December 17, 2017

"It’s absurd and Orwellian, it’s stupid and Orwellian, but they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the C.D.C. does."

"They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what C.D.C. can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded."

An unnamed "former federal official" explained to the NYT what's behind this weird report that "officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had been barred from using seven words or phrases, including 'science-based,' 'fetus,' 'transgender' and 'vulnerable,' in agency budget documents."

It wasn't that people inside the CDC were offended by those terms. It was that they feared those words might trigger opposition from Republicans in Congress from whom they are trying to get support. It's self-censorship. Or so it seems. We're not seeing Republicans banning words but how people who feel antagonistic to Republicans are willing to change their speech in order to get more of what they want from Republicans.

71 comments:

Paco Wové said...

In a word, fakenews.

Anonymous said...

The articles I saw on this yesterday ("Trump Administration Bans Words at CDC!") pegged my bullshit meter. "Fetus"? Yeah, that sounded plausible.

Filed under: "wait 24-48 hours to see what's buried under the bullshit".

Michael K said...

More fake news. Ho him/

Hari said...

I'd like to see some examples of how these words were used by the CDC in past budget documents, if they were used at all.

n.n said...

Each party has their political congruences ("=").

Fetus is a term of art that refers to a stage of human evolution. It is designed to dehumanize a human life through the normalization of an abstraction, in order to force the acceptance of the wicked solutions: selective-child and recycled-child, for social and medical progress.

Transgender is loathsome because it is not selective, it is a spectrum disorder. The human species has two sexes: male and female, two genders: masculine and feminine. Transgender classes include homosexual, bisexual, transvestite, crossover (e.g. indoctrinated, medically corrupted), ambiguous, and undecided. Ironically, the majority, homosexuals, do not want to be associated with others in the transgender spectrum.

Female chauvinists have formed a close association between "vulnerable" and "female", and diversity racketeers have formed a close association between "vulnerable" and minority, so its use must be restricted for proper (i.e. authorized) political leverage.

Gahrie said...

but how people who feel antagonistic to Republicans are willing to change their speech in order to get more of what they want from Republicans.

These aren't "people", they're government employees who are unwilling to serve the will of this president. Instead of trying to "get more of what they want" they should either resign, or do the president's business, not their own.

Lem Vibe Bandit said...

I’m guessing they can use the word jihad now?

Ann Althouse said...

WaPo started it and got everyone stirred up about this yesterday. The NYT is calling bullshit on WaPo, I think. I'd like to see the NYT go stronger and call fake news on WaPo, but maybe its dignified approach is best.

Please notice how different the 2 biggest papers are from each other.

Jersey Fled said...

Wow! Another unnamed "former government official".

It's like a signpost that says "Fake News Ahead".

Bay Area Guy said...

"Please notice how different the 2 biggest papers are from each other."

Reminds me of the differences between Iran and Iraq circa 1983.

Wince said...

Sure is "Orwellian", but not in the way the NYT thinks it is.

"Science-based" is a loaded term, connoting the "right science", when compared to the shorter, simpler term "scientific."

Let's go to Orwell's "Politics and the English Language."

PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable...

People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning — they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another — but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: What am I trying to say? What words will express it? What image or idiom will make it clearer? Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: Could I put it more shortly? Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. This will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

Ken B said...

As several say, fake news. It's gaslighting. “Oh Republicans hate science. Not like Mr Kennedy.”

YoungHegelian said...

No named sources. No copy of the "memo", basically because there isn't one.

This is exactly the scenario that led to to CNN's recent debacle concerning the Trump campaign's "early" access to encrypted Wikileaks documents.

It really isn't difficult to avoid nonsense like this either as a reporter or a reader.

n.n said...

Please notice how different the 2 biggest papers are from each other.

Each is representative of special and peculiar interests, where divisions are forming following a political schism. We are witness, participants, and victims, to a historical process and event.

FIDO said...

