Senate Democrats shamefully abandon President Obama over outstanding surgeon general nominee

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's one thing for right-wing ideologues and NRA stooges like Rand Paul to oppose President Obama's nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy. Dr. Murthy, after all, has said that gun violence represents a serious public health threat, which of course it does, and reality-denying pro-gun absolutists live in a fetishistic fantasy world where guns save lives.

It's another thing, though, for Democrats, even Republican-leaning conservative Democrats, to oppose a Democratic president's nominee and for their opposition be enough, with Republican opposition, to derail that nominee's confirmation to a post for what he is supremely qualified: 

Facing a possible defeat in the Senate, the White House is considering delaying a vote on President Obama's choice for surgeon general or withdrawing the nomination altogether, an acknowledgment of its fraying relationship with Senate Democrats.

The nominee, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, an internist and political ally of the president's, has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, and opposition from the gun-rights group has grown so intense that it has placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot.

Senate aides said Friday that as many as 10 Democrats are believed to be considering a vote against Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits.

I get that some of these Democrats are generally pro-gun and that some of them are facing tough re-election challenges this year. But it takes extreme ignorance and/or willful stupidity not to see America's plague of gun violence as a public health threat, and, what's more, it's not like Murthy's confirmation would suddenly mean the end of gun "rights."

But beyond that, these are Democrats undermining a fellow Democrat who could certainly use the support right now. I get that politicians are about self-preservation and that supporting the president isn't exactly a major vote-winner at the moment (though of course Congress's approval rating is way lower than Obama's). But these Democrats should a) do what's right for the country, b) support the president's, any president's, nominees unless something truly egregious is uncovered, and c) back up their president even if doing so might subject them to some (but probably not much) criticism back home.

But these Democrats aren't just looking at re-election, they're basically just siding with the NRA and the rest of the gun nuts against sensible gun policy, as well as sensible public health policy. They're NRA stooges just like Rand Paul is, and in opposing President Obama's extremely qualified nominee they're displaying not so much sensible political sensitivity but abject moral cowardice. And for that, they should be ashamed of themselves, just as all Democrats should be ashamed that their party can't even remain united in support of their president for what is, for all intents and purposes, an easy call.

Second Amendment wacko Rand Paul says guns don't pose a public health threat when, of course, they do

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

On Wednesday -- two years to the day after George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin -- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) placed a hold on President Barack Obama's nominee for Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, over Murthy's view that gun violence represents a significant public health threat.

"In his efforts to curtail Second Amendment rights, Dr. Murthy has continually referred to guns as a public health issue on par with heart disease and has diminished the role of mental health in gun violence," wrote Paul in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

Oh, really?

Paul is actually out of step with most physicians. The idea that gun violence is a danger to public health is utterly uncontroversial among doctors' groups, academic institutions that focus on public health, and children's safety advocates. Although Paul criticizes Murthy's position that physicians and pediatricians should ask patients about the presence of guns in their households, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a resolution in 2011 officially opposing any law that bars doctors from having open conversations about gun safety and the risks of having firearms in a household with their patients.

In fact, just yesterday, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued new guidelines recommending that households with children who are diagnosed with depression should remove guns and ammunition from their homes entirely.

And it may even be worse that we know:

[G]un violence may actually be an even bigger public health problem than current studies indicate. That's because the gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), pushed through a package of legislation in 1996 imposing a virtual freeze on federal funding for gun violence-related research. President Obama ended that ban in the wake of Sandy Hook -- but experts say there's still far too little funding appropriated by Congress to entice more detailed research in the area.

Paul likes to stress his "physician" bona fides when discussing such matters, but of course he's a right-wing ideologue first and foremost. Saying that guns don't post a public health threat and shouldn't be treated as such, and therefore that a highly qualified nominee for Surgeon General deserves his "hold" (and how stupid is it that a single senator with a radical agenda can do that?), simply disqualifies him from, and proves he isn't capable of given his ideological and partisan blinders, intelligent rational discussion.

Just ask the relatives of the victims of Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook... and just pay some fucking attention to what's going on day after bloody day all across a violent and deadly America.

Stupidest Shithole in America: Mississippi

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(It's our second entry in this new series. For the first -- Nelson, Georgia -- see here.)

I'm no great fan of Mayor Bloomberg's "abritrary and capricious" ban (or, rather, attempted ban, now that a judge has blocked it) on large sugary beverages, but from a public health perspective, and pretty much from any civilized perspective, this is worse: 

Fattest State in the Country Passes 'Anti-Bloomberg Law'

Mississippi's governor is poised to sign legislation — referred to (at least by NPR) as the "Anti-Bloomberg Bill" — that would ban local governments from regulating menu calorie counts, portion sizes, or "consumer incentive items" (e.g., Happy Meal toys) at restaurants and in vending machines. Mississippi has a solid winning streak going and it doesn't need anyone mucking it up.

There's something to be said for, you know, consumer choice, and for freedom generally, but this willful, and indeed gleeful, embrace of obesity and general unhealthiness is just obscene.

New York judge stops Michael Bloomberg from going all "arbitrary and capricious" on your beverage-guzzling freedom

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Times:

A judge struck down New York's limits on large sugary drinks on Monday, one day before they were to take effect, in a significant blow to one of the most ambitious and divisive initiatives of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's tenure. 

In an unusually critical opinion, Justice Milton A. Tingling Jr. of State Supreme Court in Manhattan called the limits "arbitrary and capricious," echoing the complaints of city business owners and consumers who had deemed the rules unworkable and unenforceable, with confusing loopholes and voluminous exemptions. 

