Impromptu Top Five List of Favorite Painters

This is not a thoughtful list. I’m just throwing it together because something made me think about John Singer Sargent, and that made me want to do a Top Five list, so I’m assembling this hastily because I’ve got a lot to do today.

It’s also not an honest list, because an honest list of favorites would consist entirely of people in my family, but my wife would give me trouble if I showed any of her watercolors, so consider this a Top Five List of Painters to Whom I Am Not Related by Blood or Marriage.

Maybe I’ll do a more thoughtful one later.

Here goes:

  1. John Singer Sargent. Y’all are probably tired of him because I know I’ve mentioned him before, such as when we visited the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. Now I’ve gotta to BACK to Boston because I just learned about his Triumph of Religion set of murals that he spent the last 29 years of his life trying to finish. I love his range, as well as his mastery in achieving he’s trying to do. He’s called an impressionist, but he’s good at whatever style you choose. Check out his use of light in this, or the hypnotic eyes in this. And dig the shadows in my very favorite, El Jaléo, which I encountered at Isabella’s museum.
  2. Caravaggio. I learned about Caravaggio from a print that hangs in a hallway of my church, The Calling of St. Matthew. That’s it at the top of this post.
  3. Vermeer. Everybody talks about the Girl with the Pearl Earring, but my fave is Het melkmeisje, which I saw at the Rijsmuseum in Amsterdam. It’s not very big, but it is very impressive. I saw a lot of Rembrandt there, too — some greats including The Night Watch and those dudes from the Dutch Masters cigar box, but that would be so cliche to choose him, right?
  4. Anders Zorn. OK this is almost the same as picking Sargent, because I mistake his work for Sargent’s sometimes, but I like his work on its own. Especially his portait of the aforementioned Isabella (which is better than Sargent’s portrait of her), and The Omnibus. Although, as I’ve said before, I like George William Joy’s version of the omnibus them better (more communitarian, or something — more people, anyway). Y’all know how I love public transportation. And though I definitely don’t love tobacco, I like this one as well.
  5. Boticelli. Nope, not the Venus one. My fave is Primavera, especially this detail.

That’s it. Thoughts? I know a lot of this is repetitive, but I don’t remember doing a Top Five on painters, and am curious to see what y’all will tell me I left out.

Don’t mention Michelangelo, though. I’ve got a bone to pick with him, which I’ll explain in a subsequent post…

A moment to recall ‘a previous America’

I’m very busy — which is why I generally restrict myself to simple posts that take less time and don’t say much — but I want to mention this before it gets too far in the past.

This was three days ago.

About the only time I see anything that falls within the definition of “TV news” is when I’m checking in on my Mom at an hour when she watches it. On this occasion, it was something worth watching, and I would have missed it otherwise.

I had heard about Artemis II, in passing. What I heard made me promise myself to pause and read more about it, but with all I’ve been doing, I didn’t get around to it. And now, it appeared, the spacecraft was coming back. We watched the whole re-entry and splashdown, and I was struck by how I was seeing something I hadn’t seen in many a year.

I had watched some of the shuttle launches in the ’80s, especially after the horror of Challenger. I felt I had to keep an eye on these strange things that landed rather than splashing down, if only in case we were going to have to scrap our plans for the next day’s front and whole A section.

But they lacked the excitement of the launches in the ”60s. After all, while the new craft was higher tech and carried a larger crew, these shuttles were just tooling around in low orbit, the way John Glenn had done in 1962. And I’d seen that. Everybody had seen that. My 3rd-grade class — indeed, I suppose the whole school — assembled in the auditorium to watch it live. The black-and-white TV was on a wheeled trolley placed down in front of the stage, to bring the small screen a bit closer to us. It was the biggest thing that happened that year, even bigger than Mantle and Maris vying to beat the Babe’s record back at the start of the term.

What was interesting about this Artemis II return over the weekend was that… well, it was a bit like that day in the school auditorium — or at least it seemed to be to the people on the screen.

There were differences, of course:

  • The screen itself. HD, and rich color that none of us could have imagined back in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo days. Better sound, better everything — except, no John Glenn, the Single-Combat Warrior fighting the godless Soviets in the Heavens, as Tom Wolfe would later describe it.
  • Instead of Glenn, there was a group of four I’d never heard of. Of course, this being the 21st century, there was a lot of hoopla about one being black and another being a woman! Like we hadn’t seen that before. You know what “diversity” point meant more to me? At least three of the crew were military — and two of them U.S. Navy pilots. Ike wanted astronauts to be military test pilots, and I’ve always agreed with him. They tend to already meet many prerequisites, and they take orders well.

But the most startling thing to me wasn’t those minor differences. It was the sameness. The breathlessness, in every voice that came on the air. For instance… people kept saying, over and over, that there was going to be a terribly suspenseful few minutes during re-entry when we wouldn’t be able to communicate with the capsule!!!! Also the capsule will turn into a ball of intensely hot fire as it entered the atmostphere!!!

Like no one had ever seen such a thing before. Like it hadn’t been standard in all those flights in the ”60s. Like Hollywood Opie hadn’t Apollo 13, in which the most suspenseful moment was the one in which the capsule was making its re-entry, and the loss of signal was longer than expected.

Finally, of course, it dawned on me that most people hadn’t seen this before, as unimaginable as that was for me. Only 12-15 percent of people today were even living in 1962, much less in the 3rd grade. Only about 22 percent here living on the planet the last time we sent astronauts to the moon.

For that matter, only about half today’s population was even around when the heavily nostalgic “Apollo 13” came out!

So this was a complete, unprecedented novelty to most people watching — as well as to the network TV folks and possibly everyone at Mission Control, and even the astronauts themselves!

Which was weird.

This was underlined by one young TV guy who had drawn the job of interviewing regular folks who had gathered to watch the spectacle. He spoke of their awe at witnessing such a thing for the first time. And he was particularly impressed to have spoken to a man who was so old he could  actually remember the early flights back during the Space Age!

But then the young man with the microphone said something that made him sound older and wiser himself. He said that to the people with whom he had spoken, what was happening “seems like something a previous America would have accomplished.”

And he was right. I remember that America. Early in my career I referred to the WWII generation as “the America that got things done.” Later, I realized that generation was still accomplishing things for decades after 1945, because at that point they were still in charge of this country. And they were still pulling together across the lines of division we know today, to get one tough thing after another done. So we got things like the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the Peace Corps, and… the Space Program.

JFK and his veep got the Moon Landing done, with the whole country dedicated to the goal after Kennedy’s assassination. We were still pulling together then, even as Vietnam was starting to tear us apart.

You know who launched the Artemis program? Trump. Really. Of course, to the extent that he actually deserves credit for that, I suppose this is the ONE way in which he has acted to, in some way, make America great again.

But of course, he is still someone who owes his prominence to division — to the way Democrats and Republicans view each other as members of different species, to the rally crowds that roar approval when a speaker says things about OTHER people that no politician would have dreamed of publicly uttering when when we had some mutual respect, and got things done together.

(Of course, he didn’t inspire the nation with a speech like this. He couldn’t, both because he lacks the ability and inclination and because this isn’t that America. But hey, he signed the paperwork.)