Two related points:

1) I don't think they are wrong for self censoring. I am very much not interested in funding anything transgendered. Not my tribe, not my problem, and since they MADE themselves my political enemies, screw them. Using these words is not a good sales technique right now

2) but it might have been a good sales technique a year ago. I wonder if the baboos at the CDC told their minions to 'try to wedge in transgender etc to sex up the document so we get MORE funding'

How is the first wrong but the second acceptable? I am guessing a study on the salubrious psychological benefits of gun ownership would not have gotten funding under the Obama Reign as opposed to 'How Great are Trannies, AMIRITE?"

So bad WaPo for their bullshit and if I read them, I would drop my subscription.

But this is a yawner for sure.

narciso said...

One is a real term, the other are cromulent versions of category error.

n.n said...

it might have been a good sales technique a year ago

Case in point: the progression from global cooling to global warming to the ambiguous "climate change".

They are still bitterly clinging to the Nazi label as some kind of [political] life preserver. As well as the mythical "war on women" propaganda, well into multidecadal trimesters. Each of which raises the possibility: What are they hiding? and: Show me the leverage!

Patrick said...

OH please. This sort of thing has been going on among grant writers for as long as grants have been handed out. They say what they think they need to say in order to get funded, usually saying that which they believe the grantor wants to hear.

Yancey Ward said...

Like Angel-Dyne, I saw the same biased headlines, and, lo and behold, when you dig into the actual story, it isn't a Trump Administration rule at all, but the CDC minions who predated Trump's rise who are censoring themselves to get funding.

I mean seriously- journalists are basically lying in this example- just outright lying.

Yancey Ward said...

And FIDO points out the converse here- when it was Democrats who needed to be appealed to, I am sure all of the these terms were recommended for use in grant proposals by the very same minions.

Fernandinande said...

++

Sam Altman (Y Combinator) : "Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home."

steve hsu Mod Mike Davies • a day ago

Actually, Sam understates the case. In Beijing no one would hesitate, in private conversation, to question the communist party or some action by Xi Jinping. There are basically no restrictions on what you can discuss in China -- people are "reality based"! You only get in trouble if you *widely broadcast* anti-government views through social media or other platform.

The US is a different story entirely. You can easily get an angry emotional response from someone who is supposedly highly educated and rational by asking simple questions like "How reliable are IPCC climate projections? Can we really model such complex phenomena?" or "Do students admitted through preference with SAT scores hundreds of points below the rest of their class have a good shot at succeeding in challenging majors?" :-(

FIDO said...

Fernandistein,

Not in Fly Over Country. We got both types here. In Urban Bubbles, and Campuses where never is heard, a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day, yeah. They don't know how to process that.

Comanche Voter said...

Ah come on. The folks at the CDC (which I think is based in Atlanta) surely know how to adopt the Southern " bless his heart" meme.
.
They could write, "It's just an ugly little aborted fetus, bless its dead little heart".

Or they could say that the "reporters" and "editors" and other bull slinging artists at the New York Times are lying scum sucking scoundrels--bless their hearts.


Surely the folks at the CDC can get with the program!

urbane legend said...

In another forum, I pointed that "diversity," "transgender," "vulnerable," and "entitlement" were not science words anyway, so what's the big deal? The milder Trump haters said " Yes, they are, " but couldn't explain how. The more virulent, well, we can't get into that in polite company.

MountainMan said...

This story of Trump "censorship" has been erupting among my progressive friends on Facebook all morning. About as bad as the net neutrality frenzy this week. Just like that topic none of them know what they are talking about. It just has "Trump" all over it and he and those Nazis must be resisted, etc., etc.

MD Greene said...


Oh, good grief. I never heard the term "science-based" until it became a weapon used by people who didn't know science but were disdainful of people they presumed were their inferiors. The previous practice was to describe a phenomenon that had been observed or studied by scientists and to describe it as such. "Science-based" is a sloppy way to describe political opinions; it's a preemptive defense that seeks to invalidate any wrong-thinking or head off serious discussion.

In fact, scientific truth is ALWAYS being challenged -- by scientists -- and this is good. Didn't someone say once that "mathematics is the only area of science that hasn't visited it own funeral" ?

Lindsey said...

Why does the CDC need to use the terms 'science-based' or 'evidence-based' at all? Are there people out there who think the CDC uses smoke signals and psychics to track diseases?

Jaq said...

