Norton Nears a Gnu* – Three-Part Disharmony

October 2026 | Vol. 70, No. 3
By Samuel Garloff, DO, PCOM '78

Part the first: “When Metonymy meets Synecdoche”

I love our shared language because if I live an additional century, I will simply never understand it. Let’s take a look at the words above.

Metonymy: metonymy replaces the name of something with the name of something closely associated. Example: “The White House issued a statement.” In this example, White House means the president or the president’s administration. The White House being an abstract concept.

Synecdoche: synecdoche is a specific type of metonymy where a part represents the whole or the whole represents a part. Example: “The White House issued a statement.” Here, the White House is a building representing the president’s administration.

Now, if that doesn’t clarify things for you, I don’t know what will. Of course, using the White House as an example may be confusing at times. Unless we are addressing UFC matches at the White House. While some may scoff at such spectacles, think of two people fighting in a cage as a subtle example of intelligent design. The fact is that those who engage in such activities are intellectually superior to us. Were it not for a victorious participant, we would never have known a former First Lady was in fact a man. As physicians, don’t we all wish we were part of the obstetrical team that delivered the president’s daughters?

Part the second: “Bencombe, the Precursor to Gyves”

Bencombe, you say? Yes, Bencombe…not the county, the bunkum. We just celebrated our 250th anniversary. Somehow I think we had more fun during the Bicentennial. For our 200th birthday, we wrote plays and enjoyed orchestral performances of “Fanfare for the Common Man.” The country seemed electrified, awash in parades and public celebrations in every community with a population greater than twenty. Please don’t misunderstand. Once again, we were treated to the sight of tall ships, parades in various locations as well as fireworks. But this time it seemed different. Now it may be that those of us who remember the Bicentennial are now fifty years older and perhaps more jaded, or it could be that the plans and monies set aside a decade ago for the planning of celebrations were co-opted by those less talented at such tasks.

We did have a national state fair, but not all states participated. There was no admission, and early participants were greeted with warm water, melted ice cream, and undependable carnival rides. Even the weather failed to cooperate.

Personally, I think it wise to start planning the next big event to take place fifty years from now today.

Fortunately, I think the printing of $250 bills has been abandoned. Good thing. Can you imagine its reception at your neighborhood Wawa?

Gyves free?

Part the third: “Solipsism, Sonder and the AOA”

I have just attended the AOA House of Delegates, and sarcasm drips from my pores like water through a sieve. Please don’t misunderstand. I attend willingly to support Pennsylvania and am proud to do so. But over the years I, like many others, see humor in what we do.

Every attendee is told what OPAC contribution to make based on whether they are a student, intern/resident, or licensed physician. The process is now so fine-tuned that prior to registration you can pay your assessment online and all contributions are immediately tallied and reported. The link even informs you who else in the delegation has paid. Then during the meetings representatives from state and specialty colleges rush to the microphone to gush, “The great state of confusion proudly reports 100% participation in OPAC.” The members of the house then applaud. Uh, everybody must contribute, so the achievement being applauded is what?

Now, a public confession. Almost 30 years ago I decided to see what would happen if I gave less than the required amount. The “gift” at that time was $100; I gave $50. I knew the incoming president well and was present when he was informed that “somebody only gave $50.” He didn’t bat an eye and responded: “Report 100% participation”. It was the truth; everyone contributed. I never did it again. I admit it was fun.

Back to this year’s house. Every report presented reflected enormous strides and success. Not one department reported that they found any problems or areas where they could improve. In fact, two of the reports receiving thunderous applause announced that membership is decreasing, but we’re doing great, and since the merging of residency programs, the majority of our graduates don’t train in “osteopathic recognition” programs, but we’re doing better than the MDs!

Oh, the jocosity! I can’t wait for next year…WGRP.

* My apologies to the late Theodor Geisel.