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the Artemis program served somehow as a portal that led to us being that country again. ‘Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished…

The Mercury Seven

Maybe not a dream cure, but at least I’m learning stuff…

My dreams aren’t as bad as Scrooge’s, but they’re tiresome…

Remember, when I told you I was taking a linguistics course this semester, I expressed the hope that it would have a secondary benefit?

Perhaps I can even do well enough to put an end to those dreams. You know, the ones in which you have to go take your exam at the end of a term, and you suddenly realize that you have no idea where the class meets, because you haven’t attended it even once. You’d meant to, but somehow never got around to it.

Well… that might have been a wish too far. I’ve had variations on that dream twice in the past week. The first one had an interesting twist.

In that one, there was an awareness that I’m actually currently taking a course, and doing pretty well at it — which is the way I’d describe how things have been going in this linguistics course. So the dream began with a “this is working as hoped” sort of vibe.

But then I experienced that evil moment common to these dreams — the point at which I am suddenly reminded that I’m actually taking a full load, and while I’ve been engaging this one course fairly well, it has caused me to completely forget the other four or so. I say “four or so” because I absolutely couldn’t find the slip of paper (like the kind we might have had in the ’70s) that listed the courses, the professors, and times and locations. Like this one, although I seemed to remember the one in the dream as being neatly printed, with no handwritten entries.

In the dream, it was a Monday, and in the real world my classes are on Tuesdays and Thursdays — but now I felt sure that I had classes, maybe two or three of them, on Mondays. And I had never been to them, and had no idea where they were, and I was panicking.

There was no resolution of this problem, of course. That’s one of the rules in this sort of dream.

The second dream was less interesting — just a standard “panicking because I’ve never been to class” dream, with no reference to the one course I’m actually taking.

So maybe I’m not going to get that side benefit. I’ll just have to be satisfied with learning stuff. And I am.

And it’s stuff that I wanted to learn (or some of it is — this being an intro course, there’s a lot of material from sub-fields aside from the stuff I like, but that’s fine). These last weeks — since this post about accents — have been very good. The next week we were on language change — things such as why Beowolf was so different from Shakespeare, and why so many can’t understand Shakespeare today. And this week we’re doing names — looking at given names in various languages, the development of surnames in various cultures in recent centuries, and so forth. Good stuff, if you’re me and you have a family tree with 10,000 people on it — so far.

Just four classes left — today, Thursday, and the two next week. And I have part of a project due Friday, and the full project due a few days after the last class.

In my slacker days…

So. I plan to enjoy these last days, and do well on the project, and get a good grade. Maybe then the Superintendent of Dreams will decide that I’m no longer the slacker I was back in the early ’70s, and he can give me a break on the stress dreams. After all, aside from grades, I’ve made it to every class — although I might be a bit late today (but it’s excused).

Maybe. But I suspect those dreams are just a fact of life. I’ll just have to be satisfied with having learned things I wanted to know about. That will be sufficient reward…

 

 

 

The best week yet: accents and dialects

A meme referenced in Understanding Language Through Humor.

Now, this is one of the reasons I took this linguistics course. This is the good stuff.

It’s been getting better week by week. This being an introduction course, it’s bound to cover things that I’m less interested in, and we got that in the first couple of weeks — stuff like mechanics of speech, and the International Phonetic Alphabet. But now it’s getting good.

The week before this past one, we were studying how children learn to speak, and I picked up a lot of interesting stuff — stuff I didn’t know, despite having five children and five grandchildren. (I’ve already bored one friend with advice about her toddler’s linguistic development, so if you have any tots at the moment, you might want to steer clear of me.)

But this week that just ended was the best so far, and I hope for more like it. It covered accents and “varieties” of languages (which is what linguists call dialects because calling them dialects might hurt some people’s feelings).

I mentioned in my Christopher Guest post what a fascination accents are to me. I love them as living demonstrations of the seemingly infinite diversity of human beings. If I go to another country or part of this country, I want to hear those local accents — the more stereotypical they are, the better. When I’m in New York, I love hearing the cops talk like the ones in the movies. And one of the most delightful moments of my first morning in England in 2010 was when I asked a copper for directions and he answered me in perhaps the first Cockney I’d ever heard in person. (My joy was increased by the fact he was wearing the traditional Bobby uniform with the oddly shaped helmet. They do that in London, at least in areas frequented by tourists, unlike in other parts of England.)

At the same time, I marvel that people still speak with such accents. Why on Earth do people speak that way? When I was young, I figured that I was a member of the last generation that would hear the really thick ones. And we’d only hear them from older people — the rest of us would have our accents ironed out by TV, radio and movies. And that was true for military brats — we all had flat, regionless modes of speech, unlike the older people around us. But there are still plenty of people out there who can be hard for folks from elsewhere to understand. And I wonder at that. I suspect it’s now one of two things: The first is that it’s like any other physical ability, such as being able to hit a curve ball. Some have elastic speech abilities and can smooth out their accents (or imitate the accents of others) at will. Others are stuck with the way they first learned speech from their parents.

Lately I’ve been giving more creedence to the second theory: The people with the accents are clinging to them deliberately — or at least semi-deliberately — as a means of expressing their membership in a particular group, and boosting the degree to which they are accepted in that group. There’s also a related, but more personal, emotional motive: “Talking like this was good enough for my momma!”

I grew up in the postwar period, when a uniform sense of American identity was strongest. It’s been eroding ever since, and America is more tribal today than ever. So people want to sound like members of subgroups.

I suspect both of those theories — the physical and the group identification –are at work. But I’m eager to learn more about these things I enjoy hearing.

I’m also interested in learning more about how people in different regions or demographic groups speak aside from accents. We actually concentrated more on that than accents in the class. Since I’ve moved around, I was familiar with most of what we discussed, but was shocked by other things. For instance, in some parts of the country, such as Indiana and much of Pennsylvania, people actually think these are logical sentences:

  • Your car needs detailed.
  • The baby needs changed.
  • The baby likes cuddled.

(To the people who say this things and their neighbors, it makes sense to leave out the words “to be.”)

This caused one of our liveliest  discussions. I was shocked by those nonsentences. The student from New Jersey next to me was practically outraged that anyone thought such abuse of the language was acceptable, and I wasn’t far behind her. But the Hoosier across the room found that useage quite normal. (And I had thought Indiana folks were relatively normal speakers, compared to those of us in the South, or Boston, or another of your more colorful places.)

Yeah, I know. Most of you don’t care. But I do. And I share these things for those who find similar things interesting.

I just wanted to share the fact that I’m enjoying this limited return to college. I’d go on about it further, but now I’ve got to work on the assignments for the coming week…

I’ll end with one of my homework questions from last week. The image above is from a new book by my professor. It’s called Understanding Language Through Humor. I enjoy our reading from that. Unfortunately, most of the homework comes from our stultifying main text — which I didn’t mind as much this past week. Note item C:

The survivors in their new homes

Here they are, right after I planted them Tuesday.

Some of you may wonder what happened to those fig trees I was trying to grow from some cuttings I got from our friend Scout.

