• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Archive for the ‘Other Topics’ Category

Gone With The Wind Banned From Memphis Theater

Wednesday, August 30th, 2017

The Left Wing in the USA is suffering from a severe case of political correctness/Antifa dementia, which one can only hope will not continue to spread and infect those of us who are still sane. Below witness the effect of this fatal malady( one can only hope).

Gone With The Wind Banned From Memphis Theater

by Tyler Durden

Aug 27, 2017 9:17 AM

http://www.zerohedge.com/printmail/602379http://www.zerohedge.com/print/602379

When Vice News argued that perhaps Mt. Rushmore should be demolished, running a headline which declared without irony – “Let’s Blow Up Mount Rushmore” (a headline subsequently scrubbed) – we suggested that the fanatical push to sanitize all historic monuments and public references to past political leaders perceived as ‘tainted’ or controversial “may have hit peak crazy here.” Well, we were wrong – it appears the PC mob is now coming for the film industry.

 

The historic Orpheum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee has decided to censor “Gone With the Wind” from a line-up of movies it will show as part of its 2018 Summer Movie Series after dubbing it racially “insensitive”. The 1939 classic film, based on the book by Margaret Mitchell, is set on a plantation in the American South during the Civil War and Reconstruction era, and is widely considered by critics and historians to be among the greatest American movies of all time. It broke Academy Award records at the time, receiving eight Oscars including a Best Supporting Actress for Hattie McDaniel, who became the first African-American Academy Award-winner. It also remains the highest grossing film of all time (with ticket prices adjusted for inflation) – beating out even Star Wars. TheMemphis’ Orpheum Theatre has included the movie as part of its annual local film festival featuring American classics for decades. But apparently this nearly 80-year old world renowned classic has been scrubbed for the first time based on some complaints the theater received after its last August 11 showing. “As an organization whose stated mission is to ‘entertain, educate and enlighten the communities it serves’, the Orpheum cannot show a film that is insensitive to a large segment of its local population,” the theater’s board said in a statement.

The theater indicated that for the first time this year’s screening “generated numerous comments” which led to the decision to drop it, adding that, “while title selections for the series are typically made in the spring of each year, the Orpheum has made this determination early in response to specific inquiries from patrons.” This will mark the first time in 34 years Gone With the Wind will not show. It appears that much of the negative feedback came via Orpheum Theatre’s Facebook page with some comments decrying the film as “racist” and leveling the charge that it’s a “tribute to white supremacy”.

 

Our War Against Memory

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

Our War Against Memory
Victor Davis Hanson
8/22/17

The new abolitio memoriae Back to the Future Romans emperors were often a bad lot — but usually confirmed as such only in retrospect. Monsters such as Nero, of the first-century A.D. Julio-Claudian dynasty, or the later psychopaths Commodus and Caracalla, were flattered by toadies when alive — only to be despised the moment they dropped. After unhinged emperors were finally killed off, the sycophantic Senate often proclaimed a damnatio memoriae (a “damnation of memory”). Prior commemoration was wiped away, thereby robbing the posthumous ogre of any legacy and hence any existence for eternity.

Powered by In more practical matters, there followed a concurrent abolitio memoriae (an “erasing of memory”). Specifically, moralists either destroyed or rounded up and put away all statuary and inscriptions concerning the bad, dead emperor. In the case of particularly striking or expensive artistic pieces, they erased the emperor’s name (abolitio nominis) or his face and some physical characteristics from the artwork. Impressive marble torsos were sometimes recut to accommodate a more acceptable (or powerful) successor. (Think of something like the heads only of the generals on Stone Mountain blasted off and replaced by new carved profiles of John Brown and Nat Turner).

A Scary History Without Leon Trotsky’s organizational and tactical genius, Vladimir Lenin might never have consolidated power among squabbling anti-czarist factions. Yet after the triumph of Stalin, “de-Trotskyization” demanded that every word, every photo, and every memory of an ostracized Trotsky was to be obliterated. That nightmarish process fueled allegorical themes in George Orwell’s fictional Animal Farm and 1984. How many times has St. Petersburg changed its name, reflecting each generation’s love or hate or indifference to czarist Russia or neighboring Germany? Is the city always to remain St. Petersburg, or will it once again be anti-German Petrograd as it was after the horrific First World War? Or perhaps it will again be Communist Leningrad during the giddy age of the new man — as dictated by the morality and the politics of each new generation resenting its past? Is a society that damns its past every 50 years one to be emulated?

