"The Bizarro Presidency"

November 20, 2024

If Trump's nominations were not so deadly serious, they would qualify as parody bordering on slapstick. On Tuesday, Trump nominated as the head of Medicare a T.V. doctor who promoted hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid and who supports privatizing Medicare. The world is upside down.

Trump then topped his nomination of Dr. Oz by nominating Linda McMahon to lead—or dismantle--the Department of Education. Linda McMahon is the former CEO of the scandal-plagued World Wrestling Entertainment, which was sued last month for knowingly tolerating the abuse of teenage “ring boys” by the ringside announcer. See Rolling Stone, (10/23/24), Vince and Linda McMahon Named in New ‘Ring Boy’ Sex Abuse Lawsuit Against WWE. (“WWE founders “knew or should have known” about an employee who allegedly assaulted teenage employees in the 1980s, according to five new John Does who have come forward.”)

As with other nominations, those of Dr. Oz and Linda McMahon are insults to the tens of millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and the Department of Education to provide essential health insurance during retirement and educational support for students with special needs. I

have already received emails from readers who are living on a fixed income who are fearful that their Medicare will be privatized by Dr. Oz. For parents with students with special needs, the dismantling of the Department of Education would be a seismic shock and a blow to the health and education of their children.

During Ronald Reagan’s first term, Saturday Night Live produced a skit called the “Bizarro Presidency.” The premise was that Ronald Reagan appointed cabinet members who were the sworn enemies of the federal agencies they headed. The two examples I recall from the skit are Secretary of Interior James Watt who famously said that “killer trees” were the cause of urban pollution. And EPA head Ann Gorsuch (Justice Neil Gorsuch’s mother) did her best to dismantle the EPA by firing 30% of the agency’s employees and replacing them with executives from the oil and logging companies that the EPA was supposed to regulate. (I cannot locate a video of the skit and would appreciate anyone who can post a link in the Comments or forward a link by email. I need some comedic relief.)

The Reagan appointments were a scandal. Trump's appointments are an assault on the federal government designed to advance Trump's dictatorial aspirations. And he is advancing those aspirations by imperiling the health and safety of the American people.

Dr. Oz is a physician who holds an MBA. That hardly qualifies him to run the Department of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). But he should be disqualified from running CMS because he continuously promoted unproven supplements and fraudulent cures on his television show. A study in the British Medical Journal found that 54% of the supplements and cures promoted by Dr. Oz were “contraindicated” or lacked support. See British Medical Journal, (12/17/14), Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study | The BMJ

During the height of the Covid pandemic, Dr. Oz promoted the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in 25 appearances on Fox News. He also promoted Medicare Advantage plans that Trump hopes will allow the privatization of Medicare. See Newsweek, Mehmet Oz Backed Massive Change to Medicare That Would Impact Millions. During his 2022 Senate campaign, Dr. Oz called for a 20% payroll tax to pay for the privatization of Medicare.

Linda McMahon is a nonsense choice for the Department of Education. Her career has been devoted to taking a regional professional wrestling company and converting it into a publicly traded wrestling company. McMahon’s experience in education consists of planning to become a teacher (but never doing so) and serving for one year (in 2009) on the Connecticut Board of Education. Those credentials do not qualify McMahon to lead the Department of Education—but they may qualify her to dismantle it. See ABC News, Dismantling the Department of Education? Trump's plan for schools in his second term.

As Trump added two wildly unqualified candidates to his proposed cabinet, he told a reporter that he stands by his nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General. See Reuters, Trump says he is not reconsidering Gaetz nomination for attorney general.

Trump's failure to reconsider the nomination is reprehensible. Details continue to emerge about Gaetz’s drug use, payment for sex with (at least) two high school girls (over 18), and his sexual relationship with one 17-year-old high school girl.

Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed the lawyer for two of the high-school girls that Gaetz paid for sex. The attorney said that the girls saw their (then) 17-year-old friend having sex with Matt Gaetz at the home of a retired Florida congressman. See MSNBC, Lawrence: Matt Gaetz cannot possibly survive a Senate confirmation hearing

Although Speaker Mike Johnson does not want the House Ethics Committee to release the report on Matt Gaetz, the committee will vote on the release of the report later this week. But the committee’s vote may be overtaken by the fact that a hacker reportedly obtained the investigative file from a private law firm. See Forbes, Matt Gaetz Controversy Explained: Hacker Reportedly Gets Depositions As Lawmakers Debate Report.

The problem with atrocious nominations like Dr. Oz and Linda McMahon is that they distract attention from dangerous nominations like Matt Gaetz, Robert Kennedy, and Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz is a threat to democracy; Kennedy is a menace to public health; and Gabbard is a threat to national security.

The problem is also that it is exhausting to force ourselves to care deeply about every dangerous or wildly unqualified nomination proposed by Trump. But we have no choice. We are in this mess (in large part) because Merrick Garland cared more about the reputation of the Department of Justice than he did about bringing Trump to justice—which was the harder path, by far.

Garland chose the path of least resistance—virtuously honoring the internal policies of the DOJ to the detriment of the Constitution and the American people. We must not be like Merrick Garland. We must fight every battle—even when we are exhausted or accused of being “over the top” in constantly raising the alarm about Trump.

And yet, we must also maintain our sanity and self-respect. We must be centered in our lives so that we can help others who are suffering from an incoming administration whose goal is to psychologically torture the majority of Americans who did not vote for Trump.

The nominations to date and those to come are intended to be part of a “Bizarro Presidency” in which the chief law enforcement officer is a criminal, the chief national security officer may be a Russian asset, and the chief health officer does not believe in medical science.

