“The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing. 

    "To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognise as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. 

    "Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it. No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do.

    "Because it is correct. 

    "A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them a law and the force that stands behind it. 

    "The Shopping Cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society.”

~ anon. but widely attrib. to Glenn Danzig

"The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from goodwill and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; who appears well in any company, and a man with whom honour is sacred and virtue safe."

~ John Walter Wayland (1872-1962), American historian and educator who submitted 'A True Gentleman' to The Baltimore Sun in 1899 as part of a competition for the best definition of a true gentleman. His was crowned the winner.

I DON’T KNOW. I THINK HAND GRENADES ARE BRIGHTER:  “KBJ has become the equivalent of a hand grenade that Joe Biden threw into the Supreme Court”.

Work ethic and family are good for people.

Consolidation is not what’s driving the big increase in costs.

In Graham Moore’s The Wealth of Shadows, John Maynard Keynes is a hero for his monetary manipulations. However, in the real world, the economics of Keynes has brought economic ruin.

President Donald Trump's most recent pick for the office of U.S. Surgeon General, Nicole Saphier, is a source of tension between the MAGA and MAHA factions of his supporters. Given that she's the president's third pick for the slot, the administration would undoubtedly just like to put disputes over this one office behind them. But there's an easy path to a conflict-free resolution: The Trump administration could leave the Office of the Surgeon General unfilled and push for its abolition.

Nominee Number Three for an Office That is an 'Unnecessary Relic'

Saphier, a radiologist, comes from a rather conventional medical background and has been critical of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who set the initial lifestyle-conscious but conspiratorial MAHA tone for the administration's health policies. She's also the president's third choice for the post, after the nominations of Janette Neshiewat and Casey Means faltered over questions about their credentials. Saphier is more likely than the first two nominees to win Senate approval, but that comes at the risk of alienating some of the president's fragmenting base. There's no reason for an avoidable battle over a completely unnecessary office.

"The Office of the Surgeon General and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, which the office oversees, are unnecessary relics," writes Jeffrey A. Singer, an Arizona surgeon and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "The surgeon general has drifted from an apolitical public health role into a politicized platform, weighing in on issues far beyond its proper scope—from gun control to social policy—thereby undermining trust in legitimate health functions."

The Office of the Surgeon General was originally established to oversee the Marine Health Service "to provide health care to sick and injured merchant seamen," as the office's official history puts it. This later expanded into a national hospital system with a Commissioned Corps organized along military lines. Mission creep set in, and the medical bureaucracy was eventually renamed the Public Health Service and tasked with "preventing the spread of contagious diseases throughout the United States."

The Surgeon General lost responsibility for the Public Health Service in 1968. The office was briefly abolished and then recreated as an advisory position with authority over the uniformed Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. Well, over some of members of the Corps. Many officers in the Corps "are assigned to all HHS Agencies and to a number of agencies outside of HHS, including the District of Columbia Commission on Mental Health Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Bureau of Prisons, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Marshals Service," and work within the chains of command in those agencies, according to the Office of the Surgeon General.

In other words, the Surgeon General doesn't really have a clearly defined role or a good reason to parade around in a quasi-naval uniform. That is, unless you like the office's transformation into a national nag that lectures Americans on whatever alleged lifestyle sins most annoy the current Surgeon General. Cigarettes and firearms have been favorite choices over the years.

The Long Fall From Treating Sailors to (Expensively) Nagging Americans

"Successive administrations have turned the Office of the Surgeon General into a highly political platform that opines on divisive non–public health issues ranging from gun control and social media to labor and housing policy. Such mission creep undermines the effectiveness of legitimate government public health activities," Singer noted last year along with Akiva Malamet, Bautista Vivanco, and Michael F. Cannon in Unnecessary Relics, a Cato Institute report on the Surgeon General and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Basically, the Surgeon General and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps now exist to frame the policy preferences of whoever occupies the White House as public health necessities. Anybody who doesn't favor those policies is clearly against The Science and wants people to die.

That's a pretty apt description of the entire field of public health, which seems to exist entirely to frame political choices—especially authoritarian ones—in medical terms.

But there is also a dollars-and-cents reason to object to sticking medical personnel in uniforms and then sending them around to various government agencies for random staffing assignments: It's expensive.

A "complicated funding structure, as well as various other special benefits and privileges, contributes to making Corps officers more expensive than other federal employees," the Cato authors wrote in the 2025 report. "In 2010, the average Corps officer cost was $169,000, which at the time was $22,000 or 15 percent higher than the cost of employing a civilian equivalent."

Part of the cost comes from the fact that "in accordance with their military pay scale, Corps officers have the privilege of receiving a portion of their salary in the form of housing and subsistence allowances wholly exempt from federal income taxes."

In other words, we're paying an awful lot for the privilege of being nagged by a government medical bureaucrat who oversees an archaic uniformed corps that mostly exists to provide overly expensive staffing services for government agencies.

With all of that to consider, Saphier's nomination is getting a lot of pushback from MAHA.

DOGE the Surgeon General

"Dr. Saphier would be a catastrophic mistake on messaging and communicating with MAHA at a time where the coalition is very fragile," prominent MAHA influencer Alex Clark posted May 1. "It will be perceived as the admin breaking another promise to them and embracing the status quo in health care that ended us smack dab in the middle of the chronic disease epidemic we now find ourselves in."

But Clark offered a viable alternative. She added, "My position isn't to replace Dr. Saphier. It's to completely DOGE the Surgeon General role."

Clark wants to ditch the Office of the Surgeon General to smooth over political rifts. But that move would also rid us of a national annoyance, ditch a vestigial bureaucratic position, and potentially save money.

There's no reason to waste time arguing over which nominee would be the best fit for an office that, if it ever served a legitimate purpose, has long since become an anachronism. We should just get rid of the Office of the Surgeon General.

The post Don't Waste Time Arguing Over the Surgeon General Nominee. Abolish the Office. appeared first on Reason.com.