In an op-ed in the New York Daily News, former long-time Trump Organization vice president Barbara Res says that Trump is "not all that different now, [from when she worked for him] but the stakes are higher."
Res, who was in charge of construction for the Trump Organization, gives an example when Trump Tower was being built. Trump ordered an architect to "get rid of the [expletive] Braille" on the elevator button pads. "No blind people are going to live in Trump Tower. Just do it," Res quotes Trump as having said.
Then she explains that Trump likely knew the architect would never remove the Braille. It's required by law. But ordering "an underling to do something that was impossible" was a win-win situation for him. He could bash his workers for disobeying his orders and blame them if anything later went wrong.
She was also critical of the anonymous op-ed writer from the Trump staff. She wrote: "The self-aggrandizing Anonymous wants the world to know that there are adults in the room. Really? What the hell are they doing?"
Ralph
Saturday, September 15, 2018
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Why not invoke the 25th amendment?
The Republicans, of course, have their reasons for not invoking the 25th amendment to remove the president from office as unfit to carry out his duties. Those reasons are political expediency. Donald Trump's support among Republican voters is enough -- and his retribution against candidates who don't go along is so fierce -- that they will put our democracy at danger rather than act to protect it.
But there are two other reasons for not invoking the 25th amendment to the Constitution to remove Trump from the office for which he is so manifestly unfit.
1. The first is a matter of numbers. It is an even more difficult process than impeachment, which requires a simple majority in the House to vote to impeach; then a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict and remove the president from office. It does not require the vice president and the cabinet to agree, and it requires only a simple majority of the House to initiate impeachment, followed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
In contrast, the 25th amendment route requires, initially, an initiative from the vice president and a majority of the cabinet. If there is no objection from the president, then that's all it takes. But, if the president files an objection, declaring that he is in fact fit, it then requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress.
2. The other is a more nuanced matter. Being declared unfit for the office implies that something has changed about the president. He has become ill, or been injured in an accident -- something has happened that wasn't there when he was elected. People who make this point also make the valid point that Donald Trump has always operated in this way. Maybe he's worse now under all the stress -- but voters had a good idea of who he was and voted for him anyway.
One can also make the argument that he has gotten much worse -- or at least he is much worse in office than was anticipated. Any hope that he would listen to advisers, or that he would learn in office -- that fantasy has been proven to be fairy dust. But, in some people's thinking anyway, it's a dubious claim that now he's unfit and the voters were wrong when they put him in office.
There's also the practical matter. With the midterm election less than two months away, that's the focus now. They're not going to impeach him or use the 25th amendment now. But a sound defeat of Republicans, especially if the Democrats take control of both the House and Senate -- which now looks do-able -- then that is a loud and clear message that will shake up even the Republicans.
Ralph
But there are two other reasons for not invoking the 25th amendment to the Constitution to remove Trump from the office for which he is so manifestly unfit.
1. The first is a matter of numbers. It is an even more difficult process than impeachment, which requires a simple majority in the House to vote to impeach; then a two-thirds majority of the Senate to convict and remove the president from office. It does not require the vice president and the cabinet to agree, and it requires only a simple majority of the House to initiate impeachment, followed by a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
In contrast, the 25th amendment route requires, initially, an initiative from the vice president and a majority of the cabinet. If there is no objection from the president, then that's all it takes. But, if the president files an objection, declaring that he is in fact fit, it then requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of congress.
2. The other is a more nuanced matter. Being declared unfit for the office implies that something has changed about the president. He has become ill, or been injured in an accident -- something has happened that wasn't there when he was elected. People who make this point also make the valid point that Donald Trump has always operated in this way. Maybe he's worse now under all the stress -- but voters had a good idea of who he was and voted for him anyway.
One can also make the argument that he has gotten much worse -- or at least he is much worse in office than was anticipated. Any hope that he would listen to advisers, or that he would learn in office -- that fantasy has been proven to be fairy dust. But, in some people's thinking anyway, it's a dubious claim that now he's unfit and the voters were wrong when they put him in office.
There's also the practical matter. With the midterm election less than two months away, that's the focus now. They're not going to impeach him or use the 25th amendment now. But a sound defeat of Republicans, especially if the Democrats take control of both the House and Senate -- which now looks do-able -- then that is a loud and clear message that will shake up even the Republicans.