Abolition of memory is easy when the revisionists enjoy the high moral ground and the damned are evil incarnate. But more often, killing the dead is not an easy a matter of dragon slaying, as with Hitler or Stalin. Confederate General Joe Johnston was not General Stonewall Jackson and after the war General John Mosby was not General Wade Hampton, just as Ludwig Beck was not Joachim Peiper. Stone Throwers and Their Targets What about the morally ambiguous persecution of sinners such as the current effort in California to damn the memory of Father Junipero Serra and erase his eponymous boulevards, to punish his supposedly illiberal treatment of Native Americans in the early missions some 250 years ago? California Bay Area zealots are careful to target Serra but not Leland Stanford, who left a more detailed record of his own 19th-century anti-non-white prejudices, but whose university brand no progressive student of Stanford would dare to erase, because doing so would endanger his own studied trajectory to the good life.

We forget that there are other catalysts than moral outrage that calibrate the targets of abolitio memoriae. Again, in the case of the current abolition of Confederate icons — reenergized by the Black Lives Matter movement and the general repulsion over the vile murders by cowardly racist Dylan Roof — are all Confederate statues equally deserving of damnation? Does the statue of Confederate General James Longstreet deserve defacing? He was a conflicted officer of the Confederacy, a critic of Robert E. Lee’s, later a Unionist friend of Ulysses S. Grant, an enemy of the Lost Causers, and a leader of African-American militias in enforcing reconstruction edicts against white nationalists. Is Longstreet the moral equivalent of General Nathan Bedford Forrest (“get there firstest with the mostest”), who was the psychopathic villain of Fort Pillow, a near illiterate ante-bellum slave-trading millionaire, and the first head of the original Ku Klux Klan? Were the 60–70 percent of the Confederate population in most secessionist states who did not own slaves complicit in the economics of slavery? Did they have good options to leave their ancestral homes when the war started to escape the stain of perpetuating slavery?

Do such questions even matter to the new arbiters of ethics, who recently defiled the so-called peace monument in an Atlanta park — a depiction of a fallen Confederate everyman, his trigger hand stilled by an angel? How did those obsessed with the past know so little of history? Key to General William Tecumseh Sherman’s devastating strategy of marching through Georgia and the Carolinas was his decision to deliberately target the plantations and the homes of the wealthy, along with Confederate public buildings. Apparently Sherman believed that the plantation owners of the South were far more culpable than the poor non-slave-holding majority in most secessionist states. Sherman generally spared the property of non-slave owners, though they collectively suffered nonetheless through the general impoverishment left in Sherman’s wake.

In our race to rectify the past in the present, could Ken Burns in 2017 still make his stellar Civil War documentary, with a folksy and drawly Shelby Foote animating the tragedies of the Confederacy’s gifted soldiers sacrificing their all for a bad cause? Should progressives ask Burns to reissue an updated Civil War version in which Foote and southern “contextualizers” are left on the cutting room floor? How about progressive icon Joan Baez? Should the Sixties folksinger seek forgiveness from us for reviving her career in the early 1970s with the big money-making hit “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down”— her version of The Band’s sympathetic ode to the tragedy of a defeated Confederacy, written over a century after the Civil War. (“Back with my wife in Tennessee / When one day she called to me / Said, “Virgil, quick, come see / There goes the Robert E. Lee!”) If a monument is to be wiped away, then surely a popular song must go, too. Are there gradations of moral ambiguity?

Or do Middlebury and Berkeley students or antifa rioters in their infinite wisdom have a monopoly on calibrating virtue and defining it as 100 percent bad or good? Who of the present gets to decide whom of the past we must erase — and where does the cleansing of memory stop? Defacing Mt. Rushmore of its slave owners? Who of the present gets to decide whom of the past we must erase — and where does the cleansing of memory stop? Defacing Mt. Rushmore of its slave owners? Renaming the double-whammy Washington and Lee University?

