Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...there is no evidence to support your position above...perhaps that is why some may find it difficult or frustrating to engage in discussions with you.
The role of the SG is health education NOT policy development cheerleader for the President and has been for as long as I aware (at least in our lifetiime). Many SGs educated the public on particular health issues when those issues were not a priority of their respective Presidents. SGs under LBJ, Nixon and Ford all engaged in public dialogue on the health dangers of smoking when it was not a priority health issue for their respective president.
Reagan's SG (Koop) focused on AIDs awareness and education before Reagan reluctanly agreed is was a national health issue ..but certainly not an issue for the Reagan conservative crowd.
Bush Sr's SG (Novello) promoted women health issues and childhood immunization....not priority policy issues for GHW Bush
Clinton's SG (Elders)had a focus teen pregnancy prevention and sex education in schoools....upsetting many by suggesting discussing masturbation in the sex education curriculum.
There certainly are occasions when the health education priority of an SG coincides with a priority health policy issue of the President...but more often than not (or at least just as often), they have been mututally exclusive.
That is, until now. Under GW Bush, the SG is expected to promote abstinence only education for birth control, homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, embryonic stem cell research kills babies, and an agenda determined by the christian right rather than the best medical science.
If you dont accept that health education (on the basis of best science, not politics) is and has always been the primary mission of the SG and you determine instead that it has always been a cheerleader for the President......
.....please, for once, DOCUMENT your position and conclusions with facts. |
I understand our differences. Examples: I see AID's awareness as a public policy issue and in my view it is a political issue. I think Elders was fired for political reasons, perhaps she wasn't. I think political appointments by their very nature suggest the the position is political, and in order to get appointed the appointee has to be in political agreement with the appointer (of course there may be exceptions).
You take the absolute position that there is no evidence to support my view. If that is what you believe I understand your frustration. Perhaps, one day an anvil or something will fall on my head and I will see the light, until then I will continue on with my absurd, appalling, indefensible, idiotic, (I am sure I missed a few) arguments and thoughts.