As President Obama is looking for ways to improve the quality and financial aspects of medicine in the United States, he has now nominated Dr. Regina Benjamin for the job of Surgeon General of the United States. Dr. Benjamin is a rural physician from Alabama. She first came onto the national scene when her clinic in Bayou la Batre, Alabama, was first destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and then burned down after being rebuilt. She is a recipient of the 2008 MacArthur Foundation’s so-called “genious grant”, a half-million dollar grant given to people who make a difference in the world. There is no doubt that Dr. Benjamin has the know-how and will have the resources to take action on all sorts of health issues in the country. The question is how much cooperation we, the public, and we, the public health professionals, can give her.
Losing weight as a nation should be our Manhattan Project, something we can all rally behind and contribute to. Drop the rate of obesity and we drop the rates of heart disease, diabetes, and maybe even cancer. Get smokers to quit and the rates of lung disease (and the loss of productivity) drop dramatically. Help drug users get clean, and we get rid of crime. Teach effective sexual health, and there will be less unwanted pregnancies (in turn, less abortions, less sexually transmitted diseases). The list goes on and on…
Dr. Benjamin and others in leadership positions in Public Health will need all the help they can get from the American public and those of us in Public Health. After all, you can take the horse to the water, but you can’t make it drink… Unless you trick it into losing weight.
I dunno….does anyone else see a problem here? Should the Surgeon General be a role model for a healthy lifestyle? What if she was a smoker? Am I just being too nitpicky?
What do you think? So many questions.
29 chuck
Good catch!
#28, heh, as usual, we can go on arguing all day about tangents that have no relevance to the original post.
#32–SL==it takes two fools to have an argument. Should we put on our other hats and respond to Patrick?
While my first reaction would be “yes” (disclaimer, I’m far from fit myself but I also dont wobblewalk), here’s an analogous question: Should a scientist studying cancer be not allowed to study it anymore if he gets cancer himself? After thinking in that light, I say “no”, being fat doesn’t disqualify her.
Doesn’t look fat to me.
“I say “no”, being fat doesn’t disqualify her.”
lol, but they might have to change the uniform regs and fitness standards to accommodate.
http://usphs-hso.org/pac/subcommittees/readiness/readiness_information.shtml#physical
#33, bobbo, this will sound like a copout I’m sure, but I really find this whole surgeon general topic to be completely uninteresting. which is why I’m left with nothing to do but poke fun at the requirement of this future commissioned officer to be able to fit into her uniform.
“Get smokers to quit and the rates of lung disease (and the loss of productivity) drop dramatically.”
If she can get our President to quit smoking for good then sure, why not?
#9. General, isn’t a rank but is a civil title, often conferred on civilians, admirals, city administrators. It signifies a “general officer”, usually a senior colonel with an education in civil administration, responsible for running a province, with diplomatic and bureaucratic functions. Similar to a Fazir, Mandarin, or Warlord.
#39, you spent a lot of effort responding to something that really wasn’t worth responding to. 😛
Dude, why the fuck do we even have a ‘Surgeon General’?
Why are we paying for this? Where is this in the Constitution?
This seems to be a perfect reflection of the current administration of crooks, liars, thieves and now a fat person – all rubbing citizen’s noses in the fact that the leaders are “special” and don’t have to follow the rules and laws they force everyone else to obey.
Btw. All government (especially Federal Gov) buildings AND property are a non-smoking enviorment….apparently applies to everyone except the most visible person charged with protecting the citizens and enforcing laws.
Once upon a time, leaders led by example.
#41 “Where is this in the Constitution?”
What Constitution? The Necessary and Proper Clause has twisted the Constitution from a document limiting government to a document saying government can do whatever it wishes.
MikeN said, on July 14th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Doesn’t look fat to me.
WTF?? This bitch has her tits tucked in her waist band. If she went to Iran and was convicted of a crime they could not hang her because she has no neck…
My cousin is an overweight gym teacher. LMAO!!!
#5 – Named said, So, you’re quoting a book that’s over 30 years old.
Your bias is showing! When a liberals talking the lefts objectivity vanishes like a fart in the wind.
http://newshounds.us/2009/07/13/fox_nation_cites_radical_right_wing_source_to_paint_obama_science_advisor_as_radical.php
Here’s a newsflash for the partisan hacks running News Hounds – the source of the story is not Fox News, it’s not Front Page Magazine, it’s not David Horowitz – the source is Holdren’s own book that he co-authored in 1977 and proudly stands by today.
