Biden won the 2020 Presidential election, fair and square. This fact has now been certified by every electoral office in the land. There has been no evidence of election fraud presented in court sufficient to convince a single judge in over 50 cases. But despite lack of evidence of election fraud Trump and his Republican supporters in government insist he won. Trump is determined to remain in office at all costs. Many Republican law makers have joined him in this effort to steal the election.
Trump and his allies in Congress understand that a lie repeated 10,000 times, especially by so-called ‘reputable’ elected government officials like Senators Hawley et al, creates the ‘illusion of truth’. Many voters in Georgia now have been deceived into believing this lie and are even refusing to cast their votes in the Senatorial run off election. So no amount of truth to the contrary will now stop this big lie campaign. It has assumed a life of its own. It has become a conspiratorial juggernaut.
Trump’s ‘big lie’ about the 2020 election is carefully calculated to attempt to reverse a Trump loss. Senators who are complicit in this big lie don’t believe they will pay a price for misleading their constituents. Because the big lie has now become a ‘grassroots’ mainstream conspiracy theory. It has been widely accepted as truth by the Republican base. A base of voters that for the first time in minority Republican Party history, is comprised of HALF OF THE ELECTORATE.
Republican politicians who have no scruples know they have A LOT TO GAIN and NOTHING TO LOSE by joining in this greatest of all deliberate deceptions. Trump’s big lie has so far made lots of money. At last count, the Trump campaign has earned $200 MILLION! Republican politicians want a piece of that action.
Folks, there is NOTHING corrupt politicians care more about in our legally corrupt campaign system, than raising lots of $$$$$ to fund their re-elections, big lie or not.
Apparently, in some people COVID-19 is not like the seasonal flu, a ‘one time shot’ disease that everyone recovers fully from without missing a step. Contrary to what former President Trump said last year about COVID-19 to downplay the threat, it is indeed a disease to be feared, precisely because we now understand it can ‘dominate’ the body and may not let go in a few days, a few weeks, a few months or even a lifetime.
Depending on severity of the initial illness, COVID-19 may result in a myriad of serious and debilitating chronic conditions. For example, there is growing evidence the disease may have long term neurological and psychiatric effects (1, 2). Although it is still not clear who are most susceptible to suffer from persistent sequelae post infection (long COVID), it is a phenomenon observed in many other viral infections. Neither do we fully understand who is most at risk, but severity of the illness seems to predispose to protracted symptoms.
In the past, we have confronted similar situations where an incident have caused the release of environmental toxins that has caused acute and/or chronic disease among the exposed. For example, soldiers and civilians exposed to ‘Agent Orange’ during the Vietnam war. The first Persian Gulf war resulted in many soldiers suffering from what became known as ‘Gulf War Syndrome’. And after 9/11, first responders and many others were exposed to dust containing chemicals from the collapse of the Twin Towers that triggered serious respiratory illness and cancers. Many died as a result. But these cases of exposure to environmental toxins numbered only in the hundreds or thousands. COVID-19 may eventually cause chronic illness among millions.
We are already suffering from an epidemic of ‘intentional injuries’ which include drug addiction and overdose deaths (3), suicides, violence and mass shootings. In 2020, 88, 000 predominately young people between the ages of 16-44 died of opioid overdose, a 37% increase over the previous year. These are ‘behavioral diseases’ that primarily affect individuals in the prime of their lives.
Therefore, COVID-19 along with the other public health crises we are experiencing could eventually impact the nation’s workforce and the economy — reducing productivity and global competitiveness.
How do we address these problems?
The number of COVID-19 cases continues to grow exponentially, with the potential of millions suffering long term effects leading to declining quality of life or worse, permanent physical or neurological disability. The first step in combatting COVID-19 is prevention with an effective vaccine. But it will take at least 2 years (2022) until everyone in the United States is vaccinated, unless distribution is accelerated. Until then, we must continue with the next best option, public heath measures, including the use of masks. Wearing masks has proven to be nearly as effective as a vaccine.