Which is amusing, because "arbitrary and capricious" pretty much describes Bloomberg himself.

Look, I'm all for sensible efforts to improve public health, and America's endless appetite for massive quantities of shit is deeply disturbing (and damaging both to health and to the economy), but this never really made sense to me and always seemed like a possible thin end of the wedge for similar bans (like, should there be a ban on the density of pizza toppings or on the number of scoops you can have on an ice cream cone?)

What is needed -- and I say this not as a libertarian but as one who respects the limits of government action -- is better education, better habits, and better preventive care, not more rules and regulations, particularly when the application lacks consistency and the target makes little sense. Yes, these drinks are bad for you, particularly in such large quantities, but it's not like a sugary drink is heroin and I don't think we really want government regulating our food intake. To the extend that it does, or should, the threshold requiring action should be very high.

Days of swine and neuroses

By Carl

It could get ugly this fall:

Up to half of the population of the U.S. could come down with the swine flu and 90,000 could die this season, according to a dire report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

[...]"It's a plausible scenario that we need to be prepared for," said Marty Cetron, the Center for Disease Control's director of the Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.

The report says that under a worst-case scenario, between 60 and 120 million Americans could get sick with the swine flu and another 30 million could contract the virus but not show symptoms. Between 30,000 and 90,000 could die -- more than twice the annual average of deaths associated with the seasonal flu. Those deaths generally occur in people older than 65.

It should be noted that swine flu eruptions continue throughout the northern hemisphere, despite the onset of summer weather, which usually mitigates flu outbreaks.

So we're looking at a highly contagious, highly infectious disease that shows signs of only strengthening as people are forced into closer contact behind closed doors.

Not fun.

Keep in mind that a far larger percentage than normal of those getting ill with this flu will be younger, healthy adolescents and young adults. It's not clear if the same hiccup in the affected age will trend in the death statistics. One presumes that a healthy adult will be in a far better position to fight off a bug than the elderly, very young, or infirm.

But...

The 1918 flu pandemic saw an unusual spike in young adults precisely because of the nature of that virus (more avian than swine) and possibly because it was similar to another flu outbreak 30 years earlier.

With swine flu and avian flu currently exposed to one another in the southern hemisphere, it would be prudent to follow this story a bit more closely than current surveys indicate it has been.

It could be ugly. It might not be. My guess is it will be uglier than the CDC and HHS are making it out to be, particularly once the vaccine runs low.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Sanjay Gupta for surgeon general?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The WaPo's Howard Kurtz is reporting that Obama has asked celebrity tele-Dr. Sanjay Gupta, he of CNN and CBS fame, to be the new surgeon general.

Now, I'm in no position to question Gupta's abilities as a neurosurgeon or otherwise his medical qualifications. He may very well be an excellent doctor, as he seems to be (he performed brain surgery during the Iraq invasion in 2003). Furthermore, there is no doubt that he is telegenic and that he would make an excellent spokesman for public health issues. And, indeed, what's needed in that position is not so much expertise in medicine as the ability to communicate effectively with the broader public, that is, to inform and teach through the media. (Think C. Everett Koop and his anti-smoking campaign in the '80s.) In this regard, the media-friendly Gupta, a man who is clearly comfortable in front of the camera, seems to be an excellent pick for the job.

And yet.

It seems to me that what is needed in a surgeon general is also someone who can make the case for, or at least someone who is supportive of, a reformed public health care system, given that this seems to be, as many of us hope it genuinely is, one of Obama's main policy priorities. But is Gupta an advocate of such reform? I have my doubts. As he exposed in his critique of Michael Moore's movie Sicko back in July 2007, he seems to be very much a part of, as well as a defender of, the status quo, namely, the corporatized health care system controlled by Big Pharma and the HMOs. As I put it then, he picked apart Moore's movie, avoided subjecting the existing system and/or Moore's critics to similar evaluation, and failed to address the most serious flaws of the American system, namely, the enormous costs even to those with insurance and the utter lack of insurance for millions." So is this really the man who should be the spokesman for public health in the United States?

I see that my friend Steve Benen, while acknowledging (but not making much of) the Moore incident (which occurred on CNN, no less), thinks that Gupta "seems like a strong choice," given that he "would likely be the highest-profile official since Koop, and could conceivably play a valuable role in advancing a reform campaign." Well, maybe. And -- yet again, yet again -- I'm wondering if I should -- yet again, yet again -- give Obama the benefit of the doubt and trust that he knows what he's doing, that all will work out. Like Krugman, though, I just can't quite get past Gupta's "mugging" of Moore -- and that he got it wrong.

Should one ugly high-profile incident like this disqualify him? Maybe not, and, like I said, he undeniably has a lot going for him. For example, as Kurtz notes -- and this I did not know -- "[h]e was a White House fellow in the late 1990s, writing speeches and crafting policy for Hillary Clinton." That certainly inspires greater confidence, but I need to know more about his position on health care reform, as well as on the existing system that has left millions of Americans uninsured, and about his willingness to work with and in support of soon-to-be health czar and HHS Secretary Tom Daschle, before giving Obama the benefit of the doubt and approving this questionable appointment.

It would be good for the U.S. to have a prominent, highly visible, charismatic, and telegenic surgeon general at a time of reform, not to mention in case of public health emergencies. It's just not clear to me that Gupta is the right choice.

Yet.