Lord knows there's plenty to hold upward outraged at inwards the Trump administration's world. But the so-called "ban" on 7 words at the CDC doesn't look to me to hold upward i of them -- or, at least, the affair to focus on is non the "ban" only the argue for it.
As far every bit I tin country from the reporting, the even out is this: It's fourth dimension to operate on budget documents for adjacent year. Some of those documents accept been prepared too sent upward the chain for review. When the higher ups saw several of the words inwards those documents, they sent them dorsum downwardly for revision (and added several other words to the list). The argue is that the higher-ups either idea that using those words was inappropriate or -- I shout out upward to a greater extent than probable -- were concerned that political appointees dealing amongst the budget would run across the words too down-grade the budget requests. So: to save the possibility that the requests would hold upward funded appropriately, those working on budget documents were told to avoid the words. (The give-away, I think, is the proposition that "science-based" or "evidence-based" hold upward replaced amongst the phrase "CDC bases its recommendations on scientific discipline inwards consideration amongst community standards too wishes" -- meaningless bureaucrat-ese that no i would purpose inwards whatever other setting.)
Now, this isn't a terribly attractive picture, because it shows that the political appointees inwards accuse of the budget are yahoos. It also shows that the lower-down people at the CDC know how to play bureaucratic games in i lawsuit they know the rules. But, in i lawsuit to a greater extent than every bit far every bit I tin tell, it's non a even out close telling CDC employees that they can't purpose the "banned" words inwards their scientific operate or fifty-fifty inwards their communications to the populace -- or, indeed, anywhere else (besides budget documents).
I based this postal service on reporting close the episode, only the headlines too ledes accept been quite misleading (as far every bit I tin tell).
As far every bit I tin country from the reporting, the even out is this: It's fourth dimension to operate on budget documents for adjacent year. Some of those documents accept been prepared too sent upward the chain for review. When the higher ups saw several of the words inwards those documents, they sent them dorsum downwardly for revision (and added several other words to the list). The argue is that the higher-ups either idea that using those words was inappropriate or -- I shout out upward to a greater extent than probable -- were concerned that political appointees dealing amongst the budget would run across the words too down-grade the budget requests. So: to save the possibility that the requests would hold upward funded appropriately, those working on budget documents were told to avoid the words. (The give-away, I think, is the proposition that "science-based" or "evidence-based" hold upward replaced amongst the phrase "CDC bases its recommendations on scientific discipline inwards consideration amongst community standards too wishes" -- meaningless bureaucrat-ese that no i would purpose inwards whatever other setting.)
Now, this isn't a terribly attractive picture, because it shows that the political appointees inwards accuse of the budget are yahoos. It also shows that the lower-down people at the CDC know how to play bureaucratic games in i lawsuit they know the rules. But, in i lawsuit to a greater extent than every bit far every bit I tin tell, it's non a even out close telling CDC employees that they can't purpose the "banned" words inwards their scientific operate or fifty-fifty inwards their communications to the populace -- or, indeed, anywhere else (besides budget documents).
I based this postal service on reporting close the episode, only the headlines too ledes accept been quite misleading (as far every bit I tin tell).
No comments:
Post a Comment