In conclusion, we must provide health care security through an expansion of affordable quality healthcare, including mental health care, to all citizens, without exception and without regard to ability to pay. Universal access to healthcare will ensure that those experiencing chronic illness whether from COVID-19 or health crises as described above will be diagnosed and treated early. It is an urgent national health security emergency.
“AUTHORITIES MAY BE RELUCTANT TO ESTABLISH ACCURATE MORTALITY FIGURES WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN SLOW TO ACT ON EARLY WARNINGS.” (1)
Basic Principles in Infectious Disease Epidemiology:
Infectious disease epidemiology is based on 3 main elements (the epidemiological triad), an external ‘agent’ (bacteria or virus), a susceptible ‘host’ (animal or human) and the ‘environment’. Interaction between the susceptible host and the agent causes the disease to occur in the host. However, this model is applicable to any hazard where the 3 elements coexist. (earthquake, hurricane, famine, whatever).
A fourth but not essential element in infectious disease is a ‘vector’, which is an organism that transmits infection by conveying or transmitting the agent (pathogen) from one host to another, without causing disease itself. In the case of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is the agent, humans are the host, and the vector is the bat or the Pangolin (anteater). Every infectious disease agent can be transmitted to other hosts. The ease with which transmission or contagion occurs is called the reproductive number, the R-naught (Ro). SARS-2 has a Ro of between 1-3. Each infected person can pass the disease to 3 other susceptible individuals or even animals.
Health Indicators:
It is also important to quantify a variety of health ‘indicators’ that serve to determine the scope and the impact of a given hazard or disease on a population at risk. For example, there are indicators that serve to quantify the number of new cases in a population at risk (incidence) or the total number of cases in the population at risk (prevalence) at any given time, or the evolution of new cases (disease monitoring or disease surveillance), as well as a rate that serves to quantify the efficacy of interventions both medical (therapeutic) and/or public health (containment, social distancing, masks, etc.) on fatalities (the case fatality rate).
These indicators usually consist of a simple calculation, a ratio, with a numerator and a denominator. For example, in this pandemic the case fatality rate consists of the # of patients who died of COVID/total # of COVID cases (all those infected) within the defined population. The mortality rate is the total # of deaths from the infectious disease/total population, infected or not. The case fatality and the mortality rates can be further stratified to examine the impact of age (age-specific mortality) or associated risk factors (co-morbidities), or a number of other factors that affect the host (infected person).
Excess Mortality: Scientific implications
A useful indicator to determine the severity of impact of a pandemic or other disaster on the affected population is the ‘excess mortality’, defined as, the number of deaths which occurred in a given crisis above and beyond what we would have expected to see under ‘normal’ conditions. For example, the 2017 Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico produced excess mortality above and beyond what would have been expected from all other causes during the period of the Hurricane compared to a period (usually the year before) when there was no Hurricane.
Excess Mortality: Political Implications
According to Tierney (2), “disaster governance consists of the interrelated sets of norms, organisational and institutional actors, and practices (spanning pre-disaster, trans-disaster, and post-disaster periods) that are designed to reduce the impacts and losses associated with disasters arising from natural and technological agents and from intentional acts of terrorism.”
In this vein excess mortality may also be defined in political terms, based on the quality of actions taken by government authorities. A failed government response will result in ‘preventable’ mortality in excess of what would have been expected had government acted appropriately and in good faith. In order to judge the timeliness, appropriateness, adequacy, and outcome of the governments actions in a disaster, a comprehensive and systematic evaluation of the government’s role must be undertaken after the event. More often than not governmental failure in disaster is due to inept leadership resulting in untimely warning, poor planning and preparation, limited or no organization, inappropriate or delayed response, disorganized or chaotic implementation of the relief/response effort, or all the above.