Are we to erase mention of the heavens for their August 21 eclipse that unfairly bypassed most of the nation’s black population — as the recent issue of Atlantic magazine is now lamenting? Revolutions are not always sober and judicious. We might agree that the public sphere is no place for honorific commemoration of Roger B. Taney, the author of the Dred Scott decision. But statue removal will not be limited to the likes of Roger B. Taneys when empowered activists can cite chapter and verse the racist things once uttered by Abraham Lincoln, whose bust was just disfigured in Chicago — and when the statue-destroyers feel that they gain power daily because they are morally superior. Correct and Incorrect Racists? The logical trajectory of tearing down the statue of a Confederate soldier will soon lead to the renaming of Yale, the erasing of Washington and Jefferson from our currency, and the de-Trotskyization of every mention of Planned Parenthood’s iconic Margaret Singer, the eugenicist whose racist views on abortion anticipated those of current liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (Ginsburg said, “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”)

At what point will those who went ballistic over President Trump’s clumsy “on the one hand, on the other hand” criticism of both the abhorrent racists who marched in Charlottesville (parading around in the very Nazi garb that their grandparents had fought to vanquish) and the unhinged anarchists who sought to violently stop them demand that Princeton University erase all mention of their beloved Woodrow Wilson, the unapologetic racist? Wilson, as an emblematic and typical early progressive, thought human nature could “progress” by scientific devotion to eugenics, and he believed that blacks were innately inferior. Wilson, also remember, was in a position of power — and, owing to his obdurate racism, he ensured that integration of the U.S. Army would needlessly have to wait three decades.

Do any of the protestors realize that a chief tenet of early progressivism was eugenics, the politically correct, liberal orthodoxy of its time? Just as in Roman times, chipping away the face of Nero or Commodus did not ensure a new emperor’s good behavior, so tearing down a statue of a Confederate soldier is not going to restore vitality to the inner city, whose tragedies are not due to inanimate bronze. When Minnesota Black Lives Matter marchers chanted of police, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon,” was that a call for violence that was not long after realized by a spate of racist murders of policemen in Dallas? Are such advocates of torching police officers morally equipped to adjudicate which Confederate statue must come down? And did President Obama swiftly condemn the forces that led the shooter to select his victims for execution? After Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 fellow soldiers in cold blood, screaming out “Allah Akbar” as he shot, did “both sides” Obama really have to warn America that “we don’t know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts”? And did it take him six years before he discovered the catalysts when finally calling the murders a terrorist attack? Did Obama have to dismiss the Islamist anti-Semitic terrorist slaughter of targeted Jews in a kosher market in Paris with the callous and flippant quip that the murderers had killed “a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris”? Were there demonstrations over that moral equivalence? And was it inevitable that the anti-Semite, homophobe, and provocateur with past blood on his hands for inciting riot and arson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, would advocate yanking public sponsorship of the Jefferson memorial?

He who is with sin now casts the first stone? We are in an age of melodrama, not tragedy, in which we who are living in a leisured and affluent age (in part due to the accumulated learning and moral wisdom gained and handed down by former generations of the poor and less aware) pass judgement on prior ages because they lacked our own enlightened and sophisticated views of humanity — as if we lucky few were born fully ethically developed from the head of Zeus. In my own town, there used to be a small classical fountain dedicated by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. It was long ago torn down. (Who wishes to recall the forces that led to Prohibition?) In its place now sits an honorific statue to the clawed, half-human Aztec deity Coatlicue, the hungry earth-mother goddess. Coatlicue was quite a bloodthirsty creation, to whom thousands of living captives were sacrificed. The goddess was often portrayed wrapped in a cloak of skin and wearing a neckless of human hearts, hands, and skulls. Our town’s new epigraph atop Coatlicue is Viva la Raza — “Long live the Race.” Should there be demonstrations to yank down such a racialist and Franco-ist hurrah? Or are the supposed victims of white privilege themselves exempt from the very chauvinism that they sometimes allege in others?