The CDC is so precise in their terms:

Victim was pressured verbally or through intimidation or misuse of authority to consent or acquiesce to being penetrated. Examples include being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, or being told promises that were untrue; having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority (this is not an exhaustive list).

So telling your girlfriend that if she isn’t interested in having sex with you, obviously you are at different places and it’s time to move on, or promising you will call her, those examples fit the CDC definition of sexual coercion and make you just as bad as Harvey Weinstein! You come under the exact same heading and end up in the exact same statistical bin! And there are a lot of other things they haven’t even thought of yet that make you a criminal!

I can understand why they would be ashamed to call their work “science based.”



Jaq said...

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv_surveillance_definitionsl-2009-a.pdf

Can’t seem to hot link anymore...

narciso said...

Because they have gone into diving and husruptcy, recall the previous cdc director, was known for his crusade against soda and firearms, but less for containment protocols.

Bay Area Guy said...


"Please notice how different the 2 biggest papers are from each other."

There is also a difference between the National Enquirer and the New York Times:

One is a salacious, poorly sourced rag, that peddles lame conspiracy theories.
And the other is ....The National Equirer

bagoh20 said...

I bet the alternatives are worse. It's kind of a thing with the left to avoid something negative by doing something worse.

narciso said...

The attack by swamp dwellers on prince salmon, who resembles that character in the Anderson park novel is of a piece:


www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/midnight_at_the_democracy_dies_in_darkness_caf.html

bagoh20 said...

I'm betting on "redneck-approved", itty bitty baby, "dike" or "fag", and "bootstrapping"

n.n said...

One is a salacious, poorly sourced rag, that peddles lame conspiracy theories.
And the other is...


One will plead ignorance as journolistic form, while the other will revel in it.

cubanbob said...

Apparently a lot of people have either forgotten or never learned what the acronym CDC stands for: Centers for Disease Control. Is a fetus a disease organism? Is transgenderism a disease? I haven't seen officials claiming these positions so why the fuss regarding these issues and the CDC?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The implication is that the Trump administration won’t be reading and evaluating the CDC budget requests, just scanning them for trigger words. Sounds about right.

n.n said...

why the fuss regarding these issues and the CDC

The CDC is perceived as a "science-based" organization, an authority, which can either make or break a variety of "science-based" claims. So, it's to be expected that terms like "fetus", "transgender", "vulnerable", etc. are treated so critically.

For example, if the CDC described the early stage of human evolution as "baby" rather than "fetal", this would create a social incongruity and inconvenient burden for special and peculiar interests who advocate for selective-child and recycled-child.

chuck said...

Ah, the CDCs new omission statement. As in, lying by omission.

Jaq said...

Funny how so many government employees think the same way as lefty trolls.

Paco Wové said...

I haven't seen [CDC] officials claiming these positions"

On the other hand, the CDC considers "violence" (in its broadest possible definition) a disease, as per TiV above.

--

Sick burn there, Left Bank. Trump is soooo pwned!

MayBee said...

Hahahahaha! People were going crazy over this on Twitter yesterday. I think I might have even gotten a CNN news alert about it.

Pull it together, news organizations.

wwww said...

Is a fetus a disease organism?

No, but the CDC is concerned with monitoring and preventing diseases that hurt growing fetuses. Zika - southern Florida/ TX/ Puerto Rico has been a big concern. I believe the CDC has been issuing the travel alerts for where pregnant women ought not travel because of Zika. It's out of the news, but something growing families should consider carefully when planning vacations.

Zika a very curious disease, because the other mosquito-borne illnesses do not infect the brain in the same way during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. If they can figure out how to create a vaccine, or other mechanism, that blocks the brain destruction, it will be a great thing.

Jaq said...

Isn't "fetus" just a word for discarded baby? I have never met a person who called a baby they intended to have a "fetus."

Michael K said...

"Fetus" is a technical term that applies to the developing infant. Embryo applies to earlier stages and is usually used with non-human pregnancy although some, like Elephant and tigers, have longer gestation periods.

Once a fetus reaches viability, there is a good case it should be called an infant.

Surgery can be done on intrauterine fetuses so it gets complicated.

wwww said...

Isn't "fetus" just a word for discarded baby? I have never met a person who called a baby they intended to have a "fetus."