Guha-Sapir et al (1), describe the politics of death tolls in disaster. As an example, they report on the death toll after the 2017 Hurricane in Puerto Rico. President Donald Trump downplayed the severity of the event by grossly underestimating the death toll, suggesting there were only 66 deaths, and attributing low mortality to rapid response, despite official early estimates strongly suggesting there were hundreds or even thousands of dead due precisely to a grossly delayed and inadequate response on the part of his administration. A subsequent academic study uncovered close to 4,000 dead, more than 46 times Trump’s estimate.
Historically, there have been many other examples of leaders manipulating death toll data in disaster for political expediency. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union is another classic example of negligent governance in disaster.
In conclusion, failed or negligent disaster governance and response can be as lethal or more so than the disaster itself contributing to excess (preventable) deaths.
1- Guha Sapir, V. Science and Politics of Disaster Death Tolls, BMJ 2018;362:k4005 doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4005 – Published 24 September 2018.
2- Tierney, K. 2012. “Disaster Governance: Social, Political, and Economic Dimensions.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 341-363. doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-020911-095618)
Has anyone else noticed the sky seems clearer and the sunlight brighter in these horrendous days of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Are we being sent a message from on high?
This pandemic may be the best thing that has happened to the planet to forestall environmental pollution and climate change in 100 years. The birds are more abundant and wildlife are venturing back into areas they have not been seen in years.
We need to find better ways of protecting the environment that do not also inadvertently negatively impact the global economy. When we emerge from this crisis we must absorb the many lessons learned about ourselves and the environment we live in.
1 – We must rejoin the Paris Agreement on Climate Change to recalibrate our efforts with the rest of the world.
2- We need a ‘National Transportation Strategy for the 21st Century’, aimed at reducing automobile and airline traffic congestion. One way to achieve this goal is for employees who are currently working from home to continue to do so. I will be looking forward to studies that compare work productivity before and after instituting universal telework programs during this pandemic.
3- We need to expand mass transit within cities, build new intercity railways for travel between neighboring cities, and explore alternate means of travel. This includes the building of affordable high speed rail systems as part of major investment in rebuilding our national infrastructure. This is already being done. For example, private investors that includes visionary billionaire Richard Branson (Virgin Trains USA) are building high speed train service between Miami and Orlando and between the Los Angeles area and Las Vegas. Elon Musk is exploring hyper loop technology to do the same. They cannot do it alone. We need a national strategy to plan the best routes and the most cost-effective technologies.
If we can achieve these goals carbon emissions will drastically decline and our quality of life will increase ten fold.
The pandemic has forced major change in the way we live and work. In a short few months we are already seeing how quickly we can reverse the negative impact human activity has had on the environment since the industrial age began 160 years ago. This is good news.
In conclusion, this pandemic has been a wake up call for the world. We now realize how quickly we can reverse the damage to the ecosphere, if we work together. We cannot continue to allow our presence on this planet to destroy the only life support system we have. If we do we will become extinct by our own hand in wars over precious resources or we will suffocate to death or both. Its not too late to learn from the lessons of this pandemic.
Recently, Kristian Blickle of the New York Federal Reserve published an interesting study entitled, Pandemics Change Cities: Municipal Spending and Voter Extremism Germany, 1918-1933
This is the sort of study economists who depend on studies like to use to make economic projections. The major finding of the study is that influenza deaths from the 1918 Pandemic were correlated with the share of votes received by extremist (fascist) parties in 1932 and 1933 in Germany, thus contributing to the electoral victory of the Nationalist Socialist Party under Hitler. We have to remember, the Hitler of 1933 was not the Hitler of 1939.
Although the 1918 pandemic created lasting and severe financial hardship for the German people in the 1920s and 30s, my take is that WW I and the Great Depression had as much or more adverse impact on the the German economy; contributing to the acceptance of political right wing extremism in the interwar period. Fascist movements were already brewing in Europe and even in the United States, at the turn of the 20th Century, as it has been now at the turn of the 21st. The 1918 pandemic accelerated that trend, literally spewing gasoline on the fire. Will the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic has a similar effect?
