Hasso Hering, Please Retire. Now.

He's at it again - I assume he knows he's being completely intellectually dishonest, but at this point I'm wondering if he think it's OK because he's labeling it "persuasive." You know, because it's an editorial and all.

Hey, at least he signs them.

Anyway, this latest affront to the intelligence, of, well, everyone, is on the topic of the former Surgeon General. Hering is so busy complaining that the person in question, Dr. Richard Carmona, can't possible be bullied (which is so obviously bullshit) that he conveniently omits a couple of key facts. First, Hering:

What’s the substance here? He apparently wanted to promote embryonic stem cell research, but there are profound ethical issues that keep the president from backing this idea. The doctor also disagreed with the policy of discouraging unwanted teen pregnancies by urging teenagers not to have sex. This is a policy that may not work all that well, but it doesn’t work any better if it’s accompanied by a wink that says: “Just be careful.”

The doctor claims that the administration has been stifling science. Science has little to do with the issues he cited. Instead, they involve questions, in one case, of how far man should interfere with the creation of human life, and in the other whether the government should issue mixed messages on teenage sex.

Carmona was quoted: “The job of surgeon general is to be the doctor of the nation — not the doctor of a political party.”

Next, an excerpt from the New York Times story on what Carmona actually told the committee during the hearing:

The administration, Dr. Carmona said, would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues. Top officials delayed for years and tried to “water down” a landmark report on secondhand smoke, he said. Released last year, the report concluded that even brief exposure to cigarette smoke could cause immediate harm.

Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches. He also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings.

Do you see the differences? In case they are not clear enough, let me spell them out for you:

1) The fact that he was ordered to "mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches." Hey, Hasso, what the fuck? Did you run out of space? It just gets galling when you claim that Carmona was the one who wasn't clear on the difference between science and politics. It appears that he knows the difference, and he knew when he was being asked to lend his name, and the name of science (which, for the record, doesn't really need Bush's help in sullying it any more) to pure partisan politics. Given that Hering undoubtedly read the NYT story, I can only assume he left that bit out because he's essentially shilling for a political party.

2) "[Carmona] also said he was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings." See the above point. Politics, science, using government resources to prop up one party in a totally illegal fashion, etc. etc.

3) The report on secondhand smoke - Hering manages to omit that entirely, and if he thinks secondhand smoke is still controversial, well, that's his problem. However, it's pretty clear that politics trumped science in that case.

Speaking of which, Hering is making a very stupid - and false - equivalence here, one that plenty of Republican hacks are very good at making. However, since Hering is a newspaper editor, not a Republican Party operative, it's a little disappointing to see him pull this trick. See, what's he's doing is merely noting the political controversy over the political policies surrounding the issues he mentions, especially abstinence (a word, by the way, that Hering manages to avoid using - I wonder why?). The trick is that he's implying the two sides of the issue are equally supported by science, which is completely and utterly not true.

Abstinence-only education does. not. work. It's an ideological load of crap that comes straight outta patriarchy, one that's putting millions of people at risk here in the U.S. and causing the deaths of thousands more in Africa. (Don't believe me? Look up what's happening with the spread of AIDS now that condoms aren't being promoted due to U.S. policy. Then we'll talk.)

The statistics, and the science, support comprehensive sex education. But, as Hering notes, we can't have the Bush Administration sending "mixed messages," now can we? That wouldn't be helpful, especially when one side is full of misognyistic crap and one side is backed by science, logic, and reason. Instead, we get this weak-ass, dishonest defense of the administration's treatment of the former Surgeon General. Hering has got to know better - I wonder why he spends all this time shilling for the Republicans?

Oh, and in case you thought I was done, I'm not. Hering ends his editorial with this line: "The doctor of the nation? No thanks. If the nation needs treatment, a national doctor is the last thing it needs."

It's predicated on something stupid Carmona said, that he is the doctor of the nation. In some ways, Hasso is right, but it glosses over the actual duties of the Surgeon General:

The Surgeon General functions under the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Health and operationally heads the 6,000-member Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service, a cadre of health professionals who are on call 24 hours a day, and can be dispatched by the Secretary of HHS or the Assistant Secretary for Health in the event of a public health emergency.

The Surgeon General also has many informal duties, such as educating the American public about health issues and advocating healthy lifestyle choices.

Yup. That position is obviously useless, unless you don't believe in public health at all. It's amazing how bitter Hering can sound when he tries to defend the indefensible.