By Bob Gaydos

The Biden team.

Sometimes the nay-sayers unintentionally help the aye-sayers.

     For example, with all the media hype on whether Joe Biden should seek re-election and questions about whether he is too old and is still capable of handling the responsibilities of the presidency, one of the strongest arguments in his favor has been his record of accomplishments in office. It  is considerable.

      He brought inflation down and employment way up. He lowered prescription drug prices and capped the cost of insulin for seniors. He got wealthy corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and got legislation through Congress to combat gun violence. He actually made a major investment in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, something which his opponent talked about a lot but never did anything about. He revived the American chip industry. He added a new nation to NATO and solidified America’s alliances in the Pacific Rim. Oh yeah, the leading stock market indicators are at record highs.

     To which some nay-sayers reply: How do you know? There could be a cabinet of people running things on his behalf.

       Well, I sure hope so. The sign of a good leader, a good executive, a good president is having people around him capable of making his or her vision a reality.

    No president can do it alone. Whom he chooses to be part of his team and what the team accomplishes says a lot about the president. So by trying to take credit away from Biden by saying maybe a whole bunch of other people accomplished these things in his name, the critics are actually complimenting Biden for his vision, for choosing good people and for listening to what they have to say and helping them get it done.

      By comparison, many team members from Donald Trump‘s chaotic presidency have criticized him for his lack of understanding or caring about presidential responsibilities. Others are in prison. Possible members of a Trump team in 2025 have authored the notorious Project 2025, which explains in detail how they would dissemble American democracy in favor of an authoritarian Christian nation.

    Predictably, since details of that document have been made public and been widely criticized, Trump, whose name appears throughout the document, has disavowed it. That’s because Trump, a convicted felon, has no agenda other than himself and power. If it’s going to hurt his ratings, he tries to run away from it. He bragged about getting Roe v. Wade overturned by appointing Supreme Court justices who would do it. But when that decision met strong opposition, he tried to backtrack from that, too. He simply lies about everything and fires people who don’t help feed his ego.

     Suffice to say, any team of folks behind the scenes doing things in Trump’s name are going to do their best to make him happy. And he’s already told us many times that what makes him happy is being treated special (absolute immunity!) and getting even with those who don’t comply. The team wagging the dog for Trump will be ruthless and vicious because he will pick those who will do his bidding in order to further their own agenda. Not the nicest and not necessarily the best and brightest. He learned that from his first term in office. He knows more than all the generals. Sycophants and soldiers, that’s what he wants.

     So, nay-sayers, do I want all those mysterious, intelligent, caring people behind the scenes making all those decisions for old, arthritic Joe Biden or do I want all those “authoritarian, anti-democratic, rightwing Christian, post the 10 Commandments in every classroom, women’s place is in the kitchen and pregnant, cut Social Security, arrest the homeless and leave billionaires alone, don’t force us to be violent” people making decisions for Donald Trump while he goes around the world like a reality show Don Quixote, jousting at windmills?

      Thanks, I’ll stick with Joe’s team.    

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

Post-op. Coffee and a buttered roll.
I.R. Photography

“You were nearly legally blind in that eye and now you’re 20/20.”

     In fact, in both eyes. For the first time since, well, ever. Merry Christmas.

      The 20/20 score was reported to me by a technician who had just asked me to look at the eye chart and tell her what I could see with my left eye. I started at the bottom. I am one of the 2 million or so Americans who had cataract surgery this year. Virtually all the procedures were successful, as usual.      

     I can now write this column, look out the window, stare at the clock in the other room, just look without thinking about what I’m trying to see and I find it all just amazing because it is so commonplace today.

             You lay back on a table, stare without blinking into a bunch of bright lights (into a second bright light if you elect laser as well), they remove the cloudy lens in your eye and replace it with a new, clear one. Voila! Rest a bit, have some coffee, get dressed and go home. Take the eye drops as prescribed. Don’t drive immediately, but move about freely in the world.

        And boy is it a bright, colorful world. The impact was remarkable, especially for someone who had worn strong prescription eyeglasses since the first grade, from get-out-of-bed to go-to-bed. No more. I’m grateful.

        Indeed, it regularly amazes me how we take for granted so many scientific advances in our lives, barely give them a second thought much less a moment of gratitude, yet at the same time doubt or dispute science when it doesn’t fit our preconceived beliefs, often based on nothing but self-serving pronouncements from non- scientists. Only when the science hits home do some, reluctantly, notice what an incredible world we enjoy.

         This year, I had an inflamed gall bladder removed without surgeons having to open my whole midsection. I had lenses removed from each eye and replaced with new ones, with no pain or discomfort. Everything’s working fine.

          Not so in the Fifth Century B.C., when the first cataract surgery was performed without benefit of anesthesia or sterile conditions. A sharp needle was used to push the lens out of the viewing axis. It was called “couching” and the outcomes were terrible.

           This went on until 1747, when French surgeon Jacques Daviel actually removed a lens from an eye, using a special knife and spatula. Post-op was a cotton dressing soaked in wine placed on the eye and the patient resting in a darkened room for several days. Complications were common.

           Not until after World War II was the second half of the operation — placing a new lens in the eye — possible. Research in the 21st century has developed better lenses, safer techniques and the use of lasers for incisions. Today, the procedure is not only commonplace, but regarded by most people as routine. 

          And I see that as remarkable.

rjgaydos@gmail.com.

Bob Gaydos is writer-in-residence at zestoforange.com