OK, so maybe none of you have thought about it except Scout, and maybe not even her. But I have. Unfortunately, for about a year all I did was think about it. Yesterday, I took action.

It was more than a year ago that I got the cuttings — four of them — from the bountiful trees in Scout’s yard (with her permission, of course). And I went through the myterious procedures needed to get those twigs to sprout some roots, and then planted them in small pots.

But then by May, two of them had given up the will to be fig trees. But I put the two viable ones into larger pots, and for a while they produced leaves with great abandon.

Another angle.

Then, I came to a standstill. I couldn’t decide where to plant them, and I got conflicting advice from different folks. One credible source told me I shouldn’t even THINK about it until they’d gotten a lot bigger, which could take the rest of the year.

So I hesitated. Next thing you knew, the weather turned cool enough that I saw the need to bring them in. But I think it was before that that the leaves fell off. Anyway, for months, I was back to sticks that were just somewhat longer than the cuttings I had started with.

Then, a month or two back. Leaves appeared on one. No leaves on the other, but the tip of the dead-looking gray was green — for weeks. Finally, leaves there, too.

My wife told me it was time to plant them in the ground, and she wasn’t planning to use her raised beds this year. (You have to have raised beds in our yard; it’s all hard, red clay.) So I had a place.

So there they are, looking… hopeful. As soon as I see some definite growth, I plan to fertilize. Chicken manure, of course. When I was a kid, my grandparents had this fluorishing, abundant fig tree. They always told me it was growing out of where the chicken coop used to be, before I was born.

Anyway, that’s what’s happening with the fig trees. Yeah, they’re pretty small, but very green. And they’ve got loads of room for growing roots…

The post I took down too late

EDITOR’S NOTE: I initially posted this on Opening Day. I turned to start doing other things, but then looked back and didn’t like what I saw. I decided to take it down. But I was too late. At least a couple of you have tried to comment on it, but been frustrated. Sorry about that. But I looked at that original headline — “First nominee for worst political ad of 2026 so far” — and the prospect of provoking multiple discussions of perfectly sickening stuff just made me decide I didn’t want to go there. In the past, I have relished such debates, but I have found that in this new Age of Unreason, you get nowhere trying to preach sense to nonsense. Everyone just gets all dyspeptic and goes away muttering. So, I’m not going to invite nominees to offer ads that sicken them, too. Then we’ll all be unhappy. Anyway, I didn’t mean to deprive you of anything. I just decided not to go there. I turned to something that might spark more pleasant interactions with my fellow humans.

Happy opening day! Baseball has begun! The Red Sox face the Reds in Cincinnati at 4:10 today!

If there’s a drawback to the return of baseball, I suppose it’s that I’ll start seeing a lot of TV ads again. I seldom watch live broadcast TV otherwise — I prefer streaming. But watching sports means ads. The good news is that I generally watch through the MLB TV app, and they block out a lot of them.

Unfortunately, that is not the case with TV news, or the game shows that come on at about the same time. I don’t usually watch those on my own, but I see them frequently when I go visit my mother in the evenings. And last night, I hit my limit of tolerance with the repeated airing of the latest from Ralph Norman.

I’m not going into details, except to say that this is a particularly offensive example of one of the most tiresome tropes in American politics. It tends to go something like, “Politishuns is a bunch a crooks, so y’all gotta elect me so I can go set ’em straight!”

Donald Trump’s “clean up the swamp” nonsense is perhaps the best-known recent example of the genre, but this was a standard approach long before he befouled our politics. The approach dates at least back to Andy Jackson’s day. His election was the first landmark in the development of our country’s more offensive forms of populism.

Don’t think I’m exaggerating in describing it. The title of the ad is “Crooks.” That’s it. Nothing like “I will make South Carolina better by doing X or Y.” Just “Crooks.” You know, subtle…

I’m not going to go into details on Norman’s proposals, because they’re all things I’ve addressed many times before. Or at least I won’t go beyond this: The core of his campaign seems to be the oldy in which he offers himself as someone who, as a “businessman,” is obviously better than “politicians.”

I don’t know anything about his business or how it has endowed him with superior character, but I do know that he:

Was a state legislator from 2005 to 2007, and apparently liked it so much that he came back in 2009 and stayed until 2017, at which time he went up to Congress — that monument to character and rectitude — and has stayed there ever since.

And yet, somehow, things didn’t get better.

But don’t worry! It’ll all get fixed when he’s governor!

That’s all I have to say about this ad that’s irritating me so much at the moment. There are probably worse ones out there, although it sickens me to think so. I’ve seen some awful ones recently from Henry McMaster’s lieutenant governor, whose name it always takes me a moment to recall because Henry elevated her from obscurity, and I can’t think of anything she’s done since. Pam. That’s it. I’d have to Google her other name.

But this is the one bugging me right now.

Maybe some of you who see more TV ads than I do have worse examples. Share your own nominees, although I don’t know whether I’ll have the stomach to go watch them.

I’m going to watch some baseball. I hope I get back from class today in time to catch the last innings…

 

Another Twitter account is officially Xed

Buh-bye!

That’s a very blank, colorless, bloodless, soulless, bureaucratic, rubber-stamp sort of notification, isn’t it? The Middle Ages had beautiful, lovingly hand-drawn illuminations; our age has this.

That’s what ADCO received today upon doing away with its account on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter (which is what I still call it, on the rare occasions when I mention it).

I got a call this morning from ADCO’s Lauren McAlexander. It seems ADCO is building a new website, and she and Lora Prill agreed there was no reason to have a link to this particular social medium any more. When I asked why, she said we hadn’t used it since 2019. Twitter was no longer strategically useful or effective for ADCO.

She reached out to me because the system was emailing me with a code that she needed to kill the account. Note the equally uninspiring email notifications below, the back-and-forth during several attempts to get in and ditch the account before we got through.

Why was I needed for that action? Because I used to do most of the Tweeting for ADCO. I’d sort of forgotten that until Lauren reminded me.

You may not know anyone, personally, who was as crazy about Twitter as I was. In 2009, went almost instantaneously from being a detractor of Twitter and all that social nonsense (I particularly thought it was a hoot when I first saw Andre Bauer’s MySpace page), to being an addict.

I still laughed at MySpace, grumbled that I was forced to deal with Facebook (because that’s where the masses were), was only briefly fascinated by Pinterest, turned up my nose at Instagram, and had no interest in TikTok or Snapchat.

But I was nuts about Twitter. It’s not just that it was an irresistible form to someone who started writing headlines for a living in 1975 — I was very much used to expressing things that way. It was also useful. There were people that I found I could reach more quickly with a Twitter DM than through other means. They checked Twitter that often, as did I.

I commented on everything happening, as it happened. I would live-tweet big political event, generally writing more than 30 tweets during a debate or major speech. I wrote haiku. Harking back to front-page-editor days in Wichita, I created the Virtual Front Page. I was named one of the Twitterati (and yeah, I get that that was kind of a joke on Corey’s part — Hey, look at the old guy tweeting! — but it pleased me).

Twitter was so straightforward and logical — the very latest Tweet among accounts you followed would be right there at the top, unlike the bewildering order of Facebook posts that made it hard to find something you had just been looking at. It was also relatively free of obvious ads.

