
















First, the ‘Lux is back in my life, baby!
Let me tell you, it’s been very weird the last many years to have a website named for a lens that I no longer own. But those days are over. Sort of. You see, the latest ‘Lux isn’t a repurchase of the site’s namesake 50mm f1.4 Summilux. This ‘Lux is the 2022 release of the updated 35mm Summilux FLE v2 and we’re not going to change the name of this place over 15 silly millimeters.
No, the title of this piece is not a misspelled soap opera. It is, however, kind of my own personal photographic soap opera. But what you’re about to read here is also a master class in using a Leica M camera with fast glass. I promise you. Do not doubt me.
Is it intended to be a master class for you the reader? No, I’m not that arrogant. But please partake freely nevertheless. It’s really meant to be a master class for yours truly. I have to write this all down now so that I never forget it. Ever. Again. Because I did forget it. I forgot everything I once knew about how to really use a Leica M.
That occurred even though I’ve been using my M10 pretty much all the time the last few years. But I’m shooting street photography in daylight. I’m shooting with f2 lenses which are almost invariably stopped down to f5.6 on up. Or down. Whatever. Numbers go up, size of the hole goes down. That’s photography.
Also, for the first time in my photographic life, I’ve taken to using Auto-ISO on both my Leica and Nikon cameras. Finally, at long last, that feature actually works for me. I shoot most often from a moving car. So I need fast shutter speeds. I can’t always focus at 35 MPH. So I also need small apertures. I think you get the picture. This is not Leica Summilux f1.4 shooting. And, while I wouldn’t call it brainwashing, shooting like this does have the tendency to condition someone to look at the process of camera settings as they relate to exposure in a certain light.
It’s also not indoor low-light event photography, something I used to do quite a bit of. Not so much with Leica gear but, for my personal use, which included a lot of low light wide-open shooting, I pretty much shot only Leica for well over a decade. Even before I got my first digital Leica, the M9, in 2010, I’d been shooting film for a couple of years on a sugar sweet M7 and then later pairing that with an M6.
I was lucky to be able to afford those Leica cameras, even used. But I couldn’t also afford actual Leica lenses, so I shot with a Zeiss 50 f1.5 Sonnar and a 40mm Voigtlander Nokton f1.4.
When I got my M9, however, I wanted to shoot it with Leica glass so I picked up the tiny and quite remarkable 35mm Summarit 2.5. So I was set. Loaded for bear or whatever else. I could now shoot my Leica all day long, play games, experiment, it was amazing.
Just one week after picking up my new Leica digital kit I had to fly off to Chicago for a BIG TIME event, which included a pre-dinner the night before. But here’s the thing, I’d already been shooting Leica film bodies for a few years. I’d read and learned so many things. So I had this old archaic film mentality about exposure. I wouldn’t call it brainwashing but…

I was ready. I already knew the M9 wasn’t great over 800 ISO. The widest aperture of that generation of the Summarit family of lenses was f2.5. Do the math. No matter where I was, I was going to need to shoot at very slow shutter speeds. I think I shot the entire weekend at 1/30th all the way down to a quarter of a second.

The pictures I produced that weekend in Chicago were what I’d fantasized about making as I built my photographic dreams up from a young age. I’ve always said my photographic aesthetic is Cincinnati newspaper photographer. And these were mostly old-school photojournalism style shots with some occasional digital razzle-dazzle thrown in. I’d owned the digital Leica and lens for one week and yet I’d never done anything better, and, to this day, I’ve never been more satisfied than I was with the images I came away with from that trip.