By definition catastrophic events such as wars and natural disasters invariably cause long term human and economic damage and disruption of the impacted society. More importantly, extreme events result in extreme economic hardship and psychological and political reactions that greatly influence how people think and vote. This is consistent with the ‘pendular theory’ of human events. This theory states that societal attitudes across the liberal to conservative spectrum are cyclical and behave like a pendulum, moving from one extreme to the other. The greater the swing of the pendulum in one direction the greater the swing in the opposite direction. External forces calibrate the degree to which the pendulum swings.
The political environment in the United States in 2020 is polarized, not unlike 1930s Germany. The pendulum is moving but we don’t know in which direction it will swing the furthest. On the one hand we have the right wing Republican extremist movement and on the other the left wing democratic socialist movement. When the National Socialist Party came to power in Germany Hitler squashed the opposition communists using a variety of political strategies and machinations, not the least of which was the demonization of the German communist party and accusing their elements of torching the Reichstag, the German Parliament. With his enemies weakened in the eyes of the public Hitler was free to consolidate power over his party, eliminate dissent. He installed loyalists in key ministries of government. The communists and the Jews became the scapegoats for all the failures suffered by the German people up to that time.
The question before us in November 2020 will be similar to the one that confronted the German people in 1933. The Trump of 2020 is not the Trump of 2016. After 4 years we have gained insight on where he wants to take the nation. During his time in office Trump has taken over the Republican Party and has consolidated power over the institutions of government by installing loyalists to head them. ‘Trumpism’ more and more is resembling an authoritarian ‘quasi-fascist’ political movement. He is blaming China for his mismanagement of the pandemic in the United States and for the resulting downturn in the economy. The only element that is missing for Trump to win another in November is the political equivalent of a Reichstag fire.
I am not a health care economist. There are economists who devote their entire careers trying to understand how to design systems of health care delivery that are fair, equitable and affordable for all people in a given society. There are many models of health care delivery, some good, some bad, none perfect. However, our society is among a few whose constitution does not guarantee to all its citizens a right to health care. As a result our society deals in healthcare services as it would any other commodity, in the market place. A commodity to be distributed according to one’s ability to pay. In my opinion this practice is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the United States is a signatory.
The United States Declaration of Independence is in effect a declaration of human rights insofar as it affirms that all men (and women) are created equal. It mentions, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. This phrase gives three examples of the “unalienable rights”, which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect. Can these three unalienable rights coexist without the most fundamental of all human rights namely, the right to preserve life? What is health care if not a human effort to preserve quality of life, which ultimately defines our sense of well being, hence happiness. Well being and happiness are so intertwined that we cannot enjoy (or pursue) the one without the other. Moreover, implicit in the phrases, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, “unalienable rights” and “all men created equal” is the affirmation that no one human life is worth more than the life of his/her neighbor. If no one life is superior or more worthy than another then how can we maintain the double standard that those with greater ‘net worth’ are entitled to preferential treatment when it comes to health care access. The United States is not yet “a perfect union”. But we aspire to be one.
In the 1960s we established two government run health care financing systems, Medicaid for the poor, and Medicare for the elderly. These were steps in the right direction but inequities in health care financing persist. The Affordable Care Act was another step in the right direction in that it expanded Medicaid for the working poor and increased access to health care services to millions more. It also sharpened the focus of health care away from simply a money based (fee for service) economy to one based on the delivery of quality care. However, the ACA was a compromise intended to please all stakeholders. In this regard it has failed. But we should not move backwards. This article describes what is necessary to improve and build on the benefits of the ACA.
In order to move forward we must first change our perception of what health care truly is. Is it a commodity or an unalienable right?