But we recognize the long con that Trump is playing. We must be serious in our opposition without allowing Trump to engage or enrage our emotions. This is strictly business. Deadly serious, strictly business. We must maintain professional distance even as we invest our hearts and minds to the fullest extent in preserving democracy by resisting Trump's anti-democratic moves.

We can do that. The Bizarro Presidency is a gambit. Recognize it. Resist it. Call it by its name—fascism. But do not let it gaslight or dispirit us. Every day that we can maintain resistance is one day closer to the end of Trump's last term in office.

---

Morning Joe and Mika Brzezinski show us how not to act

CNN is reporting that Morning Joe and Mika Brzesinski met with Trump to “restart communications” because they are afraid of Trump. See CNN, ‘Morning Joe’ meeting with Trump was driven by fears of retribution from incoming administration, sources say.

Professor Timothy Snyder reminds us constantly that the first step to surrendering to tyranny is to “obey in advance”—i.e., to give up resistance before the battle has been joined.

Morning Joe and Mika Brzesinski have “obeyed in advance.” They have shown us what surrender looks like. We must not be them.

---

Reuters is reporting the “contours of a peace deal” in Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine

Reuters is reporting on an exclusive basis that Russia is open to a Trump-brokered “peace deal” that maintains Russia’s control over Ukrainian territory that it has unlawfully seized from Ukraine. See Exclusive: Putin, ascendant in Ukraine, eyes contours of a Trump peace deal | Reuters.

The problem with the Reuters’ story is that it is written from the perspective of Russia—in which “peace” means victory for Russia and surrender for Ukraine.

Imagine, for example, if Canada engaged in an unprovoked attack against the US and seized the states of Washington, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota.

Canada then leaks to the press that it would agree to a “peace deal” that awards Canada the four US states that it seized in the war of aggression.

How likely is it that the US—or Ukraine—would agree to surrender substantial portions of its territory to the aggressor?

As noted in the Reuters article, Ukraine entertained a proposal for a ceasefire in the early days of the war (2022)—when Russia had nearly encircled Kyiv. The conditions on the ground have since improved considerably for Ukraine, although Russia controls about 20% of Ukraine’s sovereign territory. It is also true that public opinion in Ukraine is shifting toward a “negotiated peace”—a phrase that contains oceans of ambiguity. Everyone is in favor of peace. The question is, “At what cost?”

The poll was conducted by Gallup. In a particularly callous aside, Gallup noted that its results did not include responses from Ukrainians living in areas seized by Russia—a cohort that might have strong feelings about a negotiated surrender.

---

Concluding Thoughts

The urge to declare the “answers” explaining the 2024 electoral outcome is strong. Whatever those answers are, most of them will improve with the benefit of more time and additional data.

For example, we don’t yet know how the House will be decided. At the moment, it is looking like 214 to 221—a four vote margin for Republicans. But temporarily eliminating three seats for Trump cabinet nominees reduces the margin of control to two votes—214 to 218. (E.g., if Republicans suffered two defections, the House would be tied 216 to 216 and any motion or legislation would fail because they would not have a majority.)

But Adam Gray (CA-13) is within 227 votes of taking the lead as ballot curing and counting continue. If Gray were to win, then the margins of control for Republicans (discussed above) would reduce to three votes (before vacancies for cabinet nominations) and one vote (if three vacancies are caused by cabinet confirmations).

Those margins are extraordinarily thin and could be affected by illness, accident, or family emergencies. A one-vote margin of control will require the cooperation of Democrats on important bills—and provide Democrats with leverage not apparent in the “binary” election descriptions of who “won” and “lost.”

Another area of Democratic influence that has emerged is the progress made on state supreme courts. See Mark Joseph Stern, Slate, 2024 Election: The surprising bright spot for progressives.

As explained by Stern, Democrats won important victories in Michigan, Kentucky, Montana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and (likely) North Carolina. I recommend Stern’s article, which describes the significance of those victories.

My point is this: In the deluge of articles scolding Democrats, no one is highlighting the fact that Democrats scored important victories on the supreme court in red states. Since that fact isn’t included in the “Lazy Journalist’s Guide for Reporting on the 2024 Election,” it is not something you will read about in the op-ed pages of legacy media.

So let’s spread the word about Democrats’ hidden successes that run counter to the “landslide” narrative that legacy and right-wing media are spreading. It was a close election and a tough fight. We held our own—and we have every right to be proud of those efforts! Stay strong and keep the faith!

Talk to you tomorrow!

---

Daily Dose of Perspective

“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”

Los Angeles is covered by a broken cloud cover on Tuesday evening, so I am unable to share a new astronomy image. Instead, I have reached back into my vacation photos. I will use them to make a point about not believing everything you read on the internet.

The first photo below is an image I captured with my Sony Alpha 7iiia with 20-70mm lens. The photo was taken from the intersection of Bourbon Street and Orleans Avenue in the French Quarter of New Orleans. St. Louis Cathedral is located at the vanishing point in the photo.

The image above looks artificial—because it has no people or cars. I removed the pedestrians and automobiles using Photoshop’s Generative AI Remove Tool. See the original photo, below.

Although I am not a regular user of Photoshop, I own the program and received an email notifying me that a new AI tool would allow me to effortlessly remove “distractions” in photos. I experimented with the AI Remove Tool for a few minutes and was stunned at how good it was. Compare the results for yourself.

Here's my point: Don’t believe everything you see or read online. I do not use Photoshop in my astronomy photos except to add captions and to temporarily remove and re-insert the star fields. I do so to allow me to process the faint nebula in Adobe Lightroom by adjusting the exposure, contrast, temperature, clarity, and noise.

I have used Photoshop on two occasions to remove satellite trails and noted that fact both times. But I don’t believe that all photographers notify viewers when they remove or add elements to photos. It is a brave new world, indeed!