CDC now banned from using "evidence based" and other words per White House

[babyNP.]

The Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation's top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases - including "fetus" and "transgender" - in any official documents being prepared for next year's budget.

Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based" and "science-based."

CDC gets list of forbidden words: fetus, transgender, diversity - The Washington Post

....

This is an attack on our very society itself. I could not believe it when I read it. I feel like a revolution may be inevitable if this trend continues. To ban the words "evidence-based" is beyond words for me to write.

ETA: The other words banned are: "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," and "science-based." No less horrendous.

[guest52816]

I provided a link to how folks at the EPA, which would include scientists are being silenced. Gee, I received no comment back on the evidence I provided.

I also provided a fine example of Christian terrorism, which you falsely stated doesn't exist, itsy-bitsy, and again was met with silence.

It's okay. I'm not offended if you choose to bury your head in the sand, but please don't try and claim that evidence wasn't provided. That simply isn't the truth.

BTW- climate scientists who were planning to attend a conference in Rhode Island, at URI were indeed told what they couldn't present at the conference. Here are the first few paragraphs from a story which ran in the Washington Post.

I have no problem with you supporting DJT, but again, don't try to deny evidence presented to you because you don't like it.

The Environmental Protection Agency has instructed two of its scientists and one contractor not to speak as planned at a scientific conference Monday in Providence, R.I., sparking criticism from some academics and congressional Democrats.

EPA officials confirmed Sunday that its researchers would not present at the State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed program but did not offer an explanation for the decision.

"EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting, it is not an EPA conference," EPA spokesman John Konkus said in an email.

The New York Times first reported the cancellations.

The conference marks the culmination of a three-year report on the status of Narragansett Bay, New England's largest estuary, and the challenges it faces. Climate change features as a significant factor in the 500-page report, which evaluates 24 aspects of the bay and its larger watershed. The organizers intend to present a 28-page summary report of their findings in a news conference Monday.

[itsybitsy]

Itsybitsy you have a definite cognitive bias going for Trump. You will downplay anything that doesn't agree with you on Trump from voting, to polls, to news reports etc.

I don't have a bias for anything. I have my own viewpoints. I don't know what you think I downplayed. I stated my opinion on the matters presented and provided rationales for everything on why I think what I do.

Trump may not have dictated that the CDC replace those words, but it was done for Trump and the GOP. There is no question on that.

And what President hasn't had things served to them on a silver platter? Who cares. The CDC wanted to do that, which was their own decision, and have probably done it numerous times before, just no one cared until now.

Trump and the GOP are waging a war against science and I can't help it if you fail to believe it or not.

You as well; I cannot help it if you do believe it. I don't care if you think President Trump is "waging a war on science", you're entitled to believe whatever you want. But I am listening to you. I read your link and replied to it on what it had to say, which was pretty much nothing, except they were unsure why these things were supposably happening.

What Obama did has no part in this. That is just a distraction or a whataboutism as I prefer.

You can continue to use "whataboutism" as your fallacy scapegoat, or you can actually have a debate without pointing out false fallacies and refuse to reply with any intellectual content. Again, read the definition of your "whataboutism".

Here, I'll make it easy: Whataboutism - Wikipedia

"attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

...which I did, I directly disproved that President Trump banned words and that President Obama did ban words. The hypocrisy is in the outrage on hindering freedom of speech and ideas. Here's a source: Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document | Fox News

Whistleblower Case Shows How Trump Tries to Silence Science | InsideClimate News

From reading this source, it does point out the number (50) of scientists that arbitrarily resigned who worked on climate based projects. It also says that scientists were "afraid to utter the words 'climate change'". I can see how some people might take that as trying to dismantle science. However, those who resigned, either forcefully or voluntarily, are still free to work for a privately owned company to continue their work openly.

Also, (I can see it now, you guys are really going to think I'm a nut, but feel free to take your jabs) not every scientist backs up the "climate change" we know, with their research. Yes, climate change is real. We all know this, it's a fact, and has been occurring since the beginning of Earth. The issue is, climate change is sold as an event that is going to have devastating effects on the Earth in the next few decades. I err on the side of that isn't true, which is what many scientists, mentioned above, describe as what climate change isn't. Climate change is slow and won't be noticeable in our lifetime. It is ever occurring whether we all drive around Hummers or not. Hummers are not going to speed up climate change. It doesn't have a large enough effect.

The volcano eruption in Bali on the other hand, DOES change the climate, more significantly than anything an entire first-world country could do in 100 years.

Trump Administration Restricts News from Federal Scientists at USDA, EPA - Scientific American

There could be many reasons press releases are wanted to be vetted before reaching the public. I'm not interested in playing the guessing game.

