Conservative attacks on health confirmed

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Opivy1980

Anyone have any thoughts as to why?

Significant change is exactly what conservatives are fearful of.

(I mean this in the literal sense; the mindset of a conservative is to value the past, the status quo. Significant change is the very opposite of this and the natural reaction to this is fear.)

Originally Posted by htb

Carmona's complaint is weak and, instead, the former surgeon general appears to have wanted the same latitude as his predecessors.

Did you watch his speech or is this based upon one line of it?

[Opivy1980]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Significant change is exactly what conservatives are fearful of.

I think it has more to do with the whole "playing God" aspect than just mindless fear. It seems to me social conservatives are unable to rectify progress with their idea of what limitations humans should have, due to their unworthiness to mimic what they consider the realm of the divine.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Opivy1980

I think it has more to do with the whole "playing God" aspect than just mindless fear. It seems to me social conservatives are unable to rectify progress with their idea of what limitations humans should have, due to their unworthiness to mimic what they consider the realm of the divine.

I'm not sure I agree, unless we are talking about a specific form of western Christian conservatism, and even then, I think you'd have to interpret it only one way. It could play a part in that sub-culture but I don't believe it is the driving force behind it.

The reason I don't believe that is true is because the exact same scenario is played out in corporations when change is introduced. People have a natural resistance and fear to change... very few actively embrace all forms of change! Most of the reactions are extremely negative and involve (sometimes passive) aggression. In many cases, blocks of people who outright resist the change at an emotional level form, causing some huge tears in the company.

It is pretty much identical to the significant change reactions you mentioned. The underlying motivations that prompt people to resist the change are emotional, and namely center around fear. When you interview people in companies, three major things come out... a generic fear of the unknown, a specific fear of uncertainty in their lives (the personal impact) and the fear of losing connections.

In society, these can be replaced as the uncertain future of society (The World Is Ending), the fear of position (What About Me?) and the loss of structure (That's Not Right!).

Mostly IMO, however.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Did you watch his speech or is this based upon one line of it?

I just watched it. Unpersuasive, misleading vividness and other irrelevance. I wonder what you thought was more than an elaboration on his quoted line (e.g., "My beliefs are a priori right and good, and those who disagree must have lesser motives").

The trouble here is that all of what Carmona advocates is assumed to be inarguable -- when it is, in terms of science and federal management, quite open for debate. It's not Carmona's purported treatment that is getting media attention, I submit, but what Carmona wanted to stand behind. What if Elders committed apostasy after her 1993 confirmation by loudly advocating celibacy and teetotalism? Justifiably, the Clinton administration would have her influence mitigated or tenure cut short. But would there have been the same outcry?

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

I just watched it. Unpersuasive, misleading vividness and other irrelevance. I wonder what you thought was more than an elaboration on his quoted line (e.g., "My beliefs are a priori right and good, and those who disagree must have lesser motives").

I just wanted to know what your previous opinion was based upon. I do find it ironic to hear 'a priori' by one who had already determined his position before even watching the speech. *shrug*

quite open for debate.

You are correct. I think it is important to debate statements like "unprecedented" influence and the like. Rather than invoke;

the Clinton administration

But Clinton! Talk about politicising and reinforcing the awesomeness of partisanship. Another little irony, I suppose.

[htb]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I just wanted to know what your previous opinion was based upon. I do find it ironic to hear 'a priori' by one who had already determined his position before even watching the speech.

Ah, but not all self-evident understandings are equal. Carmona? His beef is easy to guess, the reason for his experience to have been made an issue -- easier.

But Clinton! Talk about politicising and reinforcing the awesomeness of partisanship. Another little irony, I suppose.

No, no: just adding a little sugar to the medicine. Political appointees are political appointees.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

Ah, but not all self-evident understandings are equal. Carmona? His beef is easy to guess, the reason for his experience to have been made an issue -- easier.

I'm glad you are able to navigate the waters with such certainty before even hearing the captain's voyage plans. Why travel if you already know what's on the other side?

I don't put a huge amount of stock in him, no, but I do find his speech very telling. Considering this is now the... 4th? 5th? "formal" complaint from officials, nevermind stuff like Libby and the like reflecting a similar mindset.

No, no: just adding a little sugar to the medicine. Political appointees are political appointees.

And all sugars are as sweet; all apples are oranges; and every situation is the same.

[htb]

Libby!? How did he get into this? I suppose every situation is the same!

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by htb

Libby!? How did he get into this? I suppose every situation is the same!

A better analogy would probably be the justices, since that involved towing the party line... I was referring to the "pardon" part with Libby, where loyalty to the party supercedes all else... but in retrospect, I suppose that's not what comes to mind when one thinks of him.

I guess I just don't see this as some "stem cells". The whole thing was about the problems with the surgeon general's financing and what not... but what came out of it was a horrendous mindset of the current adminstration - the manipulation of Bush's image and the control of information to prevent bad information coming out. What he brought up was so far out there compared to what Clinton's and Reagon's surgeon general reported... the contrast was rather striking.

Hmm, I guess it doesn't matter. It's not like this is even a discussion... I already know where you stand and now I have an idea why... that's all I was curious about.

[cafe]

Hm. I thought the objections were of the life begins at conception pro-life variety.

I am, myself, pro-life, but if the embryos are no longer wanted for fertility purposes, I think the parents ought to have the option to donate them for research, if they are uncomfortable donating them to other infertile couples, rather than simply destroying them.

I would not be comfortable with the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of research under most circumstances.

I'm not sure how I feel about government funding of the research. Aren't we paying through the nose for private medical research as it is?