What?! Is this really a thing people think? You never heard this when your wife was pregnant? Docs use it all the time. And, yeah, fetus is specific to second and third trimester.

They don't say it about your baby, but they'll say it when talking in medical terms about development. "Mothers should take the extra iron supplements because second trimester fetuses need it for development." "Eat lots of oranges because folic acid is critical to embryos in the first trimester."

wwww said...



To be clear: parents don't use the word fetus. Specialists use it all the time because it conveys medically specific understandings of the 2nd-3rd trimesters and the mother is not in labor. But differentiates from an embryo, which has specific health needs that aren't the same as a fetus.

An embryo would be much more difficult to operate on because it's changing so quickly. An embryo needs folic acid to prevent major birth defects. A fetus needs lots of iron and a healthy cord for good oxygen.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

What a ridiculous rationalization.

Like I said, conservatives include a number of authoritarian control freaks, and the best place to start for controlling people is by cutting of their freedom right in the mind. Controlling thoughts, controlling language, and ideas. That's what our conservative authoritarian friends are up to as they gasp their last breath of power. Stop the science, CDC - Republican "community standards" are at risk! Mighty pathetic.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Once a fetus reaches viability, there is a good case it should be called an infant.

Yes! Let's start including them in the census reports, too!

Michael K said...

I see Ritmo and his crap has arrived.

Tree to trim.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Where would the world be without your deep thoughts, Michael K?

So can we ask when you'll be adding "fetus-style infants" to the U.S. census report?

TDP said...

I get a "any means necessary" vibe from this. Self-censorship in the service of leftist.cause.feminism.abortion.

Francisco D said...

"In fact, scientific truth is ALWAYS being challenged -- by scientists -- and this is good. Didn't someone say once that "mathematics is the only area of science that hasn't visited it own funeral" ?"

Nicely stated. I agree completely as a trained PhD social scientist, not to be confused with the hard sciences.

I would refer to any "science-based" thinker (well, non-thinker) to the works of Thomas Kuhn.

Jaq said...

Yes! Let's start including them in the census reports, too!

Is that somehow a bizarre idea?

Jaq said...

I support the right to abortion. I just don’t kid myself and pretend that it’s not about killing a human being. It’s about killing a legal non-person. You know, like Dred Scott. I just think that the alternatives, investigating miscarriages as Meade has pointed out in the past, for example, are worse and would lead to an overly intrusive government.

Ken B said...

OnCoyne's blog it is being presented as Trump banning the words, and I am trying to point out this is BS. As usual they are doubling down: this reflects badly on Trump either way. Think about that. True, false whatever, makes no never mind, bad on Trump!
Even Inga isn’t that far gone.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

Is that somehow a bizarre idea?

Yep. Obviously.

I support the right to abortion. I just don’t kid myself and pretend that it’s not about killing a human being.

If fertilized eggs are human beings then how about non-fertilized eggs? Menstrual products should be saved, fertilized and incubated! The sanctity of life demands it!

It’s about killing a legal non-person.

There is no such thing as a "legal non-person." That's a contradiction in terms. Although from the likes of it these days, such "legal non-persons" as corporations seem to be given more consideration and interest in being saved from Republicans than, you know, actual "persons." God Save the Corporation! Fetuses and corporations. The only viable Republican constituencies left. If you're a person that's not inside a uterus or one given "life" by means of a contract relegating you to being nothing more than a legal instrument of profit, then Republicans really aren't interested in you.

You know, like Dred Scott.

What a bullshit analogy. Black freed persons and slaves were given different status based on what the state or their owner or emancipator or situation of birth accorded them. Not based on biology (i.e. "race").

I just think that the alternatives, investigating miscarriages as Meade has pointed out in the past, for example, are worse and would lead to an overly intrusive government.

You think that's bad, try confirming pregnancy in the first place, Mr. Male. The state authorized to do periodic vaginal-uterine sweeps to make sure that no "legal non-persons" are being hidden in the attic by insufficiently gracious incubator-people.

The lengths to which your party goes to avoid thinking through the actual consequences of its positions are bizarre.

Gahrie said...

