CDC Director Resigns Over Her Tobacco Stock Purchases

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, but in this case, it's pretty obvious and self-evident that money talks in politics. Surely you don't believe that the politicians are all in it out of selfless love of country? And if you do believe that, why would you be so worried about expansion of government control, since they're all in it out of selfless love and sincere desire to work for our country's interests?

Such a massive conspiracy to bribe public officials would see some
evidence, so that it rises above mere apophenia, eg, convictions.

A friend is convinced that politicians like Obama are destroying our
country. They're Marxist agents, planted here to wreak havoc. He
says it's obvious, which is evidence enuf.
How can one prove which conspiracy theory is correct? One can't.

 

[suncowiam]

She can, but has she? You can't prosecute (in this case fire or ask someone to step down) someone on the basis of what they might do. You can only prosecute someone over what they have actually done. Innocent until proven guilty is how our justice system works.

I don't know that the anti-tobacco campaign has hurt the tobacco business or not. That presumably is one of the intended consequences along with getting people to stop smoking being the primary concern. Increased regulations make profits harder for big tobacco, decrease regulations increase profits, simple as that.

If she has been caught manipulating regulations then like I say. Throw her to the wolves. But unless someone can find some evidence that she is using her position in the CDC to manipulate regulations for personal gain, then this is an egregious overstepping. As such if I was her I would consult my lawyer and look at any possible litigation.

All that being said the article even says her financial manager purchased the stock without her knowledge but as soon as she learned of this she sold the stock immediately. Which sounds reasonable to me, as a person not trying to pull shenanigans.

The issue will always now be "has she?"

Has she made any decisions influenced by her interest of profits in the tobacco industry. Since we cannot answer this objectively, that is sufficient reason to question her abilities and interests.

I didn't read the whole article. If she sold the stocks and has no further holdings then IMO she should be able to keep her job.

 

[suncowiam]

How many people do you think are in this world that have influential positions that affect people who hold varying interests and opinions?

I'm sure if a person digs for information, this type of " conflict of interest" situation isn't very uncommon. She is just being singled out before she even can demonstrate that any of her personal interest and views supersedes the duties of her position unless she's actually done something already contrary in fulfilling her job description adequately and reasonably. Has she?

Her business is her own and nobody else's unless it can be proven she actually placed her interest above her duties and actually compromised her position.

There are a few people that have platforms to sway the economy.

This is why the SEC has very strict rules for upper management on what they can or cannot do concerning their assets in their companies.

I've already mentioned in other posts that the CDC has a continuing anti-tobacco campaign due to its stance on diseases. I've already presented to you the medical establishment's view of addiction as a disease. Do I need to remind you that CDC stands for the Centers of Disease Control? It is her primary job to control diseases. She cannot operate objectively with her interests in tobacco if tobacco has already been proven to cause cancer and addiction. What more do I need to present?

 

[Revoltingest]

The issue will always now be "has she?"

Has she made any decisions influenced by her interest of profits in the tobacco industry. Since we cannot answer this objectively, that is sufficient reason to question her abilities and interests.

I didn't read the whole article. If she sold the stocks and has no further holdings then IMO she should be able to keep her job.

I can agree that she might not be irredeemably corrupted.
But appearances matter....as does good judgement.
She had to go.

 

[Enoch07]

The issue will always now be "has she?"

Has she made any decisions influenced by her interest of profits in the tobacco industry. Since we cannot answer this objectively, that is sufficient reason to question her abilities and interests.

I didn't read the whole article. If she sold the stocks and has no further holdings then IMO she should be able to keep her job.

The question can be answered objectively. With an investigation. Which was completely skipped and went straight to judgement. I hope she walks away with a huge settlement of tax payers money. Maybe that will teach people to mind their own business.

 

[suncowiam]

I can agree that she might not be irredeemably corrupted.
But appearances matter....as does good judgement.
She had to go.

I guess you can make the argument that her good judgement has already been tainted with such a bad decision even if it wasn't by her. She represents who she assigns to her team as does all business leaders.