Those things — the unmysterious ordering and lack of ads — started changing somewhat Before the Fall. I found that Tweets from accounts I read the most would appear at the top, regardless of when they were posted. I did not like that. Nor had I liked the move from the 140-character limit to 280. It’s like they were throwing discipline and artistry to the winds, with no respect for tradition. But I adjusted, remembering that I was maybe better at writing blurbs than headlines. (In my newspaper days, other editors would ask me to look over and write blurbs for projects I’d had nothing to do with; I just had a knack for summing up complicated content in a few lines.)

But what was most wonderful about Twitter was that everybody was there! That is, everybody in my world — journalists and politicos. And when I say they were there, I mean they were always there. There was always a party going on, of the 18th century salon variety — neverending interaction with smart people who knew their politics. It was addictive to a lot of people because of that, and as a result of that.

That’s not the case anymore, with a few exceptions. People have wandered away, and if I bother to look at the medium now, it can make me kind of pessimistic about the state of humanity. Not always, but a lot of the time.

I’ve tried alternatives. I signed up for — I have to pause here to remember the name of it — Bluesky right when it came out. It offered promise, but didn’t deliver because it never reached critical mass. I found a few Twitter friends there, but the energy was missing along with the numbers. The moment had passed for a medium such as this to really take off.

I’m not canceling my Twitter account. It’s still there if I need it to contact someone or whatever. But I don’t look at it on a daily or even weekly basis — when once I would do so multiple times in an hour.

I still smile when I look back and see myself with Joe back in 2018, there at the top of my feed. But then, after a glance or two, I move on. I have a lot of other things to do…

 

DeMarco: Ozempic and related drugs are tremendous game-changers

The Op-Ed Page

By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist

EDITOR’s NOTE: What? Three posts from Paul DeMarco in a row? No, the good doctor hasn’t quit practicing medicine to blog full-time. But he had saved up these three healthcare-related columns and sent them to me a couple of weeks back, and to my shame, I’m just getting around to posting them. Thanks so much for sharing your professional perspective on these important matters, Paul!

RFK Jr. promised radical positive change for American health care. So far, he has weakened the CDC’s vaccine advice, presided over the nation’s largest measles outbreak in three decades (the current epicenter of which is Spartanburg), and made inconsequential changes in the food pyramid and food additives.

The real opportunity to MAHA is to increase access to drugs such as Ozempic, Mounjaro, Zepbound, and Wegovy. These drugs are in the class of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s). They stimulate the production of GLP-1, a hormone produced by the gut and brain that stimulates insulin secretion, helping lower blood sugar. In addition, they reduce mortality from heart attack and stroke and show promise in preserving kidney and liver function. They rank as one of the most consequential drug classes of the last quarter century.

I’ve spent my entire career trying, mostly unsuccessfully, to help patients lose weight. I started in the 1990s giving out quixotically restrictive diets (a half grapefruit, a slice of toast, and one boiled egg for breakfast, etc). Then in the 2000s, I hoped we could educate our way out of obesity. All we needed to do was put nutrition information on menus. I predicted (obviously incorrectly) that once people realized that a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder with cheese, large fries, and a large Coke was north of 1,500 calories (which is more than half of most people’s daily requirement), they would be running out the door and making a bee line for the nearest grocery store’s produce section.

Obesity is less a personal defect than the natural consequence of a country’s abundance. Once food becomes accessible, inexpensive, and engineered to be delicious, most of that nation’s people are going to eat too much of it. Remaining lean in this environment is possible – about a third of Americans manage it – but it requires a combination of favorable genetics, resources, education, and sustained restraint.

I still encourage my patients to do all the things they already know to do – break up with Little Debbie, eat more veggies, and stay active. But those tired instructions usually fail to make a difference. After decades of futility, I’m glad to finally have something to offer patients that works. The typical weight loss with sustained use of a GLP-1 is 15-20% of a patient’s body weight. For someone weighing 200 lbs., that’s 30 to 40 pounds.

Do I wish that the standard advice was enough? Yes, I would love to have a population of patients that crushed a kale smoothie every day after their 45-minute work-out. But most people don’t, or can’t, live like that. Now we have a drug that gives us the power to navigate the modern food landscape without falling into its many ravines.

Currently, most of my patients taking GLP-1s are diabetics. Watching A1Cs magically normalize is a wonder. For most of my career, we treated Type 2 diabetics with insulin. However, in Type 2, the primary defect is insulin resistance rather than insulin deficiency. If you give a patient enough insulin (sometimes hundreds of units a day), you can overcome this resistance and normalize blood sugar. However, insulin is an anabolic hormone which often causes weight gain.

The great advantage of GLP-1s over insulin is their ability to control diabetes while inducing weight loss. It’s now commonplace for one of my patients to walk into the exam room feeling both healthier and lighter. A weight, literally and figuratively, has been lifted off their shoulders. Some obese patients are not too bothered by the number on the scale. But for others, the lifelong struggle with their weight is shame-inducing. Patients are dogged by feelings of helplessness and unworthiness. I have shared my patients’ joy in both the physical and emotional boosts that GLP-1s provide.

There are, of course, cautions. Not everyone can take these medications. The most common side effect is nausea but there are a host of others, including serious ones like pancreatitis. However, overall, about 9 out of 10 people who start GLP-1s can tolerate them.

Ironically, while RFK Jr. has often criticized reliance on drugs like Ozempic, the administration he serves is moving to decrease their price. The administration has announced agreements with GLP-1 makers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lily to lower prices. One proposal seeks to lower the Medicare co-pay for GLP-1s to $50 a month. RFK Jr. should be championing that and similar ideas. He should intensify the pressure on the companies by educating the public about the economics of the GLP-1 market.

A recent peer-reviewed cost analysis published in JAMA Network Open estimates that GLP-1s cost less than $5 a month to manufacture. To be fair, this does not include research, development, distribution, and capital investment costs. But it’s clear that these companies are generating billions of dollars in profits, much of it from the U.S. market. Over the last several years, prices for GLP-1s have been roughly 5 to 10 times higher in the United States than in other developed nations. For example, in Britain last year, prices were approximately $100 per month compared to $1000+ in the US.

RFK Jr. could be leading the way on increasing accessibility for GLP-1s, rather than being a reluctant follower of a rare sound policy proposal coming out of the Trump White House.

Paul DeMarco is a physician who resides in Marion, SC. Reach him at pvdemarco@bellsouth.net.

A great start, featuring the debut of ABS

Now this is what I call a sports page…

Well, I managed to rush home from school fast enough to catch the last inning-and-a-half of the Red Sox opener in Cincinnati. Consequently, I got to see a bit of baseball history as it happened.

I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t know about this ABS thing. (Oh, I remember talk about it, but I missed when it became a done deal.) But it came up in the ninth, to the benefit of the Sox.

Roman Anthony had been living up to the hype all through the game. With Bregman gone and Anthony back from being on the injured list, the scribes down in spring training had really been building him up, with such headlines as:

‘He looks like a superhero’: Roman Anthony is already the face of the Red Sox. He hasn’t even played a full season.