Black freed persons and slaves were given different status based on what the state or their owner or emancipator or situation of birth accorded them. Not based on biology (i.e. "race").

Not after Dred Scott. The decision in that case said that Black people are not citizens, and could never become citizens, regardless of their condition of servitude. It's why the 14th Amendment needed to be written...to overturn Dred Scott. After Dred Scott The status of Black people in the United States had everything to do with race.

Michael K said...

Ritmo always kills a thread with his excrement.

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...

More deep thoughts of yours I see there, Michael K.

Keep trying. Perhaps someday you may become somewhat less shallow than a sandbox.

n.n said...

Unfortunately, abortion is a natural right. Like other premeditated acts carried out in privacy, it cannot be prevented, but it can be discouraged (i.e. normalization of a suitable/reconcilable religious/moral philosophy). The National Socialists referred to it as the "final solution". Other left-wing regimes, including contemporary progressive regimes, and the Pro-Choice Church, have chosen it as a wicked solution to an admittedly hard problem.

Anyway, the goal is to reverse unqualified progress, including doctrines that deny individual dignity, (e.g. "diversity" or judging people by the "color of their skin"), and that are exploited to justify rationalize the abortion of human life deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable (e.g. selective-child, one-child, recycled-child).

That said, in the technical space, "fetus" is a term of art that refers to a stage in human evolution. However, in the political or social space, it is used to dehumanize human life that has been deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable. Unfortunately, there is an unholy collusion between what is ostensibly scientific authority and political/social factions, where the logical progression is historical and predictable, and which is eventually, invariably resolved through overwhelming force.

Jaq said...

The lengths to which your party goes to avoid thinking through the actual consequences of its positions are bizarre.

It’s pretty funny, some might even say ironic, that that is the sentence with which you conclude your nonsensical diatribe.

N.B. I could have pointed out that Jews under the Nazis were legally non-persons, and I would have been correct, but I didn’t want to go all Godwin, and wanted to use an example from the United States.

Anyway, here is the definition of “person” as it is used in law: Person: law, A human or organization with legal rights and duties.

walter said...

I see my Facebook stream filled with Resist!ers meme-ing this shiite.
This reminds me of the UW-Mad grad students I heard discussing the need to reference global warming in order to secure $$$ for their projects.

Ken B said...

TTR
You got Dred Scott and race wrong. Not a wee bit wrong, but fundamentally. Can you admit it? Or can you just insult Michael K?

EMyrt said...

nn

You are misusing the term evolution.
The term you want is development.
As in evo-devo.
A fetus is the stage of development of an individual human being between embryo and baby (or abortus, if the fetus is terminated).
Evolution refers to the much longer term processes over many organisms and species. It's why a human embryo looks so much like a reptile embryo and a human fetus so little.

bagoh20 said...

There is only one thing that the rest of us have that a third trimester fetus doesn't have.

Rights. Because some on the outside say so. It's good to be outside the womb, where it's safe.

wildswan said...

Fake key words. State of the art deception. But the CDC has always known how to do the thing well.

For instance, the first head of the CDC (under the name Centers of Disease Control) was Raymond Vonderlehr (1947-1951) whose notable qualification was his previous involvement in the Tuskegee Syphilis study. And for years the Center for Disease Control let the program go on as a "Study of Untreated Syphilis". Now blacks are being wiped out through abortion and this genocide is studied by "health statistics" which document "reproductive health" at different ages in different groups.

dwick said...

@12/17/17, 3:26 PM, The Toothless Revolutionary said...
"...conservatives include a number of authoritarian control freaks, and the best place to start for controlling people is by cutting of their freedom right in the mind."


heh... as if progressives don't include their own number of authoritarian control freaks hell-bent on controlling the thoughts, language, and ideas of the masses. That's what authoritarian control freaks do. Let's try contributing original relevant thoughts here rather than just restating the obvious and mundane.

Matt Sablan said...

Wow. That's not how the people on Twitter and Facebook reported this.

Matt Sablan said...

This is pretty tame. Especially considering most the media shrugged about actual government action against conservatives by the IRS actively auditing and slow rolling groups with certain key words in their names and missions.

virgil xenophon said...

Matthew Sablan@6:51am/

Same for CNN and Morning Joe..