Whatever I was thinking that weekend in 2010, however, whatever photographic strategy I was applying to the challenges of the events and the lighting and the various focusing distances and issues like camera shake, it was all lost from my mind a long time ago. My photographic instincts had been completely rewired many times over.
For God’s sake, I’d even taken to shooting Auto-ISO. Need I say more?
Then came the new 35mm Summilux. Just a few days ago, but 15 years later. And, for the first time in like, forever, an event. And so, as you might’ve imagined, disaster surely followed. I pushed my ISOs into the stratosphere. I shot at 1/125th of a second. My mind had been rewired. Okay. Gloves are off. I had been brainwashed!
The lens itself is incredible. This is actually my second 35 FLE. I got my first in 2010, even before I was able to get my hands on the 50mm Summilux this website is named after. Same optical formula as the first FLE but maybe newer coatings push out wide open sharpness to the very edges. But the close focusing capabilities, on a 35mm lens? GTF out of town, people. Just go. Leave, right now.
This 35 is a lifestyles photographer’s dream.

But I didn’t know what I was doing. I didn’t have a clue. And when I got home I felt sick looking at my images. I’m not a professional photographer and I haven’t pretended to be one in years. But this event was personal. And stressful. There was a pro photographer working the room there and no one was even taking cell phone images. The atmosphere was elegantly reserved. Even if it is the same ballroom where they host the always wild and wooly Golden Globes Awards telecast. So pulling out even my tiny M kit was awkward at best and I only managed to grab a handful of frames.
But enough of all that. Let the master class begin.
The Master Class Begins
In order to really know how to best use Leica M cameras, and fast lenses, you have to go back to the principles of the design of the M camera system and the minds that conceived of and continued to build on that design. Seriously.
But first this…
We all know the exposure rule on focal lengths and shutter speeds. To avoid camera shake, it is best to shoot at shutter speeds no slower than the focal length number of your lens. So if you’re shooting a 35mm lens, for example, you wouldn’t want to shoot at a shutter speed below 1/35 of a second.
But Leica is Leica for a reason. Many reasons. “M” bodies are flat and sit flush against the shooter’s face. The lenses are small. The center of gravity of the entire kit is mostly stabilized just by the act of bringing the camera up to your eye and holding it steady.
So that old shutter speed vs. focal length rule. Forget it! That’s right. THROW IT OUT THE WINDOW. You can, for example, hand hold a Leica M body at half or less than half of your 35mm focal length and get incredible, even reliable, results!
And I’ll add this. We’re always trying to replicate the looks of the film photography of yore. Right? Of course we are. Almost everyone uses filters on their cell phone pictures at one time or another to try to emulate the look of vintage photographs.
So here is a stealth vintage photography pro-tip courtesy of the old pros. Slow shutter speeds. Creates an entirely different look than shots snapped at mere hundredths of a second. Who knew? And remember, this is actually how so many of those beloved vintage and historic shots were taken. So do the same thing the 20th century greats of photography did in order to take one giant step towards achieving similar results. Duh-UH!
So let’s talk about the red dot. Not the one on the lenses. The one inside the viewfinder. You know what it’s there for, I’m not going to tell you. But think about what the minds who put it there were thinking when they came up with this idea. Think of what they created. A solid red dot tells us that, in theory, our camera settings have delivered to us a proper exposure. There are chevrons (arrows) that may appear pointing our index finger that is resting (hopefully) on the shutter speed dial in the exact direction we might want to move that dial in order to make that red dot solid if it isn’t a spot-on proper exposure.
But unless we are just simply and dumbly shooting an object (which is often the case) we might not (even infrequently not) want a spot-on proper exposure. In some cameras, we might use exposure compensation to achieve something more or less than what the camera’s light sensor might consider to be a proper exposure.
But not us and not with a Leica M. Because we have the red dot and the chevrons. Never forget that, my people. Never. Ever. (Pounds fist against forehead.)
Think about what these 20th century Leica geniuses created with their M camera system. They gave us more than we know.
Why, for instance, might the chevrons be even more important than the red dot? Well, how about this? What about when we’re not dumbly photographing mere objects? What if we’re photographing light? Which is, you know, what we’re actually doing anyway no matter what we think we’re doing. (I’m not going to go into the whole light thing as it applies to photography, but it IS a thing and it is a thing for a reason.)
So what are the photographs that catch your eye and make you sigh with appreciation, even if only for a moment? What is the most charming aspect of any image? Is it the subject? Yes, it can be. But I’m going to tell you that that is rarely the case for me. I may be incredibly interested in the subject of a photograph. Or the scene or the decisive moment. But what makes me truly stop in my tracks when I look at an image is always the light.
Natural light is king, especially as it is bouncing around indoors. Pictures of nothing important. Back lit objects. Reflections on a shiny floor. Doesn’t matter. We love the light.