When I saw him come up in the ninth, I learned that he’d already had three hits in this game. He was about to do something else, something that no member of his team had ever done.

He had a full count on him, and then the ump called a strike to ruin the outfielder’s excellent day. Anthony immediately appealed the call. I was all like “What?,” but it turned out this was a thing. The verdict of the machine was clear — the pitch was a couple of inches low. He took his base.

Consequently, he and Marcelo Mayer ended up scoring to increase the Boston lead from 1-0 to 3-0. Then Aroldis Chapman took the mound to make the end of all Reds hope official. Very satisfactory. Everything went just as it should, unless you were a Reds fan (which I used to be, back when Johnny Bench was a rookie and Pete Rose still sported a crewcut, but no more).

But back to this ABS thing. I’m trying to make up my mind.

On the one hand, I generally don’t like innovation in baseball. Far as I’m concerned, the last good change in the game was when Branch Rickey brought up Jackie Robinson. That was six years before I was born. Beyond that, I like the old ways. You know me Al.

Sure, umpires experience fits of blindness, but I feel that respecting their calls is like respecting the game. I don’t like to see them dissed like this. I’m a law-and-order guy.

On the other hand, it clearly was a ball, so truth won out. Should we defer to the ump to the extent of denying Anthony his rightful walk?

I dunno. I guess I end up on the side of the machines here, but I don’t feel good about it. Although something the announcers said makes me feel a little better. They noted that Anthony has a great eye, and they speculated that any time he appeals a pitch, he’s likely to come out on top. (He’d been looking forward to the new rule.) And isn’t that fair? If the kid has an eye like Ted Williams, shouldn’t we respect that?

Setting this historical footnote aside, let’s turn to the game, and where we now stand for this season. Dan Shaughnessy allowed himself to indulge in a bit of encouragement today. After 12 grafs of sharing historical anecdotes showing what an old hand he is, he condescended to toss this bone to the fans:

Overreact all you like, Sox fans. After one game, The Red Sox are tied with the Yankees and Orioles for first place in the AL East, Crochet’s ERA is 0.00, Chapman is tied for the MLB lead in saves, Anthony is batting .750, Marcelo Mayer is hitting 1.000 and Sonny Gray — who has never lost a game with the Red Sox — gets the ball Saturday against a Reds team that hasn’t scored a single run this season.

Yeah, I’ll settle for that. Let’s keep up the good work.

A good start…

DeMarco: The Best Model for Primary Care (part 2 of 2)

The Op-Ed Page

This is where Paul’s HH practice is located, at Francis Marion University.

By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist

My tens and tens of readers out there might remember how I ended my last column, about the pros and cons of concierge medicine. My bottom line was, though concierge medicine is a benefit to the physicians who choose it and to the patients that can afford it, it is ultimately corrosive, ignoring patients with limited means whom physicians have historically had a strong ethical imperative to serve. I ended with a mild teaser: “If you think community health centers (CHCs) are just safety net clinics for those who have no other option, stay tuned.”

Spoiler alert: they are not. Certainly not in Florence County, which is served by HopeHealth (HH), one of the finest CHCs in the state. Again, I will admit my bias – I work for HH. But let me try to convince you that CHCs are the best primary care delivery system.

CHCs are the most accessible, affordable model. We see everyone, we take almost every insurance, and we have a sliding scale for those without it. If you have ever approached the front desk of a medical office other than a CHC without insurance, you know the anxiety that can produce. Some practices refuse to see you unless you pay a certain amount up front. Others immediately put you on a payment plan. At CHCs, you are not treated as unworthy because you don’t have insurance. We say, “No problem, let’s get some financial information so we can place you on our sliding scale. Your co-pay may be as low as $20 a visit.” We also make it our business to help patients obtain the medications they need. HH operates a pharmacy with a team of pharmacists who are well versed in low-cost options for patients.

Although HH is clearly a great place for uninsured and Medicaid patients, it is also an outstanding option for patients who have Medicare or private insurance. Nationwide, of all patients seen at CHCs, roughly 20 percent of CHC patients have private insurance and 11 percent have Medicare. At HH, those numbers are significantly higher – roughly 37 percent of our patients have private insurance and 30 percent have Medicare. That’s a testament to our leadership and the care that we provide. Many patients that can choose any provider they want choose us.

That’s why I work at HH. It aligns with what I thought I was signing up for when I was in medical training. During those days, powered by sense of idealism, I had dreams of how to make a difference in the world. I regularly have medical students in my office now, and I watch them make the same kinds of calculations I was making 40 years ago. I tell them that my idealism has been tempered but remains intact, and that if I had to do it all over again, I would again choose to work at HH.

One of my core principles when I was in their shoes was that I wanted to work in a practice that saw everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Once you crossed my threshold, your treatment came first, and how we were getting paid would come later. The community health center movement has exemplified that ethic since CHCs were founded in the mid-1960s as part of the War on Poverty. My guess is that without the CHC system, I would not have been able to uphold my principles. I doubt, without an MBA, that I would have been willing to take on the challenge of opening and running a practice that would take all comers.

It is important to acknowledge the federal government’s role in supporting CHCs, which are also called Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Federal grants (Section 330) provide 10-25 percent of most center’s budgets. FQHCs receive a higher Medicaid rate than other providers. Those with pharmacies are eligible for the federal 340B Drug Pricing Program that allows us to reduce costs for those who struggle to pay for medications. In return for this support, CHCs are obligated to care for any uninsured patient who seeks care with them.

CHCs offer a wise and effective approach – a partnership between taxpayers and health care organizations dedicated to serving everyone. Anyone can walk into a CHC and be treated, without compromising on quality. CHCs, including HH, deliver high-quality care that compares favorably with other primary care models.

It’s astonishing that in the 15 years I have worked for HH, we have grown from a staff or about a dozen providers when I started to more than 100 providers serving more than 85,000 patients in 2026.

CHCs in general, and HH, in particular, are not perfect. There are ways we can and should improve. But in a health care system that is fraught with fragmented care, perverse financial incentives, and profit-over-patient mentality, it provides a welcome respite, a place where the mission is still clear and the patient remains at the center.

I’m not a big fan of corporate mission statements – they are often empty words. But I like HH’s, especially the part that says we try to “exemplify love for people and passion for their well-being.” Those are not empty words, and could apply to any CHC. They have allowed me and more than 300,000 others across the country – physicians, APPs, nurses, mental health professionals, dental providers, pharmacists, and support staff – to care for patients in a way that has kept our ideals about what medical care could be untrampled.

Paul DeMarco is a physician who resides in Marion, SC. Reach him at pvdemarco@bellsouth.net.

DeMarco: The Paradox of Concierge Medicine (part 1 of 2)

The Op-Ed Page

This photo from a previous post represents to traditional ideal of  medicine. But is Concierge Medicine the way to restore that ideal.

By Paul V. DeMarco
Guest Columnist

Almost all people of a certain age who are concerned about their health wants a primary care provider. I have been privileged to be that person for a small but well-loved group of people for the past 30-plus years. Over the past two decades, a new way of providing primary care has emerged which is often called concierge medicine (CM).

