Is the administration censoring federal health agencies from using a combination of seven words in its budget requests? Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control (and others within the Department of Health and Human Services) report they were told not to use the following words: diversity, entitlement, fetus, transgender, vulnerable, evidence-based and science-based.
In the face of a firestorm of pushback from health officials nationally, Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald, the head of the CDC, tweeted there is no censorship. Instead, they are suggestions to placate Republican budget reviewers.
Who do you believe? Who can you believe? What possible dangers to the goal of Make America Great Again do these words pose? Is it hard censorship, in which the order is to not use these words, or is it soft censorship, in which the suggestion is to not use these words? The problem with soft censorship is that it is a strong signal as to what is permissible without directly saying so. Sadly, the effect is the same.
I recall such censorship only at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. The federal government forbade using “condom” when providing safer-sex advice. How many were harmed by not being told how they can protect themselves in words they could readily understand?
What damage will these restrictions cause?
The science of epidemiology, which provides the data and its analysis to describe the health status of the American people and the various sub-populations that comprise us — broken down however one wishes; e.g., geography, age, race, gender, national origin, primary language, etc. — holds that “if it isn’t counted, it doesn’t count.” If we are stopped from counting one aspect of the population, it might only be a matter of time before we stop counting others. That group’s existence “disappears” from national consciousness. Who is next? Where does it end?
The decision to censor (hard or soft) standard language used by the CDC and throughout the public health and other professions is both wrongheaded and frightening. The calendar tells us that we are approaching the end of 2017. One wonders which year we are heading into: 2018 or 1984.
Paul Etkind
Doctor of public health, master of public health
Grantham
Christmas stollen is family tradition and indulgence. Let’s not forget to celebrate our grandmothers who have carried this rich and unusually dense and fruit-filled yeast dough recipe forward. Add bourbon or brandy, yes. But low-fat milk, vegan butter substitute, almond milk and chocolate? Ugh!
Helen Brody
Lebanon
On behalf of the CCBA board of trustees I would like to invite the wonderful folks of the Upper Valley to consider donating to the CCBA’s 2017 Annual Giving program. Donating to the Annual Giving program makes it possible for the CCBA to offer and provide many of the numerous community events, programs and spaces to the public for free. These include our playground, outdoor basketball and tennis courts, picnic pavilion and playing fields and, of course, our free drop-in youth center that has been in existence for almost 100 years!
The past year has been a remarkable year for the CCBA, and 2018 is shaping up to be even greater. Please consider helping us enable kids to realize their potential and help people live healthy and active lifestyles.
To donate online, visit www.joinccba.org/giving. Or mail your donation to 1 Taylor St., Lebanon, N.H., 03766.
Bruce Bergeron
Chair, CCBA Board of Trustees
Lebanon
In his Dec. 15 letter to the editor headlined “Israel Isn’t an Oppressor,” Michael Friedman portrayed Israel as the victim. He cites rockets fired indiscriminately at Israel by Palestinians, but forgets that a militant right-wing Zionist underground organization employed similar tactics when fighting the British for independence in 1946. They bombed the King David Hotel, killing 91 civilians and injuring 46. Two years later, the Lydda death march took place in which 50,000 to 70,000 Palestinian men, women and children were driven from their homes. We all know that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Israel has been widely criticized by independent organizations for the use of disproportionate force against the Palestinians resulting in roughly a 6:1 (Palestinian: Israeli) combat death rate. We can all agree that violence is counterproductive and only honest negotiation, without preconditions, is the moral and rational path for any solution. However, Israel insists on the precondition that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state but rejects Palestinian preconditions. Is Israel so insecure in its identity that it needs from the Palestinians what it didn’t ask of the Egyptians or Jordanians, or are preconditions an intentional obstacle for negotiation as is its ongoing settlement policy?
Friedman states that for “2,000 years Jews have prayed for their return to Jerusalem,” but doesn’t consider that for the 1,300 years prior to 1967, Palestinians had been living there in peace. And since when does praying for something give one the right to take it?
Friedman states that Israel magnanimously gave Gaza to the Palestinians but doesn’t mention that it hasn’t relinquished its control to the extent that many observers view it as an Israeli open-air prison.
He and I are not fans of the current Israeli government. Its prime minister has actually vowed that there will never be a two-state solution under his watch. Unfortunately for those of us who want peace, reconciliation and a democratic Israel, the rightward shift of its government increases the likelihood of continuing occupation, illegal settlements and daily oppression of a people under its control.
Howard Jonas
Bridgewater Corners