Is there a progressive rationale that exempts Coatlicue and its racist plaque, whose sloganeering channels the raza/razza mantras of Fascist Spain and Mussolini’s Italy? Are we to have a perpetual war of the statues? The Arc of History More Often Bends Backward There is a need for an abolition of memory in the case of Hitler or Stalin, or here in America perhaps even of a Nathan Bedford Forrest. But when we wipe away history at a whim (why in 2017 and not, say, in 2015 or 2008?), we’d better make sure that our targets are uniquely and melodramatically evil rather than tragically misguided. And before we get out our ropes and sandblasters, we should be certain that we are clearly the moral superiors of those we condemn to oblivion. Before we get out our ropes and sandblasters, we should be certain that we are clearly the moral superiors of those we condemn to oblivion. Be careful, 21st-century man. Far more hypercritical generations to come may find our own present moral certitude — late-term and genetically driven abortion, the rise of artificial intelligence in place of human decision-making, the harvesting and selling of aborted fetal organs, ethnic and tribal chauvinism, euthanasia, racially segregated dorms and “safe spaces” — as immoral as we find the sins of our own predecessors. For the last decade, we were lectured that the arc of history always bends toward our own perceptions of moral justice. More likely, human advancement tends to be circular and should not to be confused with technological progress. Just as often, history is ethically circular. No Roman province produced anyone quite like a modern Hitler; Attila’s body count could not match Stalin’s. In the classical Athens of 420 B.C., a far greater percentage of the population could read than in Ottoman Athens of A.D. 1600. The average undergraduate of 1950 probably left college knowing a lot more than his 2017 counterpart does.

The monopolies of Google, Facebook, and Amazon are far more insidious than that of Standard Oil, even if our masters of the universe seem more hip in their black turtlenecks than John D. Rockefeller did in his starched collars. Moneywise, Bernie Madoff outdid James Fisk and Jay Gould. The strangest paradox in the current epidemic of abolitio memoriae is that our moral censors believe in ethical absolutism and claim enough superior virtue to apply it clumsily across the ages — without a clue that they fall short of their own moral pretensions, and that one day their own icons are as likely be stoned as the icons of others are now apt to be torn down by black-mask-wearing avengers.
A final paradox about killing the dead: Two millennia after Roman autocrats’ destruction of statues, and armed with the creepy 20th-century model of Fascists and Communists destroying the past, we, of a supposedly enlightened democracy, cannot even rewrite history by democratic means — local, state, and federal commission recommendations, referenda, or majority votes of elected representatives. More often, as moral cowards, we either rely on the mob or some sort of executive order enforced only in the dead of night.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, to appear in October from Basic Books.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450689/erasing-history-censoring-confederate-past-rewriting-memory-mob-vengeance

Media Calls Trump a Racist

Wednesday, August 23rd, 2017

Washington Examiner
Media working overtime to prove Trump is a racist
Pete Kasperowicz |
Aug 18, 2017, 12:01 AM

Major media outlets last week encouraged people to speculate on whether President Trump is a racist and even commissioned artists to convey the idea that he is, but still fell short of generating a consensus that Trump is prejudiced against non-whites.

The effort is nearly a week old now. It began Saturday when Trump was criticized for not immediately singling out neo-Nazis and white supremacists for their role in the violence in Charlottesville, Va.

When Trump finally did identify the groups on Monday, the press said he was too slow. Then a day later, Trump again condemned white supremacists, but also said at a press conference that both the white supremacist protesters and counter-protesters were violent, and that there is blame on “both sides.”

By Thursday, major magazines were declaring Trump a racist. Or at least, they were suggesting it with the art on their new covers.

The Economist started it off with a story titled “Donald Trump has no grasp of what it means to be president.” It was accompanied by a depiction of Trump shouting into a bullhorn in the shape of a Ku Klux Klan hood.

The New Yorker also took on Trump by revealing its new cover: a depiction of Trump on a sailboat, blowing into the sail that is also shaped like a KKK hood. The cover art is titled, “Blowhard.”

The same artist who did the New Yorker cover recently revealed another sketch he did of Trump in 2016, which showed a figure of Trump cutting out images of three KKK hoods.

But the pictures merely suggest Trump is a racist without declaring so in words. An Economist editorial accompanying its cover art even declared the opposite: that Trump is “not a white supremacist.”

That angered some who wanted the Economist to go much further.

