So you want to be Surgeon General?
Dr. Val Jones of Science-Based Medicine brings us an exclusive interview with former Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona.
Dr. Carmona: It’s the Surgeon General’s responsibility to protect, promote, and advance the health, safety and security of the United States. The office of the Surgeon General dates back to 1798, when President Adams passed a law to create the Marine Hospital Service. The lead physician of the service became known as the Surgeon General. The Marine Hospital Service eventually became the US Public Health Service, and the roles and responsibilities of the Surgeon General broadened to include immigration, disaster preparedness (in the case of nuclear and biological warfare), national safety, health prevention, and many complex public health issues that face our nation and the world.
Dr. Val: What sort of experience is appropriate for a candidate of the office of Surgeon General?
Dr. Carmona: A successful candidate for the office of Surgeon General should have deep and broad public health experience, especially as a public health or uniformed military officer. The Surgeon General is given the rank of Admiral, and as such he or she will interface with other Admirals and Generals, and Army and Navy Surgeon Generals, most of whom are career officers with decades of experience in military matters. The Surgeon General must have the wisdom and experience to take on the position of an Admiral and represent our country internationally. [...]
A good interview and a good get for S-B M.
Rep. John Conyers has come out swinging against the Sanjay Gupta pick for Surgeon General, Sam Stein reports. Conyers says Gupta "lacks the requisite experience needed to oversee the federal agency that provides crucial health care assistance."
Dr. Sanjay Gupta would advocate the status quo. His positions are:
- We shouldn't listen to Michael Moore about getting a medical system like other first-world countries.
- We shouldn't legalize medical marijuana.
Say no to Sanjay Gupta.
Posted by: Eric Jaffa | January 09, 2009 at 12:02 AM
The main problem I have with Sanjay Gupta is I believe he is fundamentally dishonest, just watch his interview with Larry King and Michael Moore. He is a MSM hack kow towing to the vested interests of big pharmacy and a failed health care system that puts outrageous profits above basic minimal care of the uninsured and poor people. What most people don't realize is that even WITH insurance in this country you only have a fifty percent chance of getting the necessary health care should you become ill or injured. Obama is making me to start feeling "used", I voted for change, not more of the same.
Posted by: knowdoubt | January 09, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Oops, forgot to include the link to the interview with Michael Moore and Sanjay, in case you haven't seen it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR2U_SAWHdQ
Posted by: knowdoubt | January 09, 2009 at 07:19 AM
We shouldn't listen to Michael Moore
That's not a bad thing.
Posted by: Alon Levy | January 09, 2009 at 08:12 AM
I'm sorry but this drives me mad "The Surgeon General is given the rank of Admiral, and as such he or she will interface with other Admirals and Generals, and Army and Navy Surgeon Generals" It's Surgeons General damn it, it is possible this was a transcription error but given the frequency with which our media makes this very simple grammatical mistake I doubt it.
Posted by: Gabriel Nichols | January 09, 2009 at 08:29 AM
??
What happened to comments from last night on medical marijuana??
Posted by: The Phantom | January 09, 2009 at 08:57 AM
My mistake
Comments are on another thread
Posted by: The Phantom | January 09, 2009 at 09:52 AM
I have a hard time believing there are any real qualifications needed to be the surgeon general. I'd be surprising that anyone was bothering to rouse themselves to opposition over this, except what else is anyone gonna do right now, right?
Posted by: Chris O. | January 09, 2009 at 10:17 AM
...On the other hand, Gabriel's kvetching about improper pluralization is something I can completely throw my support behind.
Posted by: Chris O. | January 09, 2009 at 10:26 AM
On the other hand, Gabriel's kvetching about improper pluralization is something I can completely throw my support behind.
Shouldn't that read "something behind which my support can be completely thrown." Oh, no--that would be the passive voice.
How about "something behind which I throw completely my support."
Or would the correct form be "something behind which I completely throw my support."
Grammar is so hard when you are a pedant.
Posted by: parse | January 09, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Parse, ending a sentence with a preposition is perfectly acceptable, unless you're using Latin-based grammar. However, saying attorney generals or surgeon generals is an incorrect use of pluralization, which in Germanic languages goes on the head noun and only on the head noun.
Posted by: Alon Levy | January 09, 2009 at 12:20 PM
I agree with Alon on this one (as one might suspect). Contortions to avoid ending sentences with prepositions do more harm to the English language than any preposition itself could do.
Posted by: Chris O. | January 09, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Fishing boat crews I used to work with would use the absurd phrase “son of a bitches,” meaning “sons of bitches.” I tried a couple times to explain the difference but I was pissing into the wind. I gave up on that sort of thing when I saw that one of them had written “manawer” for “man o' war” meaning frigatebird. Prescriptivist positions seem to be hopeless in grammar wars. Then there's “court martials” vs. “courts martial” .
As for attorneys general I couldn't care less who or what the nominees are, as long as they work to ditch the obscene linkage of health care to employment. The armies of people who have lost and will lose their jobs in the current depr-, oops, recession will doubtless agree.
Posted by: cfrost | January 09, 2009 at 02:08 PM
I don't have any problem ending sentences with prepositions--I was only playing at being a pendant in order to have some fun.
But I don't have a problem with "surgeon generals" either, and I think Chris O. and Alon are being pedantic by insisting that "surgeons general"is the one and only perfectly acceptable plural of surgeon general. For a more informed (and amusing) opinion than mine supporting this position, click on my signature to check out the Language Log post about whether the proper plural form of MacBook Pro is "Macbooks Pro" or Macbook Pros."
Posted by: parse | January 09, 2009 at 02:10 PM