Again Obama’s Chief Science Adviser John P. Holdren proposals include;
– Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply.
– Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is common place in Communist China where women who have already had one child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the baby.
– Babies who are born out of wedlock or to teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
– Implementing a system of “involuntary birth control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government to have a baby.
– Permanently sterilizing people who the authorities deem have already had too many children or who have contributed to “general social deterioration”.
– Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
– This would all be overseen by a transnational and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime” would also have the power to determine population levels for every country in the world.
———-
Not to worry, the elite have other plans for liberals and conservatives alike.
Canadian Doctor. H1N1 Vaccination: A Eugenics Weapon for “Massive & Targeted Reduction of the World Population.”
Canadian doctor Ghislaine Lanctôt warned that the global elite plan to exploit a pandemic in order to introduce their soft-kill bioweapons into society. “I am emerging from a long silence on the subject of vaccination, because I feel that, this time, the stakes involved are huge. The consequences may spread much further than anticipated,” writes Lanctôt, who believes the A(H1N1) virus will be used in a pandemic concocted and orchestrated by the WHO, an international organization that serves military, political and industrial interests.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14312
Supersize me, Miss Piggy!
Really! How many visits to McDonalds did it take to produce this example of a rotten diet? Geez.. All we keep hearing about is a healthy diet,exercise. This cow is a poster child for what NOT to do.
#3, Confederate Loser,
Holdren authored ECOSCIENCE: POPULATION, RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT. In the book he promotes:
I have a copy of that book. I boucght it many years ago fora course I was taking. Perhaps you could tell me what pages I can find those claims on.
“Now chillens, be sure to eat only healthy snacks, and limit your sodas, potato chips, popcorn, fried foods, and all other junk food. Er, excuse me, since you aren’t going to eat that, mind if I finish that bag of M&Ms?”
#51, I think you’ve just crossed the line.
Hey, come on now! Her heart’s in the right place! And the left place. And the back place, and the top place, and down here in this other place…
#52. You’re right. She would never beg for M&Ms. She gets enough when she goes grocery shopping…
#50 Mr. Fusion
I have a copy of that book. I boucght (sic) it many years ago fora (sic) course I was taking. Perhaps you could tell me what pages I can find those claims on.
Dust it off big boy. It is all right here.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied equal protection.“
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups. White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics, and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs, virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”
http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
Scans of the book are on this site.
http://tinyurl.com/l5evuc
Now, on display, for all to see; Mr. Fusions objectivity or lack there of.
Black wimmins is supposed to be meaty. More to love. So why you honky’s think she be fat? Sure look good to me! MMMMMMmmmmmmm.
She may be very fit but she is also obese. She puts herself at risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. The SG is little more than a ceremonial office. She will be expected to go to schools and talk about health. What will she say? “Do as I say, not as I do? Pass the KFC…”
Lordy, how lame, S&B… that’s all stuff that they’d propose in a worst-case scenario that they thought might occur within decades.
The wingnuts are really reaching…
#55 I want to point out that you can’t make ad hominem attacks and keep your authority. I have seen you liberal bashing before but that is par for this blog’s course. In this instance, you claim to be defending your opinion, as it were, and “(sic)ing” right off the bat.
We all make typos and those, above, were obviously not made out of ignorance but haste.
As to your screeds against this appointee: this isn’t the forum to debate this topic.
As a blog commenter myself, I know how satisfying it is to express ideas but, in the end, what is the result? Me? I read your “(sic)s” and moved on. I don’t think I’m that rare so you may need to adjust your tactics.
Regarding these quotations: unless I see the source material in context, I won’t bother to think about it. The web scans are great but aren’t a primary sourse.
Respectfully,
To cut you off at the pass, I know how to spell “source.”
# 58 Phydeau
Re: worst-case scenario
The elite believe the world is over populated. It is not secret, they will proudly tell those whom will listen.
Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Save The Planet
http://roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=8030
Back in 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Turner is merely parroting the sentiments of the worlds elite. Who else would have the resources to carry out such a devastating plan of action.
———-
Your knee-jerk response is noted. I can read! The question is, can you?
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world.”