Dimly lit rooms with artificial lighting also offer many opportunities to make available light the charming star of your photography.

And it’s not something you have to work all that hard to achieve. You just have to fully appreciate that the artificial light that is available to you, even dull uninteresting light that you might otherwise scoff at, IS nevertheless light, and that you simply need to adjust your exposure settings, as well as your mind, to take full advantage of that light.
Not by boosting your ISO.
But by slowing down your shutter speed.
So here is the process…
Okay, so maybe it isn’t THE process. Maybe it’s just my suggested process. Maybe I’m just talking to myself to try to make sure I never again forget the things I once knew.
So you walk into a room. Or an event. You think like you’re living in the pre-digital days of film. Always. You look at the available light and you make a judgement on ISO. Again, think as if you’re deciding what film speed to purchase and put in your camera. Whatever decision you make, my advice is that it should be 1000 ISO or under. In the rarest of cases, you might push it to 1600. But just for a few shots.
Yes, I’m fully aware of how good cameras have gotten at handling high ISOs here in 2025. I’m telling you to put all of that out of your mind. It is poison. If you’re shooting a Leica M with a Summilux lens you freaking idiot (talking to myself now) you are living in truly rarified photographic air with a different set of rules entirely.
So you’re in your room, large or small, and you’ve looked at the light and ball-parked an ISO under 1000. (Hey, if it’s a sunny day outside and you have good sized windows you might be fine shooting at 400 or even 200 ISO. You will get GORGEOUS images.) You open your lens to its maximum aperture. Turn on your camera and look into the viewfinder. Look at the red dot and look at the chevrons as you scan the room.
The only exposure adjustments you make at this point is with the shutter speed dial. Focus on something near the middle of the room. Take some shots. Adjust according to the chevrons and then against what the chevrons are telling you. Look at the images. Look at the light near the windows. Is it pretty? Or is it too much? Or is it too dark? Settle on a shutter speed that looks best to you and leave it there. For a moment.
Then take more pictures of other things around the room. Notice you may have to slow the shutter speed down even more for objects further away from the window. Hold the camera steady against your face and keep in mind always that you don’t have to worry about shooting a Leica body with a 35mm lens at single-digit shutter speeds. JUST DO IT!
Get used to this process. Try to hard wire all of this into your brain as option numero uno when shooting fast Leica glass in available light. Make it second nature. Set an ISO for the environment you’re shooting in. Open the lens up all the way. Go as slow as you need to with the shutter. Rinse and repeat for as long as you shoot Leica.
I’m not trying to be a snob here. But this is a piece about how best to shoot a Leica M body with ultra-fast glass. If we can apply any of this to other camera systems–as I’m sure we can–then go for it. Please. A lot of this is just a basic old-school photography approach (my own) from before we had the capability to change ISOs at will or check our results on an LCD screen.
So I ask you to think about what Leica has given us, even here well into the 21st century.
They’ve given us an amazingly exquisite playground that exists in our minds, in our eyes, and in our hands.
The most beguiling thing in any photograph is the light. Always. Light is the magical mystery of the universe. Man did not create light. Could not have invented it. Leica M cameras, like no other photographic product ever created, give us the opportunity to explore that universe and to play with the magical mysteriousness of light.
If you don’t know that, I promise you will learn how true it is by simply following the process I’ve suggested in this piece. See the light, play with it, and photograph it.
And, please. Never forget how to do that.
I’ve only had the new 35 FLE for three days so all the images below were taken with the first (2010) version.








