Trump Adminstration: A Method To Its Madness
World health officials could scarcely believe what they encountered earlier this year in Geneva at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly, as the U.S. opposed a resolution that would encourage breast-feeding. The sheer weight of scientific evidence in favor of mothers’ milk is staggering, compiled, as it has been, via exhaustive research over several decades. Yet the U.S. delegates supported the efforts of the $70 billion baby formula industry to quash the resolution. When the delegates’ effort failed, they created an enormous fracas, threatening economic sanctions against countries that stood in their way. If you read the story linked above, you’ll realize how truly horrifying this whole imbroglio really was.
A reader asks: What the hell is wrong with you people who still support this administration? Seriously, it’s like a very poorly sketched out comic book villain… one that is too random and pointlessly evil to be believed.
Answer: The Trump administration is evil, but it’s not “random and pointlessly evil.” Every (literally every) action is calculated to amass money and power for the already rich and powerful at the expense of the health and well-being of the common American. Take a minute and consider what’s going on healthcare, environmental regulation, fuel-efficient transportation, defense, gun rights, banking, consumer protection, criminal justice, education, fossil fuels, agribusiness, the elimination of social programs, and so forth. Make the list as long as you please, and then try to find something–anything–that’s happening that doesn’t consolidate money and power in the hands of a few.
Go ahead; I’ll wait. 🙂
Even things that are apparently disconnected from money, e.g., gerrymandering, attacks on the free press and minority/women’s rights, and the endorsement of white supremacists, are designed to appeal to large voting blocs, e.g., bigots and evangelicals, so as to maintain this stranglehold on power.
Once you understand this, each of these actions not only makes sense, but is completely predictable.
Feel better now? I didn’t think so. 🙂
Craig,
Once again you quote only one side of a debate, and then add a whole lot of hysteria and political bias and unsubstantiated allegations. The New York Times article was neither helpful nor accurate.
A no time has the US or any government agency sought to prevent breast feeding, that would be impossible. What the US delegation found objectionable was the ideological language used employed in the UN resolution.
The UN resolution was very flawed, seeking to discriminate against Mothers who for one reason or another elect to supplement or replace breast feeding with infant formula.
Your rant didn’t bother to research the reasons or the Presidents response, instead relied on the dubious report from the NYT parroted by the media, quoting mostly anonymous sources.
In fact the President immediately issued a statement supporting breast feeding, but endorsing the US Depart of Health’s concern about the wording of the resolution.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) defended the US delegation’s approach.
HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley issued a statement explaining;
“The issues being debated were not about whether one supports breastfeeding. The United States wishes to protect all women to be able to make the best choices for the nutrition of their baby.
Women are not able to breastfeed for a variety of reasons. These women should not be stigmatized or discriminated against. Women should be equally supported with information and access to alternatives for the health of themselves and their babies.”
I’m baffled as to why you don’t find that a perfectly reasonable and sensible argument ?
A significant proportion of Mothers either can’t or shouldn’t breastfeed. An even bigger proportion of mothers lack sufficient nutrition in their breast milk.
What the NYT article and all those who parroted the article failed to disclose was the main objection by the US delegation was to the demand :
“The UN resolution requires, all signatory nation enact legislation preventing any information, advertising or promotion of breast-milk substitutes including providing free samples being disseminated.
The US was successful in having this wording removed.
In your eagerness to attack the Trump administration, do you really want millions of nursing Mothers stigmatized and made to fed “evil” because they can’t or shouldn’t breast fed ?
Is your hatred so strong, any means justifies the end ?
Craig,
(Sorry, I got interrupted due to my flight being called.
But here’s a point to consider. EU ideologues intend to seeking the UN to impose restrictions against the use of silicone on the basis that it poses a risk to the environment. The EU has already introduced such regulations despite UK opposition.
The US, Canada and Australia along with the UK have voiced strong opposition to these regulations as based on incomplete evaluation of scientific evidence. The EU reports rely purely on dubious computer modeling which is more likely to yield harmful results than real-world field tests.
There is a similar comparison of flawed methodology when evaluating the advantages of breast feeding. It may surprise you to know, that no recent scientific studies were included for the UN delegates to consider as a previous resolution restricted any evidence based research employing evidence based, double-blind methodology as “ethically and morally unacceptable”.
The UN WHO preferred anecdotal and computer modelling estimates as a replacement for actual scientific studies, instead relying studies such as a Canadian study by the “Infant Feeding Action Coalition” advocacy group, which deliberately omitted including mothers likely to produce unfavorable results.
Craig, neither you nor I are by gender, ever likely to face the problem of making a decision on breast feeding :), is it so unreasonable for nursing mothers to be able to make decision regarding breastfeeding without being stigmatized or pressured by fanatics ?
My eldest son, (hardly a Trump supporter) and a medical practitioner working in an Australian outback practice with largely deprived patients, is also an advocate of the use of baby formula. many of his patients either can’t produce milk in sufficient quantities or are in poor heath suffering from alcoholism and other infectious diseases, putting the child at risk from poor nutrition or even infection.
It’s a sensitive subject, and I think by sensationally politicizing the issue the NYT has done a great disservice to nursing Mothers.