Ralph
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Two ways of looking at anonymous op-ed
My first thought about the anonymous op-ed tell-all in the New York Times was relief that there are some adults surrounding the president who are actually mindful of the dangers he poses to the nation and who are trying to do something to contain his worst impulses.
Only later, after listening to other points of view, did I become concerned with what this actually amounts to -- unelected staff members undermining and disobeying the orders of the duly elected president. In other words, undermining the authority of the people's choice, an anti-democracy act.
Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote a very thoughtful piece on Sunday that takes both these points of view into consideration and comes to a thoughtful synthesis. He writes:
"One might say that insofar as the officials resisting Trump are trying to prevent his temperamental unfitness from leading to some mass-casuality disaster or moral infamy, they are doing the country a great service. But insofar as they are just trying to prevent him implementing possibly-misguided populist ideas, they are being presumptuously antidemocratic and should resign instead.
"The trouble is that there is obviously a gray area between these two categories. And it's in the nature of ideology to convince people that only their preferred policy ideas stand between the country and disaster."
Douthat continues: "So, . . . the example of [Gen.] James Mattis slow-walking a fleeting presidential desire to [assassinate Syrian president Assad] . . . strikes me as the admirable sort of internal resistance.
"But then the example of Gary Cohn stealing a letter off Trump's desk to prevent him from dissolving the U.S.-South Korea trade compact seems closer to an example of the anti-democratic vice -- because after all, Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, didn't he? And yet I'm sure Cohn justified himself on more existential grounds, imagining the unraveling of the peninsular security arrangement and, eventually, a horrifying war. . ."
Douthat then proposes that those around Trump should sustain some combination of the two points of view when deciding whether to try to thwart an action of this president. "Yes to prudent resistance to rash behavior, no to ideological resistance to populist policy." And he acknowledges that this "would require constant self-scrutiny among the people trying to manage this presidency from within."
He concludes that "the most troubling thing about the anonymous op-ed -- apart from the dubious judgment that inspired its writing -- is that the author doesn't seem to recognize this issue, or acknowledge any distinction between protecting America from Trump's erratic personality . . . and frustrating the agenda that won our president the White House."
Only later, after listening to other points of view, did I become concerned with what this actually amounts to -- unelected staff members undermining and disobeying the orders of the duly elected president. In other words, undermining the authority of the people's choice, an anti-democracy act.
Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote a very thoughtful piece on Sunday that takes both these points of view into consideration and comes to a thoughtful synthesis. He writes:
"One might say that insofar as the officials resisting Trump are trying to prevent his temperamental unfitness from leading to some mass-casuality disaster or moral infamy, they are doing the country a great service. But insofar as they are just trying to prevent him implementing possibly-misguided populist ideas, they are being presumptuously antidemocratic and should resign instead.
"The trouble is that there is obviously a gray area between these two categories. And it's in the nature of ideology to convince people that only their preferred policy ideas stand between the country and disaster."
Douthat continues: "So, . . . the example of [Gen.] James Mattis slow-walking a fleeting presidential desire to [assassinate Syrian president Assad] . . . strikes me as the admirable sort of internal resistance.
"But then the example of Gary Cohn stealing a letter off Trump's desk to prevent him from dissolving the U.S.-South Korea trade compact seems closer to an example of the anti-democratic vice -- because after all, Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, didn't he? And yet I'm sure Cohn justified himself on more existential grounds, imagining the unraveling of the peninsular security arrangement and, eventually, a horrifying war. . ."
Douthat then proposes that those around Trump should sustain some combination of the two points of view when deciding whether to try to thwart an action of this president. "Yes to prudent resistance to rash behavior, no to ideological resistance to populist policy." And he acknowledges that this "would require constant self-scrutiny among the people trying to manage this presidency from within."
He concludes that "the most troubling thing about the anonymous op-ed -- apart from the dubious judgment that inspired its writing -- is that the author doesn't seem to recognize this issue, or acknowledge any distinction between protecting America from Trump's erratic personality . . . and frustrating the agenda that won our president the White House."