A common concierge medicine arrangement is for a patient to pay a monthly subscription fee. Rates vary, but in the Pee Dee you would expect to pay about $2000/year. In addition, the patient (or his insurance) may have to pay for individual visits above what the subscription allows. The per-member, per-month revenue allows physicians to see fewer patients while generating the same (or higher) revenue. Proponents of CM point to this as a primary motivating factor, which I fully understand. Physicians who practice primary care invest years and hundreds of thousands of dollars training with the goal of developing long-term relationships with patients. But when they begin practice, they often work for hospitals or companies that overload them with patients, not to mention all the documentation and communication a busy practice entails. CM allows physicians to do more of what they trained to do and love to do, spend time with patients in an unhurried way.

Concierge medicine provides a setting in which relationships have time to develop and deepen. Many non-CM physicians, including myself, who work in a typical office practice have their patients’ appointments scheduled 15 minutes apart. That is often not enough time, and part of the reason patients’ waits are so long in practices like mine.

Another positive aspect of CM is the return of the house call. Many CM physicians will visit with patients at home and also still make hospital rounds. I think the renaissance of the house call is a marvelous development. Visiting a patient at home is an intimate enterprise and feels completely different from meeting with a patient surrounded by the generic four windowless walls of an exam room. Patients are often more relaxed, family is more often involved, and occasionally food is offered. Many patients see the house call as a gift and feel a special gratitude. Doctors who visit homes always come away with a deeper understanding of the person for whom they are caring.

As you can tell, I appreciate the CM model. It’s the way primary care should be practiced. I understand the reasons why CM physicians are drawn to it. I personally know some truly excellent concierge physicians.

However, CM is ethically untenable. From Hippocrates onward, the obligation of physicians to provide care to any patient in need, regardless of their ability to pay, has been central. It’s an easy obligation to forget, given the gigantic profits hospital, pharmaceutical, and insurance companies make in our system. But when one becomes a physician, he or she is bound by a moral duty.

Put another way, I have never heard a physician of any kind publicly remark, “I just want to see affluent patients.” Nor have I ever read a medical school application essay with that statement. Our commitment to all patients, not just a select few, is part of physicians’ social contract.

I am not suggesting physicians are required to treat everyone for free. Physicians’ offices have high overhead. It usually takes many support staff-receptionists, medical assistants, nurses, administrators, business managers, etc., to run a successful practice. What I do say is that physicians abrogate a core responsibility of medicine if their business model excludes people below a certain income. Despite what is right and attractive about CM, I think in final analysis it represents a destructive trend in primary care, and ultimately an abandonment of the patients who need us the most.

Therein lies the paradox. In order to practice in a fulfilling way, one that rewards physicians emotionally and financially and satisfies patients, our current medical system incentivizes many physicians to abandon a fundamental tenet of patient care.

There are better solutions. I will mention one in passing and then expand on it and some others in my next column. There is an organization that already exists to provide excellent primary care to all patients – the Community Health Center (CHC). There are approximately 1,400 CHCs in the US that serve more than 30 million patients, almost 9 percent of the population. Full disclosure, I work for one. My CHC, HopeHealth, has more than a dozen offices spread across Florence, Clarendon and Williamsburg counties. If you think CHCs are just safety net clinics for those who have no other option, stay tuned.

A version of this column appeared in the December 17th edition of the Post and Courier-Pee Dee. Dr. DeMarco’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily represent those of HopeHealth.

It’s Opening Day!

Screenshot

Happy opening day! Baseball has begun! The Red Sox face the Reds in Cincinnati at 4:10 today! (And as a preview, the Yankees demolished the Giants last night, 7-0.)

I hope I get back from class (which starts at 4:25) today in time to catch the last innings.

Aren’t we blessed?

I ran across this image of the Babe and Shoeless Joe, and wanted to use it somewhere. Might as well be here…

On the brilliance of Christopher Guest’s voices

Thinking back to my “Top Five Best Actors” list from last month…

One thing that was wrong with the list — not as wrong as leaving out Gene Hackman, but wrong — is that it fails to acknowledge comic actors.

I thought about that the other night while rewatching “Best in Show,” that descendant of the ultimate mockumentary, “This is Spinal Tap.” This is the one that did for dog shows what, say, “A Mighty Wind” did for folk music. Or “Waiting for Guffman” did for… well, you get the idea.

It struck me again that Christopher Guest, who is in all of those films (and I think directed all of them but Spinal Tap), is a wonder. Let’s just focus on one of the essential skills that distinguish a great actor — accents. (Or perhaps I should say “voices.”)

Among all those mockumentary roles, it’s easiest to remember Guest as Nigel Tufnel in “Spinal Tap.” Listen:

It’s a good accent, although that doesn’t really set him apart. Michael McKean and Harry Shearer are just as good as his bandmates. Americans can take pride in their portrayal of the Three Stooges of rock. We see Brits put on convincing American accents all the time (Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, or about half the “American soldiers” in Easy Company in “Band of Brothers,” or Hugh Laurie as Dr. House, and so forth). It’s nice to see we have some talent over here as well.

(Of course, one might note that Guest had an unfair advantage — his Dad was a British diplomat, and he spent part of his childhood in his father’s country. In fact, he ascended to the House of Lords when his father died. But Nigel Tufnel displayed an accent that was very different from the RP we generally associate with lords.)

But what really got me was his accent — and general characterization — of the man from a small town in North Carolina who brings his bloodhound to the dog show. It’s not just the accent, as perfect as that was (definitely not a cheesy Hollywood imitation of a generic Southern manner of speaking). It was the quality of his voice behind the accent, his facial expressions and other facets that made me like he was a true, unique individual I had met sometime in the past — not a “type.” Listen:

Hear it? There’s finesse in that voice, as well as in the accent, that few actors are able to display.

And it’s much the kind of finesse that Robert Duvall brought to his roles.

I just thought I’d acknowledge that…

What a strange world we live in now

photo by Brian W. Schaller, via Wikimedia

First, the running joke of the 1980s, Donald Trump, became president of the United States of America.

Next, it happened again — in spite of the record two impeachments, his criminal convictions and the fact that his followers had attacked, seized and momentarily held the U.S. Capitol.

At the moment, we’re at war with Iran. All my adult life, every sensible person in this country, regardless of political persuasion, has said that Iran is a problem all right, but one thing we know is that we don’t want a war with those guys, if it can possibly be avoided. And now here we are.

To branch out a bit… this week, I’ve been hearing that 1960s secular saint Cesar Chavez was a lech. Everybody’s disowning him.

Hawaii is so drenched by rain that people are being ordered to evacuate. Hawaii. People , I Iived in Hawaii. They don’t have bad weather. They barely have weather, period. Everything’s just nice. Sure, sometimes there’s a storm 100 miles out in the ocean, but all it does to Oahu is cause awesome waves on the North Shore.

Oh, and here’s the latest: Chuck Norris is dead. See if you can process that.

How is one supposed to make sense of all this? And once that’s done, what is one to do?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve had a long week. Maybe an extra nap would sort all this out. Maybe one that lasts a week. Then baseball will have started

Are we talking history or current events?