 

[suncowiam]

The question can be answered objectively. With an investigation. Which was completely skipped and went straight to judgement. I hope she walks away with a huge settlement of tax payers money. Maybe that will teach people to mind their own business.

Well, if you can detail the types of investigation that a director of the CDC would warrant then I might agree with you. Simply saying an investigation is too vague of an answer to ensure objectivity in her work and decision making. What judiciary rules will she be judged against? Civil? Criminal? What precedence will she be compared to? I see a notion of objectivity in your suggestion of an investigation, but the devil in the details.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess you can make the argument that her good judgement has already been tainted with such a bad decision even if it wasn't by her. She represents who she assigns to her team as does all business leaders.

If the investment were made unbeknownst (like that
fancy word?) to her, I'd let her correct the situation.

 

[Stevicus]

Such a massive conspiracy to bribe public officials would see some
evidence, so that it rises above mere apophenia, eg, convictions.

The net worth of many politicians is far greater than the salaries they earn in those positions. They must be getting the money from somewhere. That's prima facie evidence right there.

A friend is convinced that politicians like Obama are destroying our
country. They're Marxist agents, planted here to wreak havoc. He
says it's obvious, which is evidence enuf.

The only problem with your friend's theory is that, if Obama was a Marxist agent, the US would be a Marxist society. But all evidence would show that it's the exact opposite of that. From all indications, the US is a pro-capitalist society, which would demonstrate that all or most politicians are capitalist agents who have benefited greatly from their positions. Since you mention Obama, his net worth is $12.2 million, at least $9 million more than what he would have earned as president (Barack Obama’s Net Worth on His 55th Birthday). Michelle Obama's net worth is about $11.8 million.

Clinton's net worth is around $80 million (Bill Clinton | Bankrate.com). If these guys are Marxist agents, they're clearly doing it wrong.

How can one prove which conspiracy theory is correct? One can't.

All conspiracy theories simply revolve around the basic historical fact that the wealthy and powerful have greater influence over a country's affairs than the average poor person. This has been true for thousands of years, going back to even before the Roman Empire. If you want to argue with history, go right ahead, but it's an irrefutable fact that no one can deny.

 

[Revoltingest]

The net worth of many politicians is far greater than the salaries they earn in those positions. They must be getting the money from somewhere. That's prima facie evidence right there.

If it were so obvious, why aren't they prosecuted?
Oh, I forgot....the cops & the courts are in on the conspiracy.

The only problem with your friend's theory is that, if Obama was a Marxist agent, the US would be a Marxist society.

Obama wasn't a very skilled agent.
But he did slow down the recovery quite a bit.
Theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!

From all indications, the US is a pro-capitalist society, which would demonstrate that all or most politicians are capitalist agents who have benefited greatly from their positions.

But we're becoming less & less capitalist.
A people's paradise doesn't happen overnite.

 

[Stevicus]

If it were so obvious, why aren't they prosecuted?
Oh, I forgot....the cops & the courts are in on the conspiracy.

Not necessarily in on the conspiracy, but it's hard to prove. A lot of loopholes in the law. A lot of murderers like Al Capone got away with it. Some justice system, huh?

Obama wasn't a very skilled agent.
But he did slow down the recovery quite a bit.
Theory proven beyond a shadow of a doubt!

But we're becoming less & less capitalist.
A people's paradise doesn't happen overnite.

We're more capitalist now than we were 50-60 years ago, back when America's economy actually worked.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're more capitalist now than we were 50-60 years ago, back when America's economy actually worked.

We've actually lost ground relative to the rest of the world.
US falls in economic freedom index

 

[Stevicus]

We've actually lost ground relative to the rest of the world.
US falls in economic freedom index

Interesting. I did a bit of searching on the Heritage Foundation, the authors of the report you cite.

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia

The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner, and Joseph Coors.[6] Growing out of the new business activist movement inspired by the Powell Memorandum,[7][8] discontent with Richard Nixon's embrace of the "liberal consensus" and the nonpolemical, cautious nature of existing think tanks,[9] Weyrich and Feulner sought to create an organization that would supply policymakers with concise, timely position papers.