* * *
And I would add that settling for this compromise, rather than some more dramatic action from the inside staff that would force the Republican majority to grapple with the problem of an unfit president, simply prolongs the dysfunction we face when Congress is ignoring its constitutional duty of oversight of the Executive branch of our government. Is the answer mass resignations? Would that be enough to evoke some Republican action?
Apparently everyone's deciding to leave it to the voters -- 57 days from today. So get out and vote. And get others to go too. Our democracy depends on it.
Apparently everyone's deciding to leave it to the voters -- 57 days from today. So get out and vote. And get others to go too. Our democracy depends on it.
Ralph
Sunday, September 9, 2018
A few news briefs
1. All the time being spent by pundits and politicos on trying to figure out which Trump staffer wrote the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times should instead be focused on the question: "Is it true?"
The answer is obviously Yes; and, since the Republicans in Congress aren't going to do anything about it but shrug, it's up to everyone who cares about preserving our democracy to send the loudest possible message by voting on November 6th. Give the Democrats control of both the House and the Senate. And something will get done.
2. India's Supreme Court has struck down its ban on gay sex, saying that the law was "irrational, and manifestly arbitrary." Thus, the world's second most populous nation has removed the anachronistic law, which stems from the British Colonial era in India. According to the New York Times, the leading religion in India, Hinduism, has historically been tolerant of same-sex unions.
3. The shocking report from a grand jury investigation of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests in Pennsylvania over decades has led to action from law enforcement authorities in the states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and New Mexico. The actions range from subpoenas of records to active investigations. This marks a change from the past, when the Catholic Church asserted its authority over priestly abuse as being an internal matter that would not be referred to secular law enforcement authorities.
This also comes on the heels of the explosive letter to Pope Francis from a former Vatican official, Carlo Maria Vigano, accusing the pope of being part of the cover-up and calling on him to resign. It remains to be seen whether this letter is based on facts or may reflect doctrinal disagreements between conservative elements in the Vatican and the more liberal Pope Francis.
4. The United Nations Security Council has a system in which the chairmanship rotates on a monthly basis among the member-nations of the Council. The United States will have the month of September, and President Trump is planning to use the opportunity to focus the Council on Iran and what the New York Times calls its "malign activities" in the Middle East. European diplomats fear this will underline the lack of unity in the West and further undermine the multi-nation nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump pulled the U.S. out of.
At this point, the only U.N. resolution on Iran currently in force is the nuclear deal, and there is apparently no plan that Trump will try to get a new resolution passed. But, short of that, there will be plenty of opportunity for him to show his lack of understanding of the deal, as well as his total lack of diplomatic skills. U.N. Ambassador Nicki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will have their "containment" work cut out for them.
5. Former president Barack Obama has emerged from his reticence to criticize his successor and hit the campaign trail. His speech was the kickoff of a two month campaign blitz to help Democrats take back control of Congress. He was openly critical of President Trump, sometimes laceratingly so; but he also said that this didn't start with Donald Trump. "He is a symptom, not the cause. He's just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years."
The answer is obviously Yes; and, since the Republicans in Congress aren't going to do anything about it but shrug, it's up to everyone who cares about preserving our democracy to send the loudest possible message by voting on November 6th. Give the Democrats control of both the House and the Senate. And something will get done.
2. India's Supreme Court has struck down its ban on gay sex, saying that the law was "irrational, and manifestly arbitrary." Thus, the world's second most populous nation has removed the anachronistic law, which stems from the British Colonial era in India. According to the New York Times, the leading religion in India, Hinduism, has historically been tolerant of same-sex unions.
3. The shocking report from a grand jury investigation of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests in Pennsylvania over decades has led to action from law enforcement authorities in the states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and New Mexico. The actions range from subpoenas of records to active investigations. This marks a change from the past, when the Catholic Church asserted its authority over priestly abuse as being an internal matter that would not be referred to secular law enforcement authorities.
This also comes on the heels of the explosive letter to Pope Francis from a former Vatican official, Carlo Maria Vigano, accusing the pope of being part of the cover-up and calling on him to resign. It remains to be seen whether this letter is based on facts or may reflect doctrinal disagreements between conservative elements in the Vatican and the more liberal Pope Francis.
