidence supporting the extent of the potential hazards of second-hand smoke. And that is exactly what the Bush administration has done. Read the article.
This pressure to conform is unadulterated bullshit. Wasn't Nazi Germany a study in conformity? The constant association of conformity and patriotism is plain stupid.
Unfortunately, science and politics intersect. The government has to set policies. Government employees have to follow those policies.
There is nothing sinister about it. The science is not necessarily as one-sided as you might think. It is not a simple matter of good versus evil. Typically there are complex balances involving jobs, the economy, health risks and the reliability of the science. Those are not decisions for civil servants to make.
Not in the example I gave in my prior post. When it comes to the disclosure of the extent of the potential hazards of second-hand smoke, based on the latest scientific evidence, I don't think there is any moral or ethical dilemma at hand. There should be no value judgments impeding full disclosure of scientific data. There may be a commercial dilemma for certain corporate interests, but that should not be the surgeon general's concern. That he was not able to report such information to the extent of the scientific findings should be of concern to him because it is a repugnant limitation of his role. That he should be muzzled by some chain-smoking government bureaucrat who is kowtowing to the tobacco interests is audacious. Devil's advocacy aside, we both know there is no other explanation.Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Unfortunately, science and politics intersect...
Just a random thought here, keep in mind i am a hardcore right winger here, but there is no dispute bush is half retarded. I am starting to think that maybe the reason why bush is being stubborn on his policy in IRAQ, is because he is thinking like a litle child who says "well it wasn't broke when i was there" i swear, that the next government will pull the plug on IRAQ, and BUSH will try to announce how great he was for knowing not to pull, it funny cause he will leave an absolute pile of shit for the next guy who has the unfortunate job of taking his spot, and they will have no choice one way or another but to look bad.
"we both know there is no other explanation."
Interesting, both of you are scientists? Assuming the latest scientific information is correct then there is no other explanation.
The article cites "immediate harm" from second hand smoke. Scientific histrionics. Methane, ammonia, chlorine even pepper spray might warrant an "immediate harm" warning but second hand smoke?
Interesting, both of you are scientists? Assuming the latest scientific information is correct then there is no other explanation.
The article cites "immediate harm" from second hand smoke. Scientific histrionics. Methane, ammonia, chlorine even pepper spray might warrant an "immediate harm" warning but second hand smoke?
Killing the Passive Smoking Debate
By Michael Fumento
Town Hall, June 28, 2006
Copyright 2006 Michael Fumento
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active smoking is nuts, but no scientific link between mortality and passive smoking has been shown in over a decade of research.
âSecondhand smoke debate âover.â Thatâs the message from the Surgeon Generalâs office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from othersâ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, âdebate overâ simply means: âIf you have your doubts, shut up!â
But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon Generalâs report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, itâs probably designed that way so nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary. That includes me; if I had that much time Iâd reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science so we can evaluate it based on research already available.
First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: âPassive Smoking Kills Thousandsâ and editorials demanding: âBan Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows Itâs a Killer.â
But the EPAâs report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agencyâs refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.
Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.
Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is known as âdishonesty.â
The Surgeon General is monkeying around with the facts.
A much larger meta-analysis has appeared since the EPAâs. Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, it found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.
Meta-analysis, though, suffer from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways â the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.
The World Health Organization authorized such a study, which covered seven countries over seven years and appeared in 1998. It actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. Put otherwise, please donât puff in your kidsâ faces on the basis of one study. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.
The mammoth of all passive smoking studies, however, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no âcausal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,â adding, however âa small effectâ canât be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 â when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges â the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. Thatâs not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state, and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know theyâre scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.
Itâs easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany âprovedâ the validity of eugenics.
By Michael Fumento
Town Hall, June 28, 2006
Copyright 2006 Michael Fumento
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active smoking is nuts, but no scientific link between mortality and passive smoking has been shown in over a decade of research.
âSecondhand smoke debate âover.â Thatâs the message from the Surgeon Generalâs office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from othersâ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, âdebate overâ simply means: âIf you have your doubts, shut up!â
But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon Generalâs report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, itâs probably designed that way so nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary. That includes me; if I had that much time Iâd reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science so we can evaluate it based on research already available.
First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: âPassive Smoking Kills Thousandsâ and editorials demanding: âBan Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows Itâs a Killer.â
But the EPAâs report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agencyâs refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.
Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.
Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts back because the football had fallen short. In scientific terminology this is known as âdishonesty.â
The Surgeon General is monkeying around with the facts.
A much larger meta-analysis has appeared since the EPAâs. Published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, it found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.
Meta-analysis, though, suffer from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways â the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.
The World Health Organization authorized such a study, which covered seven countries over seven years and appeared in 1998. It actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. Put otherwise, please donât puff in your kidsâ faces on the basis of one study. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.
The mammoth of all passive smoking studies, however, and probably the largest that will ever appear because of its enormous cost and effort, came from the labs of research professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003, this 39-year analysis of 35,561 Californians found no âcausal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality,â adding, however âa small effectâ canât be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer while passive smoke may cause no deaths lies in the dictum "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts the body usually easily fends them off. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 â when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges â the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour. Thatâs not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state, and city agencies and organizations like the American Lung Association for a very good reason. They already know theyâre scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.
Itâs easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany âprovedâ the validity of eugenics.