|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 12:53:41 GMT -5
Yes, because I put "apparently", and "I suspect" in my post.
Edited to Add: My comments are actually way more measured than your first few posts on this topic, and I have way more to go on than you did at the time.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 19, 2017 12:30:45 GMT -5
Back to the OP for a second -- it seems by now, if there really is a ban, we'd have some evidence of it. Apparently also, the WaPo (again, it's behind a paywall and I'm not paying to read sloppy and biased reporting.) has a THIRD article by the same reporter in which they've backtracked even more. The author is apparently now saying that it is a "style guide", not a ban, and it's 3 words, not seven, and fetus and transgender are not included, and the recs came from within the meeting not from CDC officials.
This is a great example of fake news. I suspect it was purposely published late on a Friday in order to get traction within anti-Trumpers. And it's a great example of people becoming extremely upset over something that was extremely suspect to begin with, if one didn't have Trump hate blinders on. I do not believe this is an honest mistake. And I believe it goes beyond sloppy reporting. A reporter, especially a health reporter, should be able to put aside their biases to write a news report. And this "an anonymous source" bullshit is...bullshit.
The most ironic thing is that I suspect (I have no proof) as I said the other day, that the "suggestions" were from people on the left, haha. That's the theory that makes the most logical sense. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 18, 2017 18:42:02 GMT -5
Opty, I really do appreciate that post. Thank you. And I find your posts and discussions on neuroscience and psychology and religion etc. fascinating and intelligent and thoughtful.
One of the things I don't understand is why political arguments have to get personal. Especially in a place like this which was created so the discussions would be on a more civil and thoughtful level. Some people are accused of copying and pasting, and others are accused of being on their "high horse", and the ease with which some people reach animosity towards others who are trying to have a good faith argument really surprises me.
Cassandra, I agree with you that a man like Trump shouldn't be POTUS. I actually thought he would learn on the job how to be more presidential. And after a good, reasoned, and well-delivered speech (like the one he gave on election night) I start to think maybe just maybe he's getting there. And then he goes and does something so immature and stupid that I cringe and realize he's not going to change. But he was elected POTUS and he is the POTUS, and no amount of my handwringing is going to change that. And he is enacting policies I agree with. So I'm just going to ride this out and be glad about what I see as good policy decisions. The economy is doing well, my retirement fund is growing nicely, I'm happy about increased U.S. strength against ISIS and terrorism, I'm glad we're taking a good look at immigration, I do believe Obamacare is unsustainable and hope we can come to a better solution for health care, I'm glad we're acting like a true ally to Israel, I like the decrease in unnecessary and expensive over-regulation such as from the EPA, and I like the idea of a strong military. That's just to name a few things.
I've been thinking over the last few days about why some people can get so nasty during Trump arguments. And I'm not any closer to an answer, because everyone is different and has their own reasons. But I know why I generally don't. I have spent the last 25 years or so as a physician. I've watched people die. I've done chest compressions while what seemed like gallons of blood poured out of a man's mouth. I've cared for a young woman who was beaten and left for dead and when they found her she had maggots in her massive head wound and from then on could say only the word "no". I've told people they have a complete spinal cord injury. (One of whom elected to have his family take him off the ventilator resulting in death within minutes) I've counseled family members that their mother or father or son or daughter will likely not ever be able to be independent again, or speak, or walk. I've seen spouses for years never leave the side of their loved one who is only a shell of the person they used to be. I've made mistakes that resulted in a bad outcome for patients- one in particular I think about almost daily, and that was during my intern year almost 3 decades ago. And to be perfectly frank, I just can't get that worked up about an oaf of a man in the oval office who at least has surrounded himself with mostly smart and capable people, and who is constrained by the most wonderful governmental system ever created.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 18, 2017 14:37:22 GMT -5
Gotta get to work soon, so I can't answer you as fully as I'd like, Cassandra, but I'd like to point out two things:
I have NEVER called Trump wonderful. Never. Yet you put that word in quotes when referring to me. Again, I don't see why me defending some of his policies is the same as calling him wonderful. It's not. I don't think he's wonderful. Never did. In some ways he's clearly awful. But I am pleased with several policy changes he and his administration have enacted.
Also, I never called this board overwhelmingly liberal. Never. And I don't think it is. I was specifically talking about Trump discussions. I didn't even say simply 'this board', or 'overwhelmingly this board', I said "many discussions"..."regarding Trump".
See what I mean? How my words get exaggerated? How you say I think Trump is "wonderful"?
Let's unpack one paragraph because that's all I have time for now: I would also like to ask which combination is worse: - a POTUS who is personally very flawed and awful but who officially enacts reasonable or beneficial policies - a POTUS who is personally very classy and behaves like a statesman but whose policies are very damaging and could even result in mass murder (for instance, Iran deal and nukes, or letting ISIS grow into a murderous caliphate).
