[Genuine Realist]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

I doubt GR believes half of what he posts. Trying to be a contrarian. Once in a great while he turns out to be correct.

I could take umbrage at that, but I have danced this dance too many times to react. (Besides, anyone who has lived in the Palo Alto area as long as I have has learned that the basic Stanford degree is in omniscience, whatever the stated major.) I'm not a contrarian. What I am is a one-eyed man in the proverbial land. No matter how intelligent you may be, if you're wedded to your value judgments, you're going to dull your critical thinking to the point of becoming stupid. Groupthink is probably more dangerous to the intelligentsia than to most others, as too many of them care passionately about what other smart people think. That's how the New York Times maintains its readership.

It's worthwhile actually take a look at the AP article akiddoc cited, and see what it actually says - instead of simply accepting it because it confirms preconceptions. Here's the link to that article, if you want to revisit it.

(1) The first point of note is that the article does NOI report the CDC report being canceled - in fact, quite the opposite. The Administration is going to publish the CDC recommendations. The reporter implies - with no sourcing whatsoever - that the publication reflects a change of position related to the publication of the AP article. Since this is completely self-serving - the last thing in the world the reporter would acknowledge is that the original report was in error - it should be regarded with suspicion, unless it's sourced. But it isn't.

(2) The article then does give a recounting of the production of the report with dates, and I will give credit for that. Many of the reports are often deliberately blurry with dates. There is also reference to email correspondence. But only three emails from the Administration are quoted. One, by Satya Thallam, states  . . . 'the documents are not yet been cleared and cannot go out as of right now . . .'   [emphasis added]. The second, by Rachel Semmel, notes that the submission by the CDC is . . .  'the start, not the end, of the deliberative process and everyone knows that.'  Finally, someone named Quinn Hirsch says that the submission is 'cleared for further development, not release.'

These are the only emails quoted. Given the perspective of the reporter, it stands to reason that they're the worst he can quote - and none of them are remotely about shelving the recommendations. They all refer to an ongoing process - and  . . . .  that's exactly what happened, with the Administration going forward on the 7th, completely consistently with the quoted emails. 

So where's the shelving? Where's the scandal? Well . . . . apparently, 'hours later' Staff Chief McGowan told (how? by conference call? )  'CDC staff' (who? Redfield? Someone else?) that the proposals 'would never see the light of day'. Really? A pretty drastic change of position from emails just a day or two before and absolutely undocumented. No email. No quote. We know this because of the accounts of . . . .  inevitably . . . three anonymous sources who are not authorized to speak. Well, you can take that for what it's worth, which seems to me nothing, because it flatly contradicts the email record and the actual actions of the Administration.

So what did happen? Or is happening? No major proposal from a Federal department, be it a commercial idea from Treasury, a diplomatic policy from State, a defense initiative, etc. is released without the Administration laying hands on it. It will be reviewed, edited, and revised - that happens with all of them. CDC ideas about reopening, which also involve commercial, economic, and even First Amendment (religious gatherings) issues are no exceptions to the rule. It sounds as if a faction in the CDC became impatient with that. (Rachel Semmel's email has an exasperated tone, as if she is reminding people of stuff they should already know.) Given the overall context, the 'never see the light of day' - for which no context is provided - probably refers to the recommendations in the original form, i.e., they will not be published - 'see the light of day' . . . without revision.  This was apparently too much for a few CDC hotheads, who contacted an AP reporter, using the coward's cloak of anonymity, charged that the recommendations were shelved.

Except that they haven't been - and, per the record provided by the story, they never were shelved. The notion that the publication represents a change of direction is a pure self-serving interpolation by the reporter, and is not consistent with the emails he or she quoted. The proposals have been in a review, comment, and revise process, which may be too slow for some CDC staffers, but is absolutely par for the course on major policy. 

So why does akiddoc fall hook, line, and sinker, for an unsourced story in which the text contradicts the headline? In which the actual public actions of the Administration belie the account? Because the headline matches the value judgments he'd already made. I don't mean this to be personal. It's the easiest and most pleasant thing in the world to suspend your critical faculties when you're reading or hearing something you want to believe. But it's deadly. The article is actually the most dangerous form of fake news, because it's subtle. (BTW, I don't mean this just in connection with Trump. Obama and Bush had to live with this, too, albeit not to the same degree. The Obama Administration became so frustrated that it targeted reporters to find out who was leaking, absolutely justified, in my opinion, though decried by all the media. Hell, why not? Who wouldn't want to hold on to unaccountable power?)

I don't think these are bad times. In fact, I believe they are the best in history by far, despite the pandemic. But one of the negative aspects of the incredibly efficient communication system we have developed. We live with a noise level that is unprecedented. Socrates may have been an old dead White guy, but he had a point. To quote myself, from the first novel, “ . . . [t]he epitome of the unexamined life – the paradigm – is to believe everything you want to believe for no better reason than you want to believe it." I'm no more immune than anybody. It isn't easy to live an examined life. It never has been.

