April 22, 2017, 10:27 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
New Surgeon General
Vivek H. Murthy, the previous surgeon general appointed by Obama, was the guy who promoted the idea that guns are a medical problem and should be addressed as such.
His replacement, Rear Adm. Sylvia Trent-Adams, has to be an improvement. Less political agenda and more concern with health issues - real health issues. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ion/100767454/
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
April 22, 2017, 10:47 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
I guess I don't understand the organization of this department. How does a former Army nurse get to be an admiral?
That said, she's a career bureaucrat (or so it seems), so she may or may not be an improvement. She's a temporary fill-in, presumably waiting for President Trump to choose a new Surgeon General. |
April 22, 2017, 01:47 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
April 22, 2017, 03:50 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
I understand how nurses in the military advance through the ranks. After all, Hot Lips was a major. But Admiral is a Navy rank, not Army. And the description of this woman makes it appear that she has spent the majority of her working career in public health, not in the military. So ... how did she get to progress from Army nurse to Admiral?
|
April 22, 2017, 05:12 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,541
|
Talking to a couple of veterans here, Army and Marine, it seems that flip flopping between services is not uncommon.
|
April 22, 2017, 06:02 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Folks, unless this appointment turns to how this affects law and civil rights, I'm going to close the hospital gown back on this nursing discussion.
So the issue is?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 22, 2017, 08:16 PM | #7 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Actually, Murthy's appointment was strongly opposed by the NRA.
Following the Newtown shooting, he tweeted: Quote:
In the leadup to the Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill, he tweeted this: Quote:
Yes, his post is as political as many others. No, I'm not sad to see him go.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
April 22, 2017, 11:17 PM | #8 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
I don't know how to counter the argument. People who have been brainwashed too often are not susceptible to logic and reason. You can't develop a vaccine against gunshot wounds, and they aren't contagious (at least not in the conventional sense), so I fail to understand how approaching guns from an epidemiological perspective can accomplish anything. And there's still the little matter of the Second Amendment right that people like him don't choose to take into consideration. That's the downside of allowing the camel's nose under the tent flap -- as soon as we acknowledge that the RKBA can be subject to reasonable regulation (meaning restriction, which means infringement), every regulation the antis can dream up will be "reasonable" in their estimation. |
||
April 23, 2017, 12:04 AM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
Quote:
NO one (or no one sane, anyway) questions the authority and moral correctness of a quarantine when a deadly transmittable disease is involved. The problem is that while they have the authority to determine the what, where, and when to take actions in dire emergencies, there's not a lot beyond common sense that keeps them from deciding what is, and isn't something within their authority for action. And what suitable action is. Define anything as a disease, and that puts it squarely under their authority. Everything in our environment, literally everything has a potential impact on our health, and we are the public, so therefore, anything they want to choose becomes the public health "crisis" de jour. "Public Health" concerns are the ultimate umbrella for authoritarian control "for our own good". All well and good for society when one is dealing with a deadly plague, but unchecked that power can lead all the way to where disagreeing with those in power, about anything, being classified a mental illness, rather than a valid political opinion. After all, if you're "sick" you're not in your right mind, and therefore they don't need to respect your opinion (about anything) or, your rights, now do they?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 23, 2017, 04:14 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Boy does that tie in naturally with mental health and firearms rights, another hot button. I remember at least one or two leftist individuals who have stated, IIRC, that simply wanting to own a firearm is a sign of a mental disorder. So, according to the Left, public safety overrides Constitutional rights, then GUNS are the disease, and bans are the cure.
BTW, you are right again about "disagreements" with the government being labeled as a mental defect - remember all the "mental hospitals" Stalin liked so much? Go down that rabbit hole much deeper and you begin to read "Freedom Is Slavery"... |
April 23, 2017, 07:29 AM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
A rebuttal I've used is simple. As others have pointed out, "gun violence" doesn't qualify as a treatable disease. Even if we were to approach it that way, how do we take seriously the idea that we can treat a disease by only addressing the symptoms while ignoring the root causes?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 23, 2017, 09:25 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2001
Posts: 959
|
When you have a political agenda (banning guns) and an ENORMOUS hammer (the CDC, and it's public prestige and ability to mobilize support among the public), you want to make anything you don't like a 'nail.'
Making violence a disease makes it a 'nail', and lets you apply the hammer of the CDC to the issue. Simple politics. Larry
__________________
He who fights and runs away had better run pretty damn fast. Government, Anarchy and Chaos |
April 23, 2017, 09:39 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2017, 12:23 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
In fact, nothing stops the CDC from doing whatever research they want. However, if they want to do a study for the purposes of advocacy, it won't be on the taxpayer dime. Murthy's a doctor. I have a hard time believing he didn't know that as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 23, 2017, 02:13 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Quote:
United States Public Health Service Officers of the Corps wear uniforms similar to those of the United States Navy with special PHSCC insignia, and the Corps uses the same commissioned officer ranks as the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Commissioned Officer Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from ensign to admiral, uniformed services pay grades O-1 through O-10 respectively. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Health_Service |
|
April 23, 2017, 03:29 PM | #16 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Addressing gun violence as a health issue is not to seek to ‘ban’ guns – to argue that it does fails as a strawman fallacy. The notion that there is a ‘political agenda’ to ‘ban guns’ because they pose a health risk is delusional, ridiculous and devoid of merit. |
|||
April 23, 2017, 06:16 PM | #17 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
jdc1244, as Tom Servo noted, Murthy certainly did use his position to promote gun control. Not the least of which was an open attempt to funnel taxpayer money to gun control groups under the guise of lifting the "ban" on CDC research (when in fact, the CDC was only banned from advocating a political position - one of about 39 similar restrictions on CDC research grants; but the only one that ever makes the news).
The OPs post was a lot closer to the mark than your rebuttal |
April 23, 2017, 06:59 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Also noteworthy is the fact he was a cofounder and President of Doctors for America, a gun-control group dressed up as a health advocacy organization. I'm aware that many people go overboard with inflammatory and inaccurate accusations on stuff like this, but Murthy does fit the description.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
April 24, 2017, 01:43 AM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
If the stated public health issue is "gun violence" and not guns, but their solution is to restrict/ban guns, HOW is that a difference????
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 24, 2017, 06:09 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2016
Posts: 223
|
"Gun Violence" LOL a made up media term.
GUN's ARE NOT VIOLENT. PEOPLE do stupid violent things with them. Fix the REAL problem. Glad to see him ousted. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
April 24, 2017, 09:12 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
If you look at the history of the gun violence term or meet the folks who push the gun as health problem agenda (I've had at conferences), they are gun banners. They have no use for the argument that law abiding citizens can own guns but we should work on the causes of violence. They simply think the solution is to eliminate private gun ownership except for the ducky-wucky shotgun (if at all).
They developed the term as their initial organizations (such as Ban all Handguns) wasn't working for them. Never will they say there is a right to own firearms for home defense, self-defense or protection against tyranny. They do not acknowledge what most RKBA advocates see as gun rights.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 24, 2017, 11:00 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
Last edited by natman; April 24, 2017 at 11:39 AM. |
|
|
|