EDITED TO ADD: actually maybe we can consider my last question in terms of imaginary examples. Because I honestly don't think we could come to an objective discussion if we don't.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 18, 2017 12:25:54 GMT -5
We always bring in someone else's use of Google when our arguments are weak, I guess. I still want to see an example of when I reacted to Obama or Clinton differently than Trump. As I said, my comments here are usually on policy, and of course I agree with more of that in Trump's admin than in Obama's. I pointed out plenty of times in the past how I think Obama has class and seems to be a good person, good family man, good dad, good speaker, great sense of humor, etc. I also expressed sympathy towards Clinton for unfair bias against her and for being married to a cad. That doesn't excuse her running a bad campaign with policy ideas I was against, or not being very charismatic. A few of the things I got most riled up about regarding Obama were the Iran deal (Hoo boy, lots to talk about there right now) his treatment of Israel, his weak response to Isis, and executive overreach. As Trump is the exact opposite with Israel, Iran, Isis (which has been obliterated out of Iraq in great thanks to the Trump administrations' new approach, but of course no one has mentioned it), and has reversed or tried to reverse certain of Obama's executive overreaches, why wouldn't I be pleased?
If I weren't here, many discussions on this board would be an echo chamber regarding Trump (except for Rob who is pretty damned objective). It's not a good use of my time to just join in a piling on. I will contribute when there's actually something to offer that's a different or contrary perspective. If that's all you see, then that's a problem with the sample, not with how I view the world or Trump. But that really shouldn't matter. What should matter is the argument at hand. Each one should be taken at face value. I don't care about your political leanings. I don't judge you as a person because you're more left or right than I am. I just look at your (general you) current argument and the amount of breathlessness or hysteria involved. There's so much of that these days. And if the breathlessness seems to outweigh the facts, like in the CDC "word ban", I remain skeptical and try to find out more. But if someone like me isn't displaying what seems to be a minimum amount of outrage required, then they get insulted. I really don't need or want to spend time criticizing Trump just so I placate a few members of this board. If you need more Trump criticism, just go to most any mainstream news source, especially CNN.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 19:09:15 GMT -5
That's reminiscent of a few days ago when CNN was covering how many diet cokes Trump drinks per day, at the same time the terrorist had just been apprehended in New York with the malfunctioning bomb.
Also, why do you and Amadan always point out things about me unfairly attacking Obama and Clinton? I really have only ever argued against their policies (or carelessness with a server/emails). And I've said complimentary things about both of them, actually.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 17:54:46 GMT -5
I don't have a subscription to the WaPo so can't see for myself, but I'm hearing that the same writer of the article that broke this "news" has written a second one which doesn't use the word "ban" in the body of the article. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 16:48:11 GMT -5
What makes more sense?
1) That Someone in HHS with an interest in supporting the CDC in securing money from congress would advise them to avoid certain words in their requests for budgetary or grant money, therefore giving them a better chance to trick those crazy and evil Republicans out of denying them money due to spite and partisan reasons.
2) Trump, who we all know is evil and wants to destroy America with his Orwellian tactics, would outright send a word ban to the CDC because...you know...Trump.
I know what my answer is. If I am wrong, I will freely admit it. But I'm not going to get upset until we know more. And I sure would like someone to offer a coherent explanation of why Trump would even do that. IMO, it would behoove people to think more deeply on some of these "news reports" before they become so upset.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 17, 2017 12:47:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 16, 2017 18:57:27 GMT -5
This is one of those "news reports" that struck me immediately as the kind to be very skeptical about. Fake news, if you will. And of course, so many people are jumping on the end-of-the-world-according-to-Trump bandwagon. But really, what would the Trump admin get out of doing something like this? It doesn't make sense to me. This NPR story says Trump officals at HHS are pushing back against this: www.npr.org/2017/12/16/571329234/trump-administration-reportedly-instructs-cdc-on-its-own-version-of-7-dirty-wordNPR also brings up a possible angle that makes more sense: As I said, I'm very skeptical this is what people are saying it is.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 15, 2017 15:27:09 GMT -5
Dustin Hoffman is EIGHTY? When did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 15, 2017 11:38:09 GMT -5
Vince, apparently the initials were found by another surgeon during a different surgery on the patient. It's possible many more, even hundreds of patients, have this guy's initials.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 14, 2017 18:28:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 14, 2017 13:56:27 GMT -5
The PLO can say what it wants to say, it can present a peace-seeking public face if it so desires (because that's best way to keep raising money, after all), but it wasn't until 1995--coincidentally (?) the same year Congress recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital--that the destruction of Israel was taken out of the PLO's charter. And I, for one, don't believe most of the leadership has really changed their minds in this regard at all. Certainly, they draw a ton of support from people who openly seek the destruction of Israel. Rob, can you prove that the destruction of Israel was, in fact, taken out of the PLO charter? Because if you can, you might earn a million dollars. Of which I would get some percentage by tipping you off on this opportunity.www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21365www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11719
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Dec 13, 2017 14:01:31 GMT -5
So he can engage in the discussion as it happens. If it appears he's not coming back, I'll discuss it anyway.
|
|