According to the Constitution of the United States, Congress possesses the sole power to declare war and to shape U.S. military policy through appropriations. Since 1812 Congress has declared war on 11 occasions. The last formal declaration of war was World War II. Unconstitutionally declared wars included the Mexican wars of the 1840s and the Spanish American War of 1898.
Since 1945 the United States has committed armed forces in major wars in Korea (UN action), Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf War I (Bush 1) and Persian Gulf War II (Bush 2/UN Security Council) and Afghanistan. Since Korea all wars have been what I would call ‘Presidential Wars’. On this point noted Constitutional scholar Louis Fisher once stated:
“President Harry Truman’s commitment of U.S. troops to Korea in June 1950 still stands as the single most important precedent for the executive use of military force without congressional authority.”
In the 19th century the war with Mexico was not Constitutionally authorized. U.S. President Polk’s assertion of Manifest Destiny was focused on United States interest on westward expansion beyond its existing national borders. In it we stole Texas and other lands from Mexico. The war with Spain was instigated by the United States based on the mysterious and still to this day unexplained sinking of the USS Maine in the harbor of Havana Cuba. ‘Remember the Maine’ became the rallying cry.
In the 20th century Congress has agreed to ‘resolutions’ authorizing the use of military force. However, the historical record in modern times shows that when we have deviated from the Constitutional mandate on Congressional declaration of war, the outcomes have been disastrous, every time. Although Korea could arguably be viewed as ‘justified’ and in our national interests for several reasons I will not get into, wars since then cannot be so viewed and were examples of abuse of Presidential power.
For example, during the war in Vietnam and after President Richard Nixon ordered the bombing of Cambodia without Congress’s consent, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, intended to limit the president’s authority to conduct war.
More importantly, both in Vietnam and in the second Iraq war (Bush 2), which were approved under the war powers act, Congress was either lied to or the evidence to justify war presented to Congress and the public was based on faulty or outright false pretenses. These were clear examples of abuses of Presidential power by the administrations of Presidents Johnson and Bush 2, respectively. On that basis we could also argue they were illegal wars.
Abraham Lincoln, our greatest President in a letter in 1846 to a law partner that dealt with Polk’s justification of the war with Mexico, wrote:
“But allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and allow him to make war at pleasure. … If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us” but he will say to you “be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”
Lincoln goes on to say:
“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”
In conclusion, the founding fathers were wise when they divided the war powers between Congress and the Executive branches of government under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. In 243 years the United States has engaged in a number of wars that have been ‘declared’, but that the Constitution does not specify the form of such a declaration. Since the Korean war Presidents have unilaterally entered conflicts and wars with foreign nations under the war powers act of 1973. These resolutions, however, on more than one occasion have been based on false or misleading evidence. In each case the outcomes have been devastating to the interests of the United States. We need further safeguards against Presidential abuse of power when dealing with conflicts around the world.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and their bevy of purchased politicians in Washington D.C. are fighting tooth and nail to prevent, even the most sensible and benign regulation of assault style rifles, such as the AR-15; despite the fact that time and time again these weapons are being used to murder children at their most vulnerable time, at school.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
We derive the right to bear arms from the 2nd amendment of the Constitution, which states:
‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed‘.
However, we ignore completely the historical context for the 2nd Amendment. The right to bear arms was specifically intended for the ‘defense of a free state’ (i.e. The United States) within a ‘well regulated Militia’, at a vulnerable time in our history, the birth of a nation, when the United States did not possess a well-trained and well-equipped standing army.
More importantly, in 2008 the 2nd Amendment was reinterpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to the individual citizen. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the “Second Amendment protects an ‘individual’ right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
I have no doubt that the gun industry, the GOP and the NRA were also behind this effort.
THE EPIDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
Today, we are experiencing a severe epidemic of gun violence. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for U.S. children. This is a public health crisis.
In the face this crisis the gun industry, the NRA and Republican politicians in Washington D.C. are putting self-interest and profit ahead of the protection of our children. This is decidedly an anti-pro-life stance.