Jodi Jacobson of Rewire wrote that there is enough proof to declare Trump a racist, and rejected the comments many have made that it’s too hard to know what Trump really thinks.

“In my opinion, Mr. Trump has shown us who he is and we have consistently refused to believe him,” Jacobson wrote. “By upholding the systems of white supremacy that continue to at best disenfranchise and at worst kill people of color, Trump is in fact aligned with the white supremacist movement.”

But few others were ready to go that far, despite the ongoing efforts of reporters to find evidence that Trump is a racist. Or, perhaps, because of those efforts.

A New York Times story published Thursday interviewed several of Trump’s black friends to ask if they thought Trump was a racist. But most rejected the idea, including people who worked for him and a biracial woman he dated.

“That was not my experience,” Kara Young, Trump’s former girlfriend, said when asked if Trump is “personally racist.”

Only Al Sharpton got close in that story, and Sharpton this week made a point of not declaring Trump to be a racist.

On MSNBC Monday, branding expert Donny Deutsch said Trump “is a racist.” He then pressed Sharpton to agree, accused Sharpton of “dancing around it,” and asked if Sharpton could “say he is a racist.”

“I don’t want to put him on a couch and deal with his psychological personal problems,” Sharpton said. “I’m dealing with his public policies.”

A frustrated Deutsch then goaded Sharpton on by saying, “you can’t say that the president is a racist.”

Sharpton replied again, “We’re talking about the president and his policies.”

That exchange seemed to partly explain the media’s own decision to dance around the idea of Trump being a racist, and implying it with pictures instead of declaring it with words.

A CNN story on Thursday tried to get close by saying Trump is now “isolated” because members of the U.S. military, business, and political leaders “condemn racism” — heavily implying that Trump is a racist.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday tried the same tactic by rejecting Trump’s comment that some in Charlottesville were there to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, and then were joined by neo-Nazis.

“The president of the United States is either blind, or blinded by the white,” CNN’s Anderson Cooper said.

That kind of hinting at Trump’s racism, or “dancing around it” as Deutsch might say, continued into Thursday with a Washington Post cartoon that showed Trump “casting a dark shadow” on the country. At the bottom, the author added, “and out come the torches.”

Shakespeare’s Villians

Tuesday, July 18th, 2017

Thanks to my good friend, Dr. Steve Dubel, I have been introduced to:

NO SWEAT SHAKESPEARE.

One of its most interesting character summaries involves:

Shakespeare’s Top 10 Villains
Are there really heroes and villains in Shakespeare’s plays? Those concepts suggest that someone can be all good, noble and well intentioned on the one hand, or all bad, ill-intentioned and downright evil on the other. What makes Shakespeare’s characters so interesting is that they are human beings, motivated by the things that motivate human beings: they react to their circumstances and to people in different ways.

Some of Shakespeare’s characters act in cruel and unpleasant ways. Some of them kill, deceive and otherwise take advantage of their fellow men and women but they are all only human beings. This list of villains catalogues ten of the most badly behaved of those human beings in Shakespeare’s plays:

The Queen, Cymbeline

The Queen in Cymbeline is a character Shakespeare doesn’t even name, but she is without a doubt one of his top villains. Cymbeline is her second husband and she has a son, Cloten, whom she is determined to marry off to Cymbeline’s daughter, Imogen. She pursues this ambition with ruthless energy and will stop at nothing, including murder.

Angelo, Measure for Measure

Angelo in Measure for Measure is a particular kind of villain who is hated by women. Left in charge of administering Vienna while the Duke is away, he adopts a strict approach. Determined to stamp out fornication he imprisons and executes people who conduct sexual affairs outside of marriage. When Claudio falls victim his sister Isabella, a beautiful young nun, goes to him to beg for mercy. He agrees not to execute Claudio if she agrees to sex with him. In spite of her pleading he sticks to that line right to the end. His villainy consists mainly of his incredible hypocrisy. As time goes on he appears increasingly villainous as a result of the development of society’s attitude to women.