P.S. I officially no longer know how to use WordPress to post images. I don’t have any idea why my shots here appear to be so soft. They’re not soft and they’re certainly hi-res enough for this website. Let me add to the voices who have bemoaned the many changes to the user interface here. I think this has severely impacted my desire to post on 50lux.com.


It’s doubtful any political junkies missed the really big news yesterday. Joe Biden will not be prosecuted for HIS classified documents issues. But the reason why as stated by the special counsel investigating the current President of the United States is that Biden would be unlikely to be convicted by a jury as he would be seen as a doddering well-meaning old man of diminished mental acuity. This is mostly my characterization of the special counsel’s language but, trust me, I’m not cooking the books here.
Former Bernie Sanders campaign staffer Krystal Ball gives her reading of the report and what it signifies here.
And even though Krystal is a prominent face of the indie-left media, her take is pretty much an accurate characterization of the mainstream establishment media’s reading of what it all means.
Look at the lead story on the New York Times this morning. I’m gifting it via this link so if you don’t have a Times subscription you can still read it here
But that’s not the most significant part of this story for me. After the report was made public and the media tongues began to wag, and as the sun began to set over the Biden White House, Sundowner Syndrome himself decided to hold a somewhat impromptu prime-time address and press availability in order to defend himself and attack the special counsel’s characterization of his mental state.
Biden looked like an angry old man but we’ve certainly seen worse examples of his mental decline in just the last few days. That’s also not the story for me.
What I found to be absolutely JAW DROPPING (but still not the point of this piece) was the behavior and treatment of the president by the White House press corps.
It seemed (at least in the edit I saw last night) to start with Peter Doocy the FOX News reporter who is a constant daily thorn in the administration’s side.
But this wasn’t that.
It quickly became very clear to me that someone told the piranhas that it was finally okay for them to go ahead and start eating this president and, let me tell you, this was one HANGRY grouping of this nation’s most prestigious news organizations’ top correspondents. You knew these probably once idealistic journalists had been deprived of doing their actual jobs for FAR too long.
They all but ran poor Joe out of office right then and there. I’ll start this (I hope) at the point where that good White House applesauce Joe likes hits the fan.
But none of this is why I’m writing this piece.
So I started this year with a prediction that either Biden or Trump or both were very likely to be unavailable to voters come November. Astonishingly bad poll numbers along with some of the most uncomfortable video examples of the president’s mental decline yet in the past week or so has resulted in what can only be called visible cracks in the fuselage of this Boeing Boeing gone idea that Joe Biden will ever be re-elected President of the United States. But hey, Joe. Never say never. There’s always 2028.
So why am I writing any of this here today? It’s all over the news. See it for yourselves. None of this is why I’m really here pounding on my laptop.
This all is presenting the likelihood of what can only be described as the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare scenario.
Is it that Joe will announce that he’s not seeking re-election? Nope. That’s not how this is going to go down. Biden has to go now if not sooner. He has to resign the office of the presidency. Full stop. I believe that’s coming very soon.
If Biden were simply to declare he’s not seeking a second term he would still be there. He would still be a story that would be running parallel to the story of whoever the Democratic Party is running at the top of their ticket. He would continue to be a doddering leader of the free world during these so very treacherous times. So, while the Democratic Party would be desperately trying to establish their replacement candidate as the story, Joe Biden’s continuing mental decline would still be an issue for all of us and a competing headline for the Democratic Party’s preferred election year narrative.
Enter Kamala. Yep. There she is, the cackling nightmare we’ve all been dreading. But this is also the Democratic Party’s worst nightmare. And here is why.
Many are the reports coming from inside the White House about how recalcitrant the vice-president has grown over the last year or so. She has been bristling at how she’s being used or not used by the administration. She is reported to be one unhappy camper. Yes, she probably still laughs uncontrollably for no reason, but this shit is no longer funny for her and especially not funny for the Democratic Party because, while they will be more than happy to celebrate Kamala as the country’s first female president, they do not want her to be the candidate that replaces Joe Biden on the ballot in November.