As for the Powell Memorandum (Lewis F. Powell Jr. - Wikipedia):

On August 23, 1971, prior to accepting Nixon's nomination to the Supreme Court, Powell was commissioned by his neighbor, Eugene B. Sydnor Jr., a close friend and education director of the US Chamber of Commerce, to write a confidential memorandum titled "Attack on the American Free Enterprise System," an anti-Communist, anti-Fascist, anti-New Deal blueprint for conservative business interests to retake America for the chamber.[14][15] It was based in part on Powell's reaction to the work of activist Ralph Nader, whose 1965 exposé on General Motors, Unsafe at Any Speed, put a focus on the auto industry putting profit ahead of safety, which triggered the American consumer movement. Powell saw it as an undermining of Americans' faith in enterprise and another step in the slippery slope of socialism.[14] His experiences as a corporate lawyer and a director on the board of Phillip Morris from 1964 until his appointment to the Supreme Court made him a champion of the tobacco industry who railed against the growing scientific evidence linking smoking to cancer deaths.[14] He argued, unsuccessfully, that tobacco companies' First Amendment rights were being infringed when news organizations were not giving credence to the cancer denials of the industry. That was the point where Powell began to focus on the media as biased agents of socialism.[14]

Sounds a bit like your friend, the conspiracy theorist who sees Marxists everywhere. They even intimate that Nixon was a Marxist, and he was one of the most anti-communist presidents we've ever had. Wow.

In any case, it would appear that even the Heritage Foundation would agree with my point that the US is more capitalist now than it was in the years prior to its formation, as it was ostensibly founded to reverse the trends of the 50s and 60s, when America's economy was at its peak and running like a well-oiled machine - until they decided they wanted to throw a monkey wrench into that machine and destroy the economy strictly for ideological reasons.

So much for the Heritage Foundation and their "index."

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. I did a bit of searching on the Heritage Foundation, the authors of the report you cite.

The Heritage Foundation - Wikipedia



As for the Powell Memorandum (Lewis F. Powell Jr. - Wikipedia):



Sounds a bit like your friend, the conspiracy theorist who sees Marxists everywhere. They even intimate that Nixon was a Marxist, and he was one of the most anti-communist presidents we've ever had. Wow.

In any case, it would appear that even the Heritage Foundation would agree with my point that the US is more capitalist now than it was in the years prior to its formation, as it was ostensibly founded to reverse the trends of the 50s and 60s, when America's economy was at its peak and running like a well-oiled machine - until they decided they wanted to throw a monkey wrench into that machine and destroy the economy strictly for ideological reasons.

So much for the Heritage Foundation and their "index."

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they cannot
be disproven, so they're all equally not even wrong.

 

[Stevicus]

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they cannot
be disproven, so they're all equally not even wrong.

Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation's conspiracy theories about Nader and Nixon? Or maybe it relates to your OP about the tobacco companies, which apparently had an influence in the formation of that organization. The CDC director resigned over a conspiracy theory. Doesn't that mean something?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you referring to the Heritage Foundation's conspiracy theories about Nader and Nixon?

No.
Did you read the article?
It wasn't about them.

Or maybe it relates to your OP about the tobacco companies, which apparently had an influence in the formation of that organization. The CDC director resigned over a conspiracy theory. Doesn't that mean something?

She resigned because she did something which looked very very improper.

 

[Stevicus]

No.
Did you read the article?
It wasn't about them.

I was referring to your bringing up the Heritage Foundation's report to support your counterpoint that the US is less capitalist now than it was 50-60 years ago, which is what you were addressing in post #52.

She resigned because she did something which looked very very improper.

Just as a politician having a net worth higher than their actual salaries would also look very very improper.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was referring to your bringing up the Heritage Foundation's report to support your counterpoint that the US is less capitalist now than it was 50-60 years ago, which is what you were addressing in post #52.

Did you read the article though?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Tobacco kills and it is a fact that it destroys your lungs. A good friend of mine was killed when a tobacco truck ran over his clean lungs.

 

[Stevicus]

Did you read the article though?

Yes.