4. The United Nations Security Council has a system in which the chairmanship rotates on a monthly basis among the member-nations of the Council. The United States will have the month of September, and President Trump is planning to use the opportunity to focus the Council on Iran and what the New York Times calls its "malign activities" in the Middle East. European diplomats fear this will underline the lack of unity in the West and further undermine the multi-nation nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump pulled the U.S. out of.
At this point, the only U.N. resolution on Iran currently in force is the nuclear deal, and there is apparently no plan that Trump will try to get a new resolution passed. But, short of that, there will be plenty of opportunity for him to show his lack of understanding of the deal, as well as his total lack of diplomatic skills. U.N. Ambassador Nicki Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will have their "containment" work cut out for them.
5. Former president Barack Obama has emerged from his reticence to criticize his successor and hit the campaign trail. His speech was the kickoff of a two month campaign blitz to help Democrats take back control of Congress. He was openly critical of President Trump, sometimes laceratingly so; but he also said that this didn't start with Donald Trump. "He is a symptom, not the cause. He's just capitalizing on resentments that politicians have been fanning for years."
Friday, September 7, 2018
The future of ShrinkRap
This is just a note to regular readers: I don't know what I'm going to decide about continuing or what frequency, if I do continue. I apologize if it sounds like I'm stringing folks along.
It was my intent, in my Labor Day post, to write a farewell and close down the site. Two factors intervened: several friends and family members recently told me how much they rely on it, enjoy it, or simply see it as a way of staying in touch with me.
The other factor was my own reluctance to give it up. So bear with me. At this point, I'm thinking that I will just write an occasional post when I feel moved to do so. If you want to check in, you're welcome to do so. What I don't want is to return to the feeling of obligation to post something every day.
That totally comes from within me, of course. But it's a real factor.
So, I doubt this is the last you'll hear from me. But "no obligations," OK?
Ralph
PS: The Trump story just gets more bizarre and complex by the day. Any thought of writing about it feels like entering a jungle that leads to a crazy house. So, for now anyway, I'm not going there. I suggest you watch for all the Bob Woodward interviews on TV that will be coming up. He's too respected a journalist to be dismissed or insulted, too meticulous in his attributions to be doubted. So this blockbuster book must be reckoned with.
It was my intent, in my Labor Day post, to write a farewell and close down the site. Two factors intervened: several friends and family members recently told me how much they rely on it, enjoy it, or simply see it as a way of staying in touch with me.
The other factor was my own reluctance to give it up. So bear with me. At this point, I'm thinking that I will just write an occasional post when I feel moved to do so. If you want to check in, you're welcome to do so. What I don't want is to return to the feeling of obligation to post something every day.
That totally comes from within me, of course. But it's a real factor.
So, I doubt this is the last you'll hear from me. But "no obligations," OK?
Ralph
PS: The Trump story just gets more bizarre and complex by the day. Any thought of writing about it feels like entering a jungle that leads to a crazy house. So, for now anyway, I'm not going there. I suggest you watch for all the Bob Woodward interviews on TV that will be coming up. He's too respected a journalist to be dismissed or insulted, too meticulous in his attributions to be doubted. So this blockbuster book must be reckoned with.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Amplification of right-wing propaganda
Jeffrey Toobin, writer for The New Yorker and a political analyst for CNN, in an August 28th article, reviews a new book that is based on a years-long academic study of how propaganda circulates and gets amplified. The interesting thing Toobin focuses on is the comparison of right-wing focused propaganda vs stories that would appeal to the left wing.
Toobin begins by debunking the conventional belief that "liberals and conservatives . . . live in separate bubbles, where they watch different television networks, frequent different web sites, and live in different realities." The implication of this view, Toobin says, is that the two sides "resemble each other in their twisted views of reality. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity, in other words, are two sides of the same coin."
He then refers to a new book that shows that this is precisely wrong. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, by Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, is based on their academic study of the way stories with strong partisan appeal get circulated in the media and how this differs on the right and on the left.
Quoting Toobin about the book's thesis:
"The two sides are not, in fact, equal when it comes to evaluating "news" stories, or even in how they view reality. Liberals wants facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda. . . . [T]he right-wing media ecosystem . . . has been much more susceptible to disinformation, lies, and half-truths."
