More Politics vs. ScienceFollow

Pretty sure you think you have a point. Quite confident it'll never see the light of day.

Did you have an alternate description of the duties of the office? One from a "law book", perhaps?

Saddly all I can find is the Wiki page, which while not countradicting the SG page, denotes some of the listed roles as official, such as the head of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned, some as ex officio: the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the U.S. government and some as informal: such as educating the American public about health issues and advocating healthy lifestyle choices.

Since neither are clearly spelled out in leaglese, I'll keep hunting.

But that government agency website is being interfered with politically.

Then I am sure that you are a big fan of Whitehouse.gov and believe everything on that web site as well

That's a funny coming from you. Trade the Whitehouse.gov for wikipedia.org.


Of course wiki is only wrong when it doesn't contradict your ideas and beliefs, maybe you should read the bible.

Ex officio doesn't mean "unofficial" or whatever you seem to think it means. It means "By virtue of the office". Since Carmona was Surgeon General he was also, as SG, the leading spokesperson.Besides your point, perhaps. Everyone else posting here seems to think otherwise.

I didn't lump you in with anybody. An whooosh! and an lawl.

Ok your right I'm wrong, the job of the Surgeon general is to say exactly what he thinks about medical science and ignore the fact that he can be asked to resign by the president if he says something in public that they don't want to see out there. Aparently Carmona lacks Joycelyn Elders courage in fufilling his duties.

That said the duty of congress is a little more broad then digging through the presidents grabage and hoping to find something to rub his nose in.

sure Foot fungus can wait, but how about we pass a budget, find a way to limit the war in Iraq, work on a comprehensive energy policy that will make a diference for the future, and actually do something about the immigration policy.

Lets be honest now matter what they manage to dig up, unless they can somehow get 10 new democratic senators before the next election, all it will do is create less of a will to cooperate between congress and the White House. Since they don't have those 10 senators, getting any of the above listed things done is going to take that cooperation.

How about we inform the public about health issues that will make a difference for the future?

You mean that politicians only tell us what they want to?

Huge shocker....

Good thing he waited until now to tell us.

Huh!? Are you saying you really believe this?

So you're saying it's wrong to promote socialized medicine, right? That's a political position, and partisan at that. Funny how I'm betting you simply assume that those that match your "side" are magically not "partisan".

Lol!



Given that the issue over embryonic stem cell research has been turned into a partisan political attack by the Left in the US, it's perfectly rational to do so. Bush was perfectly ok promoting his stem cell research funding, right up until the Dems realized that if they pushed embryonic stem cell research really hard, they could force Conservatives on this issue, and turn it into a partisan affair.

Same deal with Global Warming. The politics of the issue far outweigh the actual science. It's an issue raised specifically because you know that the "other side" will oppose it and thus give you a cheap talking point.



What distortions? ESC has not yet produced a *single* usable treatment or medicine. Adult stem cells have. Many many times over. And this was before federal funding even entered the picture. Silly Bush for putting the federal funding dime into the research that was most promising, while not funding that which was least promising and most controversial.

Seems like a practical approach to me. Ever consider that it's those on "your side" that are distorting things?