In light of the epidemic of violence and the rising incidence of mass shootings the urgent question we must ask ourselves is whether we can stop or at the very least reduce the number of deaths now, using whatever means at our disposal and within the shortest time possible. The consensus of experts suggests that the enactment of gun control legislation is the best and most timely intervention to address this escalating public health crisis.
Is there precedent that gun control is an effective means to reduce morbidity snd mortality of gun violence?
CALIFORNIA AND GUN CONTROLLEGISLATION
According to the CDC California’s rate of firearm mortality is among the nation’s lowest, with 8.5 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2020, compared with 13.7 per 100,000 nationally and 14.2 per 100,000 in Texas (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Moreover, Californians are about 25 percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with residents of other states, according to a recent Public Policy Institute of California analysis (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/06/02/fact-sheet-californias-gun-safety-policies-save-lives-provide-model-for-a-nation-seeking-solutions/).
In order to understand how California’s gun control policies came about we must look to history. At the height of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s then governor of California Ronald Reagan, an admitted card carrying NRA member, signed the ‘Mulford Act’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) into law with the full support of the NRA.
The Mulford Act repealed a California law allowing open carry of loaded firearms. It became known as the ‘Panther Act’ because its specific target was the militant Black Panthers group. The Black Panthers were a fringe black power movement who believed that the 2nd amendment defended their right to carry weapons in self defense. The group received national attention when a group of armed Black Panthers staged a peaceful march on the California Capitol to protest against the Mulford Act. Their 2nd Amendment rights were violated when police arrested the marchers.
SLAVERY, JIM CROW, AND GUN CONTROL
During the 200+ years of slavery, slaves were banned from owning firearms, precisely to prevent them from defending themselves against an oppressive government system. These bans on gun ownership were effective and persisted into the 20th century in the form of Jim Crow in the South and Jim Crow ‘light’ in other parts of the country.
In conclusion, bans on gun ownership during slavery, Jim Crow and the Mulford Act of 1967 explain the hypocrisy and the racial bias towards gun control legislation in the United States. Since the ascendancy of Trump and ‘Trumpism’ guns have become a symbol of the American culture wars. And a cult of gun ownership has emerged within the White Nationalist Christian movement in the United States.
Donald Trump is a 71-year-old man. He has now occupied the Office of President for about one year. Mr. Trump is a billionaire businessman who has successfully run his business enterprise for many years, albeit with a history of multiple bankruptcies.
He began his college education at Fordham University in NY, then after 2 years transferred to an Ivy League school, the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, one of, if not, the most prestigious School of Business in the United Sates. He often brags about this fact.
During his campaign and time in office the public has been able to see his behavior and judge his performance. As President his ratings are lower than all previous Presidents at this time (35-39% approval). Also, there have been several personal assessments of his behavior and performance by people in his inner circle. He has made many controversial statements, which are un-presidential. As a result, mental health professionals have questioned his fitness to serve. The recent portrait of Trump described in the book ‘Fire and Fury, suggests a profile not typical of a man with Trump’s educational and professional background or standing.
Excerpt from the book ‘Fire and Fury’ by Journalist, Michael Wolff:
“Trump didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. If it was print, it might as well not exist. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semiliterate. . . . Some thought him dyslexic; certainly his comprehension was limited. Others concluded that he didn’t read because he didn’t have to, and that in fact this was one of his key attributes as a populist. He was post-literate—total television. But not only didn’t he read, he didn’t listen. He preferred to be the person talking. And he trusted his own expertise—no matter how paltry or irrelevant—more than anyone else’s. What’s more, he had an extremely short attention span, even when he thought you were worthy of attention.”
End of Excerpt
This profile, if correct, raises important questions about his health. Is this the profile of a former University of Pennsylvania graduate and high-powered business person or is this the profile of a 71-year-old man former U of Penn graduate, high-powered business person who has mild (early) cognitive impairment?