The quiz gives you this attention-grabber to start you off…

I’ve mentioned before my fondness for the NYT’s Flashback history quiz (of course I love it — I usually ace it, because it’s about historical context rather than details). But this week it offered kind of a weird one. Weird in the sense that it was even easier than usual.

I don’t always ace this quiz. When I don’t, the thing that trips me up is usually something that happened in the early Middle Ages, or in the eons before Christ. Often, I’m not sure whether some dynasty I’ve barely heard of started in 500 B.C. or 1500 B.C. And when they get into geological eras, fuggedaboudit.

But for this one all the answers — all of them — were in the 20th century. That’s like an allegedly citywide scavenger hunt in which all the items are in your own backyard.

Of course, that can be trickier — the quiz is about knowing what happened before and after what, and if you don’t know the century well, that can be harder than if they’re spread apart. If these had all happened in the 8th century, I’d have been in trouble (that would be the rise of Charlemagne, and… I can’t think of anything else). But not the 20th. Five of the eight answers happened in my own lifetime!

Now that I’ve given that much away, have at it, if the NYT will let you in…

All clear now, but it wasn’t so at the beach

Just got the all-clear on the Tornado Warning a few minutes ago. Of course, the Watch continues until 1 p.m., for Lexington and 17 other South Carolina counties.

It reminded me that things were not so clear, in a different sense, at Surfside this time on Monday. I’m not used to fog like this on the beach, I suppose because we’re usually there only in the searing heat of summer.

I liked it. Quiet. Peaceful. A nice break from the usual, especially on the overcrowded Grand Strand.

The pooch pauses to admire her treasure (foreground).

There was one bit of furious activity. A white pit bull with one blue eye and one brown one was having a tremendous time digging in the sand. Her master explained that she was digging for shells. After a bit, she ran out into the water and start digging there, coming up with a shapeless chunk of former bivalve exoskeleton, about three inches in diameter, that she cherished greatly, taking it here and there to dig in different spots on the beach, sometimes burying her prize but immediately digging it back up.

It wasn’t much of a shell — one of those expendable, ugly flat pieces that you might use to play ducks and drakes with. But dogs aren’t into esthetics. She loved it, for the moment.

Eventually we resumed walking, and her activity was swallowed by the fog.

Just before we turned off the beach to walk back on the streets — there was no fog at all a block or two inland — I paused to capture something we’d been noticing as we made our way down the shore: Gulls what would fly by and then just… disappear.

It was a pretty cool effect. Although it was perfectly understandable, it felt mysterious…

The Philly paper wouldn’t LET me cancel

Screenshot

Remember my I’ve-had-it-and-I’m-putting-my-foot-down post about canceling my subscription to The Washington Post?

Well, it didn’t exactly work the same way with The Philadelphia Inquirer. Maybe it’s because I lacked the emotional investment. I didn’t have anything against the PI. I had subscribed when they offered me 12 weeks of the digital product for the same amount the Duke brothers bet on whether they could destroy Winthorpe’s life in “Trading Places” — a dollar.

At the time, I thought it might be nice to be able to closely follow my second favorite baseball club through its hometown paper — the way I do with my favorite through The Boston Globe.

But I didn’t. At all. I don’t think I read a single story in the paper in all those weeks. Just too much to do.

So I gave myself a deadline to cancel before I started having to pay the normal rate. The time arrived, and I reached out to the paper. Of course, they didn’t make it easy to find out how to cancel, but I expected that. I persisted until I got as far as an online chat.

How did it go? Here are a few screenshots from the conversation, once I got past the initial bot:

Somehow, I forgot to save the last screen, when she suggested that I simply deal with it next time the same way — by chat, and I responded with something like, “Yeah, because that worked out so well for me THIS time.”

But I wasn’t really irritated. I was impressed yet again by how desperate newspapers are not to lose a single reader — even if it they don’t make any money from it. Of course, when it comes to money, they have begging. Note that part of the first image at the top of the post where it says “Make a Donation.”

They have a special button for that on the homepage:

Screenshot

Sad, huh?

But hey… the thing is, I don’t like to cancel newspapers. I think of the PI as a really good paper. It was back in Knight Ridder days, anyway. I knew some of the people. So if I can string them along for a few more weeks for just a buck, why not?

Nice work there, Brooke. You got one…

It’s started. What can we do now but hope?

“What I was not prepared to do on Saturday was for the U.K. to join a war unless I was satisfied there was a lawful basis and a viable thought-through plan. That remains my position.”

— Keir Starmer, PM of our longtime greatest ally

And so the PM sits (aside from sending some assets to the area to protect British subjects and interests).

And so do I. This started over the weekend, and I haven’t said a word about it here on the blog. Or about anything else, to be honest. I’ve been busy. But when you have something to say, you find time to say it.

Unfortunately, I have nothing to say beyond what I’ve said in the past. The basic math of this hasn’t changed. To set out the problem:

  • Donald “What-Irrational-Impulse-Am-I-Feeling-At-This-Moment?” Trump is the president of the United States, thanks to the fact that the American electorate has gone mad. If any other president in U.S. history were telling me this battle is unavoidable I would have a basis for trusting him.
  • I could do that because the possibility of an unavoidable war with Iran has been one of the standing threats for this country since the late 1980s. Handling the real threats Iran presents while avoiding that war has been a top American priority for all that time, because such a war would be far too destructive — for us, for them and for the world.
  • We haven’t wanted war despite the fact that the post-shah Iran was largely founded upon hatred of the United States and any country resembling the Great Satan; the additional fact that Iran is the world’s dominant force in supporting terrorism here, there and everywhere, including the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks that pulled Israel into the war that Hamas wanted so much; and the biggest fact of all, that Iran has been obsessed with, whatever the risk, developing the capacity to hurl nuclear weapons at the U.S., Israel and anyone else who has made their list. (That list tends be quite long, including non-Shiite states in the area.) And Iran is not inclined to send indignant notes to those on its list. It is far more inclined toward the apocalyptic approach.
  • So leaders of the United States, a once-rational country, have until now done what they could to contain that nuclear threat, short of outright war. But our presidents and their administrations have known that the time may come when we have to go in “bigly,” despite the fact that we believe the oppressed people of Iran have kindly intentions toward us — and we wouldn’t want to change that. The hope has always been peaceful regime change.
  • It is possible that before this started over the weekend, we had reached the point when a rational leader would say, “It’s time. The nuclear threat is now imminent, and we have no choice but to go all-out to prevent it.” If Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George Bush fils, Bill Clinton, Bush pere, or Ronald Reagan” announced that, I might be dismayed, but I would accept the situation as necessary. They were all rational men, surrounded by rational men and women who would have done all they could to avoid that step, but now saw it as unavoidable.
  • I can’t for a second take that position under the present circumstances. Donald Trump airs a video of himself in the middle of the night on the weekend wearing a hat that looks like it was bought from a souvenir stand at the Olympics and tells us that in his considered opinion the time has come. And I’m supposed to trust him, the convicted felon whose other current international obsession is threatening our closest allies with war if they won’t give him, for some insane reason, Greenland? And remember, this is not like the first Trump term, when grownups like James Mattis were in the room. In the place where decisions are made, there is no one around Trump who is both smarter than he is, and willing to stand up to him.
  • Do I “support our troops” — not only the pilots taking the most immediate risks now, but the soldiers, sailors and marines in the region who are targets for retaliation now, and likely to have to go in later? You bet. Always. I want them coming home safely to their families. I also want them, now that it’s started, to accomplish their missions. That means fully destroying Iranian nuclear capabilities, doing the same with conventional capacities (I think; can’t pretend to know what dangers lie in suddenly creating such a vacuum), toppling those presently in power, and standing ready to support a new regime that is better for all concerned.
  • And I want those missions accomplished with zero noncombatant casualties. I know that’s impossible, but it’s what I want. In this real world, though, I just have to hope for the fewest casualies possible. We need the good people of Iran to go home safely to their families. Then we need then to construct and run that new Iran, a place far better than the Iran of the ayatollahs or the shah who preceded them. That, of course, is almost as tall an order as zero collateral damage.
  • I also hope that our own electorate — including all those isolationists who thought Trump was one of them — turn the once-Grand Old Party out of power in the fall, because that would (or at least might) restore the legislative branch as a check on the executive. Then I hope the electorate completely recovers its sanity and elects a president who is entirely unlike this guy or the people with whom he surrounds himself. You know, someone like every other president we’ve ever had.
  • After all, this is why elections matter, and the one we had in 2024 more than ever. If we had put (or kept) a normal person in the White House, that person would have made mistakes, but would have been persuadable to change course. That person would have have been subject to reason, to the law, to tradition, to foreseeable consequences. These ways of changing course are unavailable to us. Trump is immune to such things, with a Congress that doesn’t dare oppose him, because of all those supporters who will back him no matter what.