Lady MacBeth, MacBeth

Lady Macbeth has always been seen as the most villainous of Shakespeare’s women, and
portrayed in paintings as a sharp-featured, black haired woman with a hard expression. Like all of Shakespeare’s ‘villains’ she is just a character confronted with the choices that are offered her. In her case, her husband has written to tell her about the three witches who have predicted that he will be king. At that very moment a messenger arrives to tell her that the king is coming to their castle to spend the night with them. To her, to advance her and her husband’s ambitions, the logical thing is to kill the king while he is there. She urges Macbeth to kill him, using several tactics, including questioning his manhood, his love for her, his intentions about becoming king and after a lot of soul searching and hesitation, he goes ahead with it. Afterwards, she gives him moral support in the actions he takes to maintain his position as king. She eventually cracks up and commits suicide.

Regan, King Lear

Regan in King Lear is Lear’s second daughter. After having been given a half of all Lear’s lands and wealth after his decision to retire she turns on him and behaves cruelly towards him. She ties Lear’s old friend, Gloucester, to a chair, accusing him of supportimng her father, and she pulls his eyes out onstage.

Claudius, Hamlet

Claudius in Hamlet is Hamlet’s uncle. He murders his brother, the King of Denmark, who is Hamlet’s father. He immediately swindles Hamlet out of his inheritance, marries his mother and assumes the throne. Noticing that Hamlet is on to him he employs some of Hamlet’s college friends to spy on him. He plots to have Hamlet murdered on a ship at sea. When Hamlet escapes that he plots to have him killed during a duel. The plan goes wrong and he ends up killing, not only Hamlet, but his wife Gertrude, – Hamlet’s mother – Laertes, the son of his senior courtier, Hamlet and himself.

MacBeth, MacBeth

Macbeth, adored by everyone and, trusted by the king, Duncan, is a fearless warrior in the king’s service, but after killing Duncan he continues his murderous career, killing all those who oppose him, including his closest friend, Banquo. At the very centre of the play, on his orders a child is murdered. The killing of Duncan takes place offstage but the child’s slaughter is onstage. The effect of that is to shock the audience and draw its attention to how far Macbeth has sunk into villainy, and how ruthless he has become. His decline into this kind of villainy is due to his ambition, and, hearing only the advice he wants to hear, he makes the mistakes that lead to his downfall.

Tamora, Titus Andronicus

Tamora is the queen of the Goths. She is captured by Titus and forced to plead for the life of her son, who is in nevertheless murdered by Titus’ sons. As she plots her revenge, using her lover Aaron the Moor as her heavy, we see her relishing the violence to come. When Aaron describes the extreme violence he is planning she exclaims: ‘Ah, my sweet Moor!’ She instructs her sons to rape Titus’s daughter, Lavinia and to kill her husband. When Lavinia begs to be killed instead, appealing to her as a woman to a woman, Tamora instructs her sons to rape and dismember Lavinia, telling them: ‘use her as you will: the worse to her the better loved of me.’ Lavinia calls her ‘a beastly creature.’ In a sick twist Tamore ends up unknowingly eating her sons in the form of meat pies.

Aaron the Moor, Titus Andronicus

Aaron the Moor is about as villainous as anyone could be. The lover of Tamora, he helps her get revenge on the Andronicus family. It’s never clear what his motives are and it seems that he enjoys violence for its own sake. He doesn’t think twice about instigating rape, mutilation and murder, running amock among the Andronicus family.

 

Richard III, Richard III

Richard III is an interesting case of a character being both the main protagonist and the villain. The Shakespeare character is not the same as the historical Richard: he is a mixture of the propaganda surrounding the historical Richard and the creative imagination of Shakespeare. In the play Richard addresses the audience directly and says ‘I am determined to prove a villain and hate the idle pleasures of these days.’ In spite of that and in spite of his misbehaviour, the audience likes him, taken in by his sparkling language, his logical arguments, his soliciting of the audience’s sympathy regarding his physical disability and his selfish motives, with which the audience can identify. As he pursues his crimes, however, the audience begins to be uncomfortable, and by the end of the play Shakespeare makes us see what a monster he is. He gets his brother locked up in the Tower of London, he seduces Anne Neville and persuades her to marry him even though he has murdered her husband and her father and he has two of his nephews beheaded. He also eliminates all opposition.

