what is CHA?

[Guest guest]

CHA is a private organization with a specific mission, which is, in a

nutshell, the advancement of integrative medicine by promoting the

interaction between TCM and western science. This has been noted in

the mission statement on our website for 5 years. One of the services

we offer is the CHA mailing list. It is hard to characterize a mailing

list such as CHA since these are new entities for most Americans.

However, the CHA website definitely functions in a journalistic fashion

and I have always thought of the mailing list as an extension of that.

While the list has many members, it has far more readers than writers.

It is also not an open forum, but membership has always been restricted

and posts have always been moderated. While uses of the list are

myriad, I have always felt one obvious use was editorial or opinion

essays and responses thereto. Regular essay writers function somewhat

as opinion columnists and responders somewhat play the role of letters

to the editor. I think the analogy is fair since a single person has

editorial control over the content. And yet, no one has their posts

edited unless they get nasty and personal. I more typically prevent

those unqualified to be on the list from posting at all.

 

The nature of the internet allows a much more interactive sort of

journalism, but I believe a moderated mailing list conforms to this

discipline more than any other. Especially since I am neither a

scholar or a translator. I don't write fiction or poetry (at least not

here). It is not really technical writing, either. What other

category of writing does it most resemble? Well, the presentation of

opinions peppered with facts and resources for further exploration is

typical of opinion essays in magazines like The Nation, National

Review, Atlantic Monthly and the editorial pages of every major

american newspaper. The main difference as I see is the lack of polish

in the essays, including mine. Websites that present information

without the normal checks and balances of the mainstream press have

widely been criticized as shoddy journalism. But the dissemination of

pure misinformation is avoided due to the ability for instant rebuttal.

So CHA does function as a bonafide news and opinion source, where the

goal of many is to reveal what is not commonly known or accepted. In

addition, unpolished essays can be spruced up at any time and submitted

to the website proper. This was the opinion of the late Jim Ramholz

who pressed me for years to solidify this position publicly. Jim did

not often agree with my positions, but he felt strongly that CHA was my

domain and only with firm direction, would it accomplish anything of

lasting value.

 

So while the list remains open to wideranging and passionate debate,

the mission of CHA will not be compromised in order to pacify opponents

or make concessions. If its any consolation, I do have my words and

actions tempered by your dissent, but never to the point of

compromising core values. I am looking for a solution to the problems

we face, but I think this will never happen if just put bandaids on

rifts as wide as canyons. Everyone needs to take a good look at the

wounds, debride them properly and then decide how to proceed.

Different organizations will proceed differently and our main goal

should be to associate where its pragmatic and dispense with the

illusion of a single cohesive profession in all areas. The resentment

caused by the imposition of radically different groups' ideas on each

other is surely a losing scenario. I believe our areas of common goals

are actually quite limited and we should narrowly focus on these as a

group. I agree with Bob that these common areas are better

characterized as political than professional. Professionally, some of

us are more like orthopods, other internists, other psychiatrists.

These folks all have their own organizations, yet are all also MD's.

In fact, there are even MD's whose main bias is spiritual healing, but

they are not endorsed by the AMA or the American college of Obstetrics,

for example. We cannot expect a big tent to really embrace this type

of professional diversity. That's why I say the republicans are fakers

when the pretend their big tent includes log cabin gays and

evangelicals. The area of agreement is narrow, the gaps far bigger and

irreconcilable without core value compromise. Its pretty much the same

with our field.

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

At 11:04 AM -0700 6/5/04, wrote:

>While uses of the list are

>myriad, I have always felt one obvious use was editorial or opinion

>essays and responses thereto. Regular essay writers function somewhat

>as opinion columnists and responders somewhat play the role of letters

>to the editor.

--

 

 

This mo is unlikely to work in a list such as this. In the past, the

value to me of this list has been inter-activity between engaged

peers. Your model is hierarchic. That and your notably dogmatic style

recently has deadened the dialogue in this forum. Whether there is

agreement or disagreement, I doubt if there are too many on this list

who are prepared to simply be responders to your pronouncements.

 

Rory

--