The book's lead author, Benkler, is a Harvard professor. Toobin explains that his is not a book of media criticism but rather an academic data analysis of "millions of online stories, tweets, and Facebook-sharing data points."
The authors of the book found that "something very different was happening in right-wing media than in centrist, center-left and left-wing media." In the right-wing media, false stores are launched on extreme web sites, such as InfoWars, where rules of professional journalism do not apply. The stories are then picked up by outlets like Fox News and others that do claim to follow journalistic norms but often fail in that function.
According to the book, "This pattern is not mirrored on the left wing." Toobin then describes how they prove their case. "The most persuasive sections of the book concern case studies of stories that did, or did not, go viral in these politically disconnected universes. Consider two stories that emerged over the course of the 2016 Presidential campaign: in one, Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in acts of pedophilia, which included the abuse of Haitian refugee children and visits to an orgy island -- preposterous claims for which there was no shred of evidence.
"In the other, Donald Trump supposedly raped a thirteen-year-old girl, in 1994 -- something that he was accused of in a lawsuit filed in 2016. At first, there was great interest on the left in the Trump story. There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it . . . as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia.
"But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. . . ." He goes on to explain that, on the left, media consumers are more likely to measure stories with their own judgment, as well as turning to fact-checking sites.
"The Clinton orgy-island story met a very different fate in the right-wing media, which pushed versions of it over the course of the campaign. . . . The dynamic on the right, the authors found, 'rewards the most popular and widely viewed channels at the very top of the media ecosystem for delivering stories, whether true or false, that protect the team, reinforce its beliefs, attack opponents, and refute any claims that might threaten 'our' team from outsiders.
"Referring to the orgy-island story, the authors note that 'not one right-wing outlet came out to criticize and expose this blatant lie for what it was. In the grip of the propaganda feedback loop, the right-wing media ecosystem had no mechanism for self-correction, and instead exhibited dynamics of self-reinforcement, confirmation, and repetition so that readers, viewers and listeners encountered multiple versions of the same story, over months, to the point that both recall and credibility were enhanced."
Toobin begins by debunking the conventional belief that "liberals and conservatives . . . live in separate bubbles, where they watch different television networks, frequent different web sites, and live in different realities." The implication of this view, Toobin says, is that the two sides "resemble each other in their twisted views of reality. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity, in other words, are two sides of the same coin."
He then refers to a new book that shows that this is precisely wrong. Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, by Benkler, Faris, and Roberts, is based on their academic study of the way stories with strong partisan appeal get circulated in the media and how this differs on the right and on the left.
Quoting Toobin about the book's thesis:
"The two sides are not, in fact, equal when it comes to evaluating "news" stories, or even in how they view reality. Liberals wants facts; conservatives want their biases reinforced. Liberals embrace journalism; conservatives believe propaganda. . . . [T]he right-wing media ecosystem . . . has been much more susceptible to disinformation, lies, and half-truths."
The book's lead author, Benkler, is a Harvard professor. Toobin explains that his is not a book of media criticism but rather an academic data analysis of "millions of online stories, tweets, and Facebook-sharing data points."
The authors of the book found that "something very different was happening in right-wing media than in centrist, center-left and left-wing media." In the right-wing media, false stores are launched on extreme web sites, such as InfoWars, where rules of professional journalism do not apply. The stories are then picked up by outlets like Fox News and others that do claim to follow journalistic norms but often fail in that function.
According to the book, "This pattern is not mirrored on the left wing." Toobin then describes how they prove their case. "The most persuasive sections of the book concern case studies of stories that did, or did not, go viral in these politically disconnected universes. Consider two stories that emerged over the course of the 2016 Presidential campaign: in one, Bill and Hillary Clinton were involved in acts of pedophilia, which included the abuse of Haitian refugee children and visits to an orgy island -- preposterous claims for which there was no shred of evidence.
"In the other, Donald Trump supposedly raped a thirteen-year-old girl, in 1994 -- something that he was accused of in a lawsuit filed in 2016. At first, there was great interest on the left in the Trump story. There were five times as many Facebook shares of the most widely shared article about it . . . as of the most widely shared story about the imagined Clinton pedophilia.