Iago, Othello

Iago is probably the most destructive of Shakespeare’s characters. He destroys several people’s lives during the course of the play, including several careers, and two deaths, through the manipulation of everyone around him. His motives are complex and one is never really sure what they are. He sometimes gives an explanation for his behaviour but it changes and none of it rings true. He is charming and he is liked and respected by everyone and they all refer to him throughout as ‘honest Iago,’ but he is filled with hatred and contempt for everyone. He is very much what we would call a psychopath today. He deserves the top place in this list of villains because he is not simply responding but actively going out to destroy others’ lives.

Dr. Gottlieb for FDA

Tuesday, March 14th, 2017

This is a great story and Trump is to be commended in his selection to run the FDA. Scott Gottlieb is a fine physician who knows this area well and can sharply articulate efforts to alter the problems in this agency.

Scott Gottlieb, Trump pick for FDA, is on the side of the little guy

WASHINGTON EXAMINER

March 14,2017

 

President Trump’s pick for the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, is qualified and capable. He will do great work if confirmed, but his nomination provides a great opportunity to lay out a crucial lesson that regulation often serves to protect big business from competition, harming the consumer.

The Democrats’ attack on Gottlieb is easy to predict. Reporters have already provided the template. “He is seen as a strong supporter of [the pharmaceutical] industry and has championed deregulation,” NPR wrote in a story.

NPR also cited Gottlieb’s lucrative consulting for drug companies, and quoted a liberal critic saying, “He has spent most of his career dedicated to promoting the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and the U.S. Senate must reject him.”

This is standard stuff from Democrats and Left-liberal media, of which NPR is a leading member. They always simplistically see arguments against regulation as helping corporate interests.

Gottlieb’s scholarly work, however, shows the truth is different. He is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute — disclosure: so are Washington Examiner writers Michael Barone and Tim Carney — and has chronicled consolidation in the hospital and insurance industry, and argues that regulation has contributed to the trend. He’s also shown how regulations dampen competition in pharmaceutical industry.

Obamacare regulations, for instance, prevent new entrants into the health insurance markets, thus protecting incumbent insurers from competition, Gottlieb argues. He points out that the law regulations governing how much an insurer may spend on overhead and marketing penalize a new company for its start-up costs. “Spending on things like marketing a new plan to consumers, developing provider networks, and credentialing doctors” are effectively punished by these regulations because they don’t count as “medical” spending.

Further, “new carriers also have a hard time bearing the fixed costs of compliance.” Smarter and lighter regulation would allow more competition. Incumbent insurers might not like this, but customers would.

The same goes for hospitals. Obamacare “favor[s] the consolidation of previously independent doctors into salaried roles inside larger institutions,” Gottlieb wrote in 2014, “usually tied to a central hospital, in effect ending independent medical practices.”

Gottlieb argued against the hospitals’ dominance: “A true legislative alternative to Obamacare would support physician ownership of independent medical practices, and preserve local competition between doctors and choice for patients.”
Obamacare’s regulations and subsidies dampened such competition.

And drugmakers? The largest drug lobby, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America supported Obamacare, as did the American Hospital Association. So Gottlieb and the drug lobby are not of the same mind on major issues.

Second, Gottlieb’s proposed reforms of the drug industry generally aim at getting more competition, often in the form of generic drugs, to drive down prices and profit margins.

In August 2016, Gottlieb wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “a flurry of new regulations is raising production costs and reducing competition for branded drugs. The key to the generic-drug economic model is to keep entry prices low enough to attract multiple competitors.”

Gottlieb’s central goal in policy prescriptions has been more competition in a sector where it is scarce. A major barrier to entry and a major cause of consolidation has been regulation.

This is true not only in the health sector, of course. Banking has consolidated further under Dodd-Frank regulations. Major tax preparers such as H&R Block supported Obama-administration regulations on their industry in order to crowd out smaller practitioners. Mattel supported federal toy regulations and Philip Morris supported regulation of tobacco.

But no sector needs an injection of market competition as badly as healthcare does. Republicans would do well to remember that when fighting for market reform of healthcare, industry is not a reliable ally.

Gottlieb deserves rapid confirmation to head this crucial agency. We hope the Trump administration can learn from this that more regulation often means less competition, protecting the big guys instead of everyone else.


William S. Frankl, All Rights Reserved
Design by Yikes!