Next week Trump is scheduled for a physical examination. Based on Trump’s irregular behavior, his poor performance in office, his bizarre statements and tweets, his preoccupation with the mundane, his propensity to fits of rage, and the profile that is emerging — is it not prudent for Trump to submit to neuropsychological evaluation to rule out any concerns with his thought process, that might be affecting his judgment and his ability to govern the nation with the “biggest nuclear button” on earth?
I believe that any person above the age of 65 who performs a critical function is should submit to extreme vetting, especially if there is cause to suspect something is wrong. As a physician, I think there is probable cause in Donald Trump’s case.
These are the domains of Neuropsychological functioning.
Neuropsychological evaluation is useful for measuring many function categories, including the following:
Intellectual functioning
Academic achievement
Language processing
Visuospatial processing
Attention/concentration
Verbal learning and memory
Visual learning and memory
Executive functions
Speed of processing
Sensory-perceptual functions
Motor speed and strength
Motivation/symptom validity
Personality assessment
We are a Sick Society. What are we going to do about it? We have become a society experiencing major mental health and behavioral problems. The evidence for these are the ever-increasing population rates of violence and drug addiction. Both problems have already risen to the level of national emergencies affecting primarily the young (15-44).
Because these domestic public health problems are killing thousands of our youth annually they pose clear and present threats to the continued prosperity of our Nation. Its become like the old cliché from the comic strip: “we have met the enemy and he is us” (Pogo). And yet our government is inordinately focused on eradicating foreign Islamic radical terrorism, whose threat pales in comparison. Instead of enacting legislation to effectively confront these dual domestic epidemics our ‘elected’ government officials are paralyzed by political gridlock and bitter infighting. They are weak and the majority of our representatives lack the character to do what is right for our country for fear of losing the support from special interests.
What must we do?
First, we must reassess our national priorities, hold our representatives accountable to finding solutions for them and replace them when they fail. This means doing our civic duty by learning about these problems and voting for representatives on the basis of their record of past achievements and character — not their ‘popularity’. This also means changes to laws governing campaign financing.
Second, modern military technology has advanced to the point of allowing even the most basic hand-held rifles to become weapons of mass destruction. There is an irrational obsession with, and proliferation of, these types of ‘military grade’ modern assault weaponry in our communities and we have failed to enact sensible gun control to limit access to them. We must change that reality.
Third, in concert with sensible gun control we must attempt to tone down the level of gratuitous acts of violence our children are exposed to on a daily basis on TV, movies, online and in video games.
Fourth, we must redirect the minds and activities of our idle youth towards better educational and training programs, so as to get them off the streets and into better paying jobs.
Lastly, we have failed to enact sensible health care legislation to address the fundamental problem that drives both these public health crises namely, lack of adequate coverage for mental and behavioral health, including drug rehabilitation services. In the midst of an unprecedented and terrifying level of drug overdose deaths and extreme hateful acts of mass murders, how can we justify the legalization of marijuana for ‘recreational’ use or allow the continued ready availability of weapons that belong only on a battlefield. Now is not the time to add yet another mood altering drug with clear abuse and adverse mental health repercussions to the social sphere.
In conclusion, these public health epidemics have been growing in severity for several years and they will destroy us if we don’t act now.
#assaultrifles
#ar15assaultrifle
#violence
#drugoverdoseepidemic
#guncontrol
#marijuanalegalization
#publichealthemergency
' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cuse fill='black' filter='url(%23c)' xlink:href='%23b'/%3e%3cpath fill='white' d='M10.473 4C8.275 4 8 5.824 8 5.824S7.726 4 5.528 4c-2.114 0-2.73 2.222-2.472 3.41C3.736 10.55 8 12.75 8 12.75s4.265-2.2 4.945-5.34c.257-1.188-.36-3.41-2.472-3.41'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