[Genuine Realist]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

I doubt GR believes half of what he posts. Trying to be a contrarian. Once in a great while he turns out to be correct.

I could take umbrage at that, but I have danced this dance too many times to react. (Besides, anyone who has lived in the Palo Alto area as long as I have has learned that the basic Stanford degree is in omniscience, whatever the stated major.) I'm not a contrarian. What I am is a one-eyed man in the proverbial land. No matter how intelligent you may be, if you're wedded to your value judgments, you're going to dull your critical thinking to the point of becoming stupid. Groupthink is probably more dangerous to the intelligentsia than to most others, as too many of them care passionately about what other smart people think. That's how the New York Times maintains its readership.

It's worthwhile actually take a look at the AP article akiddoc cited, and see what it actually says - instead of simply accepting it because it confirms preconceptions. Here's the link to that article, if you want to revisit it.

(1) The first point of note is that the article does NOI report the CDC report being canceled - in fact, quite the opposite. The Administration is going to publish the CDC recommendations. The reporter implies - with no sourcing whatsoever - that the publication reflects a change of position related to the publication of the AP article. Since this is completely self-serving - the last thing in the world the reporter would acknowledge is that the original report was in error - it should be regarded with suspicion, unless it's sourced. But it isn't.

(2) The article then does give a recounting of the production of the report with dates, and I will give credit for that. Many of the reports are often deliberately blurry with dates. There is also reference to email correspondence. But only three emails from the Administration are quoted. One, by Satya Thallam, states  . . . 'the documents are not yet been cleared and cannot go out as of right now . . .'   [emphasis added]. The second, by Rachel Semmel, notes that the submission by the CDC is . . .  'the start, not the end, of the deliberative process and everyone knows that.'  Finally, someone named Quinn Hirsch says that the submission is 'cleared for further development, not release.'

These are the only emails quoted. Given the perspective of the reporter, it stands to reason that they're the worst he can quote - and none of them are remotely about shelving the recommendations. They all refer to an ongoing process - and  . . . .  that's exactly what happened, with the Administration going forward on the 7th, completely consistently with the quoted emails. 

So where's the shelving? Where's the scandal? Well . . . . apparently, 'hours later' Staff Chief McGowan told (how? by conference call? )  'CDC staff' (who? Redfield? Someone else?) that the proposals 'would never see the light of day'. Really? A pretty drastic change of position from emails just a day or two before and absolutely undocumented. No email. No quote. We know this because of the accounts of . . . .  inevitably . . . three anonymous sources who are not authorized to speak. Well, you can take that for what it's worth, which seems to me nothing, because it flatly contradicts the email record and the actual actions of the Administration.

So what did happen? Or is happening? No major proposal from a Federal department, be it a commercial idea from Treasury, a diplomatic policy from State, a defense initiative, etc. is released without the Administration laying hands on it. It will be reviewed, edited, and revised - that happens with all of them. CDC ideas about reopening, which also involve commercial, economic, and even First Amendment (religious gatherings) issues are no exceptions to the rule. It sounds as if a faction in the CDC became impatient with that. (Rachel Semmel's email has an exasperated tone, as if she is reminding people of stuff they should already know.) Given the overall context, the 'never see the light of day' - for which no context is provided - probably refers to the recommendations in the original form, i.e., they will not be published - 'see the light of day' . . . without revision.  This was apparently too much for a few CDC hotheads, who contacted an AP reporter, using the coward's cloak of anonymity, charged that the recommendations were shelved.

Except that they haven't been - and, per the record provided by the story, they never were shelved. The notion that the publication represents a change of direction is a pure self-serving interpolation by the reporter, and is not consistent with the emails he or she quoted. The proposals have been in a review, comment, and revise process, which may be too slow for some CDC staffers, but is absolutely par for the course on major policy. 

So why does akiddoc fall hook, line, and sinker, for an unsourced story in which the text contradicts the headline? In which the actual public actions of the Administration belie the account? Because the headline matches the value judgments he'd already made. I don't mean this to be personal. It's the easiest and most pleasant thing in the world to suspend your critical faculties when you're reading or hearing something you want to believe. But it's deadly. The article is actually the most dangerous form of fake news, because it's subtle. (BTW, I don't mean this just in connection with Trump. Obama and Bush had to live with this, too, albeit not to the same degree. The Obama Administration became so frustrated that it targeted reporters to find out who was leaking, absolutely justified, in my opinion, though decried by all the media. Hell, why not? Who wouldn't want to hold on to unaccountable power?)

I don't think these are bad times. In fact, I believe they are the best in history by far, despite the pandemic. But one of the negative aspects of the incredibly efficient communication system we have developed. We live with a noise level that is unprecedented. Socrates may have been an old dead White guy, but he had a point. To quote myself, from the first novel, “ . . . [t]he epitome of the unexamined life – the paradigm – is to believe everything you want to believe for no better reason than you want to believe it." I'm no more immune than anybody. It isn't easy to live an examined life. It never has been.