I’ve set out a lot to hope for, plenty for cynical — or even just plain sensible — folks to laugh at. But what else can I do? No practical path for changing this situation lies before me, or any of us at this moment. All any of us can do is hope — and pray — for the best.

Goodbye to The Washington Post

As of Friday, I will no longer be a subscriber to The Washington Post.

For me, that’s a big deal. I can’t say the Post caused me to become a journalist — I was already a copy boy at The Commercial Appeal when Woodward and Bernstein came out with All the President’s Men — but it certainly encouraged me at a key point in my development, and I’ve admired the paper ever since.

That is, I admired it until quite recently.

At first, I thought it was a good thing that Jeff Bezos had bought the paper — just as long as he stayed out of news and editorial decisions. That was the proper role of ownership back in the Newspaper Age — certainly at the papers where I worked. Of course, the problem with ownership that knows nothing about newspapers is they don’t know the rules.

I became very concerned when, with the country on the line, the paper didn’t endorse in the critical 2024 presidential election. That was a bad shock. But don’t take it from me. Check out what Marty Baron (former executive editor of the paper, and the guy who was running The Boston Globe when it won its “Spotlight” Pulitzer) said about it at the time. A key quote: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” Another one: “Spineless.”

That wasn’t quite enough to make me drop the Post, although it should have been. I have a long history of calling newspapers spineless for failing to endorse in far less important elections than that one. But I wasn’t ready to pull the plug.

But I’d just been reading, and enjoying, the paper for so many years before that. So I held back.

Then, there was the abominable editorial reaction to our incursion into Venezuela. I mentioned that before. That’s when I started thinking about cancelling. At the time, I wrote to longtime Post op-ed columnist E.J. Dionne to get his thoughts. He indicated that that was further evidence of the problems that caused him to “switch papers.”

Well, that was embarrassing for me. I didn’t realize he had done that, because I had been reading the Post (and all my papers) less over the last year or two. But sure enough, he writes regularly for The New York Times now. You know, the paper that had a far more rational response to the Venezuela thing.

But here’s kind of the last straw…

Not long after that Venezuela editorial, the Post laid off 300 people from the newsroom. Or, as the NYT‘s The Daily podcast put it, “Bezos Guts The Washington Post.”

This particularly trashed such areas as local news, international coverage (at a time when Trump has decided he’s not an isolationist anymore, and is sending troops out to threaten adversaries and allies alike), and the sports department.

While I’m not the greatest sports fan you’re likely to meet, that last category includes two people who I see as some of the best sportswriters in the country.

Remember when I wrote about Kent Babb, my former colleague at The State who’s been doing such a great job at the Post since 2012? He’s gone. Here’s what Kent had to say about that. I haven’t spoke to Kent about it yet, but I’ve finally started reading his excellent book about a school I attended in the mid-60s in New Orleans. I’m sorry it took this to make me pick it up from my shelves of books I fully mean to read, but I’m glad I’m reading it.

Remember back in the fall when I praised a story by Chelsea Janes headlined, “Shohei Ohtani just played the greatest game in baseball history?” She was the paper’s national baseball writer — the kind of title you’d expect in front of a name like Ring Lardner or Red Smith. And she’s good enough for that.

But they dumped her, too. Fortunately, she got a new job right away. But she’s no longer national baseball writer of what was once one of the best papers in the country.

Normally, while I’d be sorry to hear about this monumental development, it wouldn’t make me turn away. After all, I didn’t drop my subscription to The State when it laid me off. Sometimes things can’t be helped.

But this is a special case. The only good thing about Bezos owning the paper was that he has an income flow that seemed likely to be able to prop up the paper for the foreseeable future without causing him to have to cut back on his grocery bill a bit.

Obviously, he’s decided he doesn’t want to do play that role anymore, so I suppose that makes the Post, for the first time since he purchased it, vulnerable to the economic forces that have wiped out newspapers across the country over the past couple of decades.

So… there were, all along, obvious serious drawbacks to having him at the helm. And now the one good thing about his ownership — his willingness to throw money at the paper to prop it up — has disappeared.

So I’m following E.J. I’m out…

As you may recall, it was a great paper when Katharine Graham had it.

Did you feel the earthquake? Did you HEAR it?

Screenshot

I’m talking about the apparent seismic disturbance that went BOOM for a second at 17:17:26 Zulu time today. Apparently, the epicenter was 5 klicks WSW of Irmo.

It shook the house in a way that made me think a tree, or at least a large branch, had fallen on the roof. I checked to make sure my wife and son, who were both here, were OK, and ran outside with dread of what I might see.

I saw nothing.

I checked with a neighbor on the phone, and he said he’d received several reports from people in the community, and according to USGS, it was an earthquake. I went to the webpage about the incident, and took advantage of the opportunity to leave a personal report. I objected this was unlike any earthquake that I’ve ever experienced.

I experienced a few earthquakes when I was a kid down in Ecuador. They were fairly routine, but disturbing — and really freaked out the local folks each time, which intensified the sense of alarm. But those were NOTHING like this.

First, I don’t remember a sound of any kind. Just motion. The building would shake. Small items that were stacked up would fall over. Furniture would shake enough that it would start shimmying across the floor. Most of all, it would last for several seconds — maybe five or 10.

This was like a tree falling. Crash, and it was over.

But the authorities say it was an earthquake, and in the absence of evidence of what I thought it was, I have to accept that.

What was your experience, if any?