"But all that chatter was followed by near silence in the liberal and mainstream media, as the story failed to survive the most basic fact-checking scrutiny. . . ." He goes on to explain that, on the left, media consumers are more likely to measure stories with their own judgment, as well as turning to fact-checking sites.
"The Clinton orgy-island story met a very different fate in the right-wing media, which pushed versions of it over the course of the campaign. . . . The dynamic on the right, the authors found, 'rewards the most popular and widely viewed channels at the very top of the media ecosystem for delivering stories, whether true or false, that protect the team, reinforce its beliefs, attack opponents, and refute any claims that might threaten 'our' team from outsiders.
"Referring to the orgy-island story, the authors note that 'not one right-wing outlet came out to criticize and expose this blatant lie for what it was. In the grip of the propaganda feedback loop, the right-wing media ecosystem had no mechanism for self-correction, and instead exhibited dynamics of self-reinforcement, confirmation, and repetition so that readers, viewers and listeners encountered multiple versions of the same story, over months, to the point that both recall and credibility were enhanced."
* * * * *
So . . . now we have it confirmed by an academic study. Yes, there is something different about Fox and all its friends.
Ralph
Monday, September 3, 2018
What does Labor Day signify any more?
It used to be that Labor Day was a recognition of the important contribution of the working people of this country. With the decline of the power of labor unions -- brought about by several factors, including several changes in law, as well as other factors -- we hardly know what to do with ourselves on Labor Day.
There don't seem to be any parades, any festivals, any observances at all -- beyond a few local picnics, which people organize on summer weekends without any special day to celebrate.
But just look at the ever-increasing economic gap between workers' wages and the wealth accruing to the owners in this so-called booming economy. It's the corporate officers and the stockholders that are benefiting -- not the workers. We need strong labor unions as much as ever.
So, no, there is really nothing to celebrate on today's Labor Day. Perhaps we should observe it by wrapping factories and construction sites in black crepe paper (or black toilet paper, if you can find it).
There don't seem to be any parades, any festivals, any observances at all -- beyond a few local picnics, which people organize on summer weekends without any special day to celebrate.
But just look at the ever-increasing economic gap between workers' wages and the wealth accruing to the owners in this so-called booming economy. It's the corporate officers and the stockholders that are benefiting -- not the workers. We need strong labor unions as much as ever.
So, no, there is really nothing to celebrate on today's Labor Day. Perhaps we should observe it by wrapping factories and construction sites in black crepe paper (or black toilet paper, if you can find it).
* * *
Honestly, I opened up my computer to write my farewell for ShrinkRap. I had made the decision not to resume daily blogging. After 10 years of daily posting, I have enjoyed the freedom from that "responsibility I took on."
Even if I hadn't had the medical problem going on, I needed a respite from the daily "labor" of trying to convey an understanding of the day's news stories, particularly it's political news.
And, by the way, for those interested: I did have the aortic valve replacement, using the new TAVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) process. If anyone wants to know more about that, see a brief description below.
As soon as my fingers hit the keyboard, and I began to realize it was Labor Day, I decided to say something about that --- and then it felt like I was off to the races again.
Truth be told: I'm awfully conflicted about this. I enjoyed the freedom from the time-consuming consumption of the news so as to present a coherent, clarifying picture. I also like "having my say."
So here's what my interim solution is. OK. I won't quit altogether. At least for a while, I'll try writing it on a less that daily basis. That's been hard for me to do, because I fall into obsessive routines so easily; but I'll give it a try. I already have something for tomorrow -- a reprint of an article by Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker that previews a new book based on a research comparison of the fate of "fake news" in liberal vs conservative news channels.
So, instead of "goodbye," I'm saying "not quite yet."
Ralph
___________________
TAVR: The artificial valve is contrived out of a collapsible wire. stent-like mesh -- with cusps from a cow valve attached -- and is inserted in the femoral artery in the groin and pushed up into the midst of the narrowed valve opening in the aortic valve.
A balloon on the catheter is inflated, expanding the artificial valve, which in turn pushed the old, calcified valve flaps back against the artery wall. The balloon is deflated, the catheter removed, and the artificial valve begins functioning all on its own. It's Magic !!! No, it's just Modern Medicine. And I am grateful to be living in a time when I can benefit from such technological advances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