A Brief Survey of Trump's Assault on Science - Pacific Standard

This is again, more of less money, less hiring, rationale that science is being silenced. It brings up that certain chemical that can cause disease and cancer were ignored when setting regulations. Not ideal to have these chemicals in products, but why would anyone care if you used one chemical versus another. I doubt the administration cares as they have bigger fish to fry. They didn't include their actual research on the product so how would anyone know if the risk was substantial or minimal. There is a risk with virtually every product, and we just don't know about it.

The Paris Agreement is a different story. I'm glad we got out of that. We can do all the things the Paris Agreement set forth to decrease emissions and the like but won't have to pay for other countries to have high-tech equipment. I'm not about sending money everywhere else but home. Additionally, the actual Agreement made U.S. to agree to all of these terms while allowing China to continue their normal protocols for the next decade. Sure a deal was made, but why would the U.S. agree to something we can do ourselves without using our money for other countries?

I'm not saying the articles are false, but don't you see? I want solid proof. Big, fat, stinking proof. Not "well these things happened and we think it's because of this person". Undeniable proof.

[itsybitsy]

Obama never banned the terms "Islam", "Islamic extremism", or "Sharia". He did understand the basic definitions of the terms and used them correctly.

Yes, yes he did. Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document | Fox News

It's often incorrectly believed that "Islamic" and "Muslim" are interchangeable terms. "Muslim" refers to someone who self-identifies as being a follower of Islam. Using term "Islamic" means you are evaluating and agreeing that the person, belief, or act being referred to as "Islamic" is consistent with mainstream Muslim beliefs.

"Extremist" or "radical" by definition means someone or something that is not consistent with a mainstream view, so using the term "Islamic radical" or "Islamic extremism" is an oxymoron, and displays a lack of knowledge of the basic terms pertaining to the religion, which is why Obama didn't generally use those terms.

I didn't say Muslim in the post you quoted. Islamic means relating to Islam. It doesn't mean mainstream Muslim beliefs. You can be Christian and hold different religious beliefs from a Catholic, but both are still Christian.

The term "Islamic terrorist/extremist" is a person, I, along with the rest of the world, views as a follower of Islam, following to the extreme, as far as carrying out acts of terror in the name of their Prophet because of their interpretation of the Quran.

No one is saying Islam is extreme. But those who profess one must fight or kill those who do not believe in Allah, yea, that's an extreme form of Islam.

[itsybitsy]

That's a fair point and you are correct, the CDC (which is part of the Trump administration) suggested avoiding these terms in order to appease the congresspeople they've aligned themselves with. The more concerning thing however is that not only do such people hold positions of power in our government, but that the actions of the executive branch relies on such people's support.

You are living under a rock if you think this is the first instance of this happening. It's not. It won't be the last. It's probably the first time it has gotten airtime, because it's Donald Trump. But since I really don't have any proof to show you otherwise, because this stuff usually doesn't matter, because it's not President Trump, I guess you can continue to believe this never happens.

[itsybitsy]

I provided a link to how folks at the EPA, which would include scientists are being silenced. Gee, I received no comment back on the evidence I provided.

Sorry, I must have been exhausted trying to keep up with all the posts. Don't get your panties in a wad, I'll respond now. It's hard being the only one on the right against so many who are vehemently against our sitting President and his policies.

Here is an article that details what is happening to employees at the EPA who dare to criticize the present administration. You can Google the original NY Times article.

Yes, America Rising isn't a direct arm of DJT, but who do you think supports both America Rising and DJT? And would this be happening, if DJT didn't occupy the WH?

They are looking at their e-mails? And doing what? It doesn't say. If they are using government e-mail, I don't know why they are surprised. My hospital can look through my hospital e-mail anytime they want. It's their property. I know if I don't want my hospital to see something, I won't use their e-mail.

And yes, Christian terrorists most certainly do engage in terrorist acts that pertain to THEIR religion.

Besides the example of the KKK, remember the Atlanta Olympic bomber, Eric Rudolph? He proclaimed himself a Christian and also bombed an abortion clinic, and I believe gay bar before bombing the park.

EPA employees who criticized administration had emails scrutinized: report | TheHill

I never said Christian terrorists don't exist. I'm sure they do. I did reply to someone else about the KKK earlier, so feel free to look over that response.

As far as Eric Rudolph, his motives that HE described were anti-gay and anti-abortion, saying, "the purpose of the attack on July 27 was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand. The plan was to force the cancellation of the games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested."

Some sources suspect it was motived by Christianity, since he frequently quotes biblical verses and had conversations with some Christian extremists, however Rudolf himself denies it had anything to do with his religion.

Either way, again, it does exists, but not even close to the number of times you have heard of Islamic extremism happen in the past decade.

I also provided a fine example of Christian terrorism, which you falsely stated doesn't exist, itsy-bitsy, and again was met with silence.

