-I just saw the news about Dr. Sanjay Gupta being a possible nominee for Surgeon General! Yay for rock star doctors. His name was proposed for our graduation speaker, but I added it to the list of "nice but wouldn't happen in a million years" suggestions. Wouldn't it be cool, though?
-I just saw a very small child hitching a ride through the airport on his father's rolling suitcase. He was only slightly taller than the suitcase, and was just surfing along, playing on his whatever-kids-use-instead-of-Gameboys-these-days. I didn't get a good look at his face, so I'm not sure, but he might have had progeria or primordial dwarfism. He didn't have achondroplasia for sure, but I'm not sure what he had. I definitely saw a similar scene -- a kid riding on a rolling suitcase -- on a TLC special once, but I've seen TLC specials on both progeria and primordial dwarfism, so who knows. It was kind of cute, and I was rather jealous.
-I just saw another kid being pulled around in one of these. It looked really cool. The baby was about a year or so old, and just happy as could be playing with a toy while being pulled around backward at an angle by her parents like a piece of luggage. Again, I was rather jealous.
-They just called us to board! Philly, here I come!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
On my throne. As it will be someday.
On my throne. As it will be someday.
About Me
- Holly Cummings
- little fish in a big pond or big fish in a little pond? how about big fish in a big pond?
Posts
7 comments:
What a dumb way to haul your children around!
It might not have been clear, but I was in Midway Airport when I posted that. They were traveling with their toddler, who was obviously going to be sitting in her car seat while on the plane, and they needed to lug the car seat around. I thought it was kind of ingenious, actually -- I didn't get the impression they take her to the grocery store that way. Otherwise, I agree with you, that would be a dumb way to take your kids on a walk.
as usual, i'm going to have to agree with IOZ in regards to Dr. Gupta.
this is better than the current situation, and better than nothing. it's not ideal, but nothing is ideal. of course, that doesn't mean we don't keep working for ideals, but i choose to be a little more positive about things, because otherwise i would have thrown my hands up in despair already. name me a better candidate, please. or tell me some actual beef you have with gupta. IOZ's beef seems to be with the position of surgeon general, at least as far as i can tell, because even IOZ admits gupta is a "fer-real doctor. and at least the position is likely to get some power back -- under bush, the offices of hhs and surgeon general were completely undermined and made ridiculous. i'll also just put out there that most hospital CEOs are morons, too, in the eyes of most physicians. and i refuse to have a serious conversation with anyone who so blanketly puts all doctors in the category of "morons".
Whenever I see going on about how we never can achieve ideals, I know that they're flustered by a criticism.
I'd agree that IOZ has a problem with the position of surgeon general. He's an anarchist so naturally he's going to have a problem with such a position.
That said, isn't his primary complaint the same as your primary (expressed) cause for enthusiasm: Gupta's "rock star" status? How is being on TV qualification for a policy position?
And isn't Gupta best known for his lame criticism of Sicko? He's not even a good rock star.
I don't really get how Gupta's primary claim to fame is his Sicko commentary. His primary claim to fame is the fact that he's CNN's lead medical correspondent -- people knew his name for that long before his Sicko piece, which he wrote as CNN's medical correspondent.
And while I don't think his Sicko piece was the best thing I've ever seen, here is what I think about a "rock star" doctor being in a policy position:
1. He has actual previous policy experience, prior to his CNN job, so I do believe he is actually qualified.
2. The job of surgeon general isn't a pure policy position. It interfaces more with the public than do other health policy positions like HHS head. You are the "nation's doctor," and in that role, I don't think a little bit of fame hurts. Having someone that people already know can be a good thing when he's telling people to eat their vegetables and exercise more. Can you even name the current surgeon general? No wonder no one pays attention. Fame isn't all a bad thing.
Finally, as I said before, please feel free to suggest a better candidate for the position. If you are also an anarchist and don't believe we should have a surgeon general, then this is a totally ridiculous discussion because we aren't even arguing on the same plane.
Well if celebrity is a key qualification for an appointed national political position, that seems to me a pretty good reason to think the position is pretty worthless.
But if we're saying that rock-star doctors are best qualified for surgeon general, Dr. Drew would be way better than this guy.
Post a Comment