New Surgeon General

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.
 
I guess I don't understand the organization of this department. How does a former Army nurse get to be an admiral?
Click to expand...
The nurses start out as Second Lieutenants. When they move up the ranks and assume the duties of overseeing wards, hospital administration, their rank is increased also. For instance when I was a neuropsychiatric technician at Fitzsimons General Hospital (an Army hospital in Aurora, Colorado), in about 1963, a Major Sargent (her last name was "Sargent"), was the head of the ward I worked on. The head of the whole training unit at that hospital was a Colonial Brauner (another woman). Presumably they had both started out as Second Lieutenant nurses. So, they do work their way up in administration just like in civilian hospital systems.
 
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?
 
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?
 
Actually, Murthy's appointment was strongly opposed by the NRA.

Following the Newtown shooting, he tweeted:

Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is a direct echo of the agenda that guys like Garen Wintemute started at Harvard in the 1980's, in which they claimed gun ownership itself was a public health issue.

In the leadup to the Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey bill, he tweeted this:

Signs of progress-we got 20 votes in the senate in favor of gun violence legislation that we wouldn't have had 1 year ago. Have faith
Click to expand...

He was also one of the most vocal advocates of "restoring" funding to the CDC for researching gun violence.

Yes, his post is as political as many others. No, I'm not sad to see him go.
 
Tom Servo said:
Actually, Murthy's appointment was strongly opposed by the NRA.

Following the Newtown shooting, he tweeted:

Tired of politicians playing politics w/guns, putting lives at risk b/c they're scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.
Click to expand...
The bolded part is a direct echo of the agenda that guys like Garen Wintemute started at Harvard in the 1980's, in which they claimed gun ownership itself was a public health issue.
Click to expand...
Murthy went to Harvard, so it's hardly surprising that he drank the Harvard Kool-Aid.

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.
 
I don't know how to counter the argument
Click to expand...

Because there isn't a good counter for the base assumption, that public health (as determined by doctors and/or the government) overrides our constitutionally protected rights.

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?
 
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"...
 
I fail to understand how approaching guns from an epidemiological perspective can accomplish anything.
Click to expand...

The approach is entirely political, and that alone should be a red flag to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.

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?
 
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
 
Tom Servo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not even treating the symptoms, just banning the instrument. Like drug abuse ... the war on [some] drugs is such an overwhelming success, why wouldn't we use that as a model for eradicating "gun" violence?
 
an ENORMOUS hammer (the CDC)
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that when President Obama pushed the myth the CDC was somehow banned from researching gun violence, Murthy was a big mouthpiece for that.

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.
 
how did she get to progress from Army nurse to Admiral?
Click to expand...



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_States_Public_Health_Service
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong, he advocated no such thing:

Murthy, 39, is a longtime believer that gun violence is a public-health issue

http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world...laced-by-deputy-for-now/ar-BBAacOe?li=AAggbRN
Click to expand...

Gun violence, not guns.

When you have a political agenda (banning guns)
Click to expand...

Also wrong.

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.
 
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
 
Gun violence, not guns.
Click to expand...
Actually, the former. That tweet I quoted is verbatim. He did in fact refer to guns themselves as a healthcare issue.

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.
 
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????
 
"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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top