It's okay. I'm not offended if you choose to bury your head in the sand, but please don't try and claim that evidence wasn't provided. That simply isn't the truth.

I never said it didn't exist. Just simply it didn't happen as often.

BTW- climate scientists who were planning to attend a conference in Rhode Island, at URI were indeed told what they couldn't present at the conference. Here are the first few paragraphs from a story which ran in the Washington Post.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has instructed two of its scientists and one contractor not to speak as planned at a scientific conference Monday in Providence, R.I., sparking criticism from some academics and congressional Democrats.

EPA officials confirmed Sunday that its researchers would not present at the State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed program but did not offer an explanation for the decision.

"EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting, it is not an EPA conference," EPA spokesman John Konkus said in an email.

The New York Times first reported the cancellations.

The conference marks the culmination of a three-year report on the status of Narragansett Bay, New England's largest estuary, and the challenges it faces. Climate change features as a significant factor in the 500-page report, which evaluates 24 aspects of the bay and its larger watershed. The organizers intend to present a 28-page summary report of their findings in a news conference Monday."

I did read a couple similar articles, and responded to them, about the event you are referencing. The conclusion, if I remember right, was that the conference was not an EPA conference and so the researchers, themselves, didn't show their findings, as you have shown through your paragraphs. So I'm not sure what type of evidence this is. That the EPA didn't present because it wasn't an EPA conference? Okay? So where do they go from here? How can we jump to conclusions that it was a direct attack?

I have no problem with you supporting DJT, but again, don't try to deny evidence presented to you because you don't like it.

I'm not denying evidence, because their really isn't any solid evidence given. It is all presumptions and assumptions. There is no gingerbread trail to the exact reason without doubt.

[itsybitsy]

I'm sure there are a few cases of Christian terrorists that do do it for their God

Twice I have been berated because I apparently said "Christian terrorists don't exist". I didn't say that, the opposite is true. So here it is, in big bold letters, what I said.

Maybe read the posts before making a comment.

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

Uproar Over Purported Ban at C.D.C. of Words Like ‘Fetus' - The New York Times

People just want to hate President Trump, and want other people to hate him as well. If you want to research yourself, on much of what the mainstream media produces, duckduckgo The_Donald.

I dont hate Donald. I think hes the biggest mistake of the century who despite claiming to be for the people has done pretty much nothing since hes been elected to office and if the upcoming tax proposal is anything to go by it will beneit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Personally I'd rather see George Bush back in office

Our government departments dont have to self sensor to get their budgets.

Whether Donald made the ban or whether its implemented by one department. Its still of concern that a much needed government service feels the need to dumb down their funding proposals in order to get them accepted

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

So, to you, all conservatives in the current administration and GOP are dumb?

I have extreme concerns for the welfare of a country who elects a reality TV gameshow host to the highest office in their country and to one of the leaders of the free world.

The man is such a loose unit, that es systematically alienating other world leaders and as of yet has done nothing of note for the American people

[Tenebrae, BSN, RN]

Yes, yes he did. Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document | Fox News

Psst fox news is not a reliable source.

From the strategy in question

National Security Strategy 2

[traumaRUs, MSN, APRN]

Back to the topic at hand please.....

[guest52816]

I am going to suggest that the topic be moved to Breakroom section.

It has gone from the topic at hand, which I understand is almost impossible to divorce from DJT, to a review of the regime of DJT.

There is DJT section in the Breakroom.

[MunoRN, RN]

Yes, yes he did. Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document | Fox News

I didn't say Muslim in the post you quoted. Islamic means relating to Islam. It doesn't mean mainstream Muslim beliefs. You can be Christian and hold different religious beliefs from a Catholic, but both are still Christian.

The term "Islamic terrorist/extremist" is a person, I, along with the rest of the world, views as a follower of Islam, following to the extreme, as far as carrying out acts of terror in the name of their Prophet because of their interpretation of the Quran.

No one is saying Islam is extreme. But those who profess one must fight or kill those who do not believe in Allah, yea, that's an extreme form of Islam.

The article you linked doesn't actually say the terms were banned, rather that using the term "Islamic terrorism" is an incorrect characterization, which you appear to agree with.

The term "Islam" or "Islamic" refers to the religion as a whole, not a person. A follower of Islam is a Muslim. Unlike the term "Christian" which can refer to both the religion as a whole, ie the Christian Church, and a person who is a follower of Christianity, "Islam" only refers to the religion as a whole. So the term "Islamic terrorism" refers to terrorism perpetrated by the Islamic religion, rather than individuals (Muslims) who are terrorists.

You seem to agree that it's not the religion of Islam as whole that are terrorists, so I'm not sure why you're opposed to refraining from using phrases that are interpreted as meaning that.