Joe Biden resigns the presidency and the Democrats and the news media celebrate the nation’s first woman president. Personally, I too would love to celebrate this historic moment. I once thought Kamala Harris was a pretty sharp cookie. But no one thinks that anymore.
The Biden administration has never found a way to use her in which she doesn’t end up embarrassing herself and the administration in short order. So they’ve hidden her away. The public has had her number since she first entered the 2020 Democratic Primary. Senator Kamala Harris of California was exposed over and over again during her short and painful primary season run as the walking, rambling, inappropriately laughing personification of an empty pants suit. VP Harris never caught on with the American public in the three years she’s been in office and the real-life VEEP’s poll numbers to this very day are worse than even the ever-declining numbers not enjoyed by the president.
But now he’s gone and she is president. There was no deal to be made. Ha-Ha Harris was the Vice President of the United States and the Democratic Party put her there. THAT was the deal that was made. Now they as well as the rest of us are stuck with her. Certainly someone is going to have to impress upon her the Democratic Party establishment’s desire that she forego any attempt to run on her own at the top of the party’s ticket in November. “No way, honey,” Someone’s going to be thinking. “This silliness stops right here!”
But now (or then) behind the scenes, is where the nightmare truly begins. The party has no power over her. She’s the President of the United States. If leaks from the administration and her former staffers are to be believed, and they are believed here inside my head, she probably hates every White House face she sees. And so I think President Kamala Harris will go rogue on the party that put here there. I think she will not go quietly into that good-night victory column of history as merely the first woman president of the US. I think she’s going to want to hang onto what she has and try for the brass ring of being the first woman, and a woman of color at that, to be elected President of the United States.
And that, ironically, could end up being a massive nightmare for the Democrats. Best case scenario for the party is an all-California Harris-Newsome ticket and I’d be looking for that announcement even before Joe Biden can remember where he put his PJs.
The however many months Kamala Harris will actually be president could very well be a nightmare for the country and the world. Maybe not as bad as we might imagine. Maybe better than we could have hoped. But this is one pissed-off lady with a wildly inappropriate sense of humor and poll numbers somewhere down in the basement of poll numbers for public figures. I can’t imagine that she’d be someone the Democratic Party can control.
Even I, who rightfully imagines this party to be the most powerful disorganization of humans in the history of the world, have to admit that once Kamala Harris is president she’s going to possess, albeit probably quite temporarily, the power to do whatever the hell she wants to. And, to paraquote a familiar boast from her current boss, to anyone who doesn’t believe that, I would say, just watch her.
The first abbreviated work week of the new year is now all but behind us and nothing truly ground shaking has happened yet in the 2024 presidential election year story. So there’s still time for me to go out on one of those limbs that is, unfortunately, my happy place.
Obviously I can’t see into the future (okay, maybe that hasn’t always been so obvious) but here’s some things that I think are very likely to happen this year.
I think it’s ever more likely that either President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump or both might be unavailable to voters by November. That’s about the most generic way I can put it. Don’t over think it. I’m not. Whatever, however. And look, typically in American politics, election year is almost as much about selecting the eventual party nominees as it is choosing a president. And I get that. In the old days, we didn’t even know until after the conventions late in the summer. So in normal election years past, the parties could take half the year to decide upon their candidate.
But these are different times and this is a vastly different election year than any of us has ever seen. Trump is now like a mythical American political figure. He’s both a former president and the leader of a movement. MAGA. He has the Republican Party base in a passionately emotional heart and soul head lock. That part of the country is ready to explode as it is right now. Look at January 6th. However you feel about them, those people and that part of America is exponentially more agitated now than they have ever been before. They see these really corrupt banana republic legal efforts (I mean, who doesn’t?) by multiple partisan jurisdictions and entities to remove Trump entirely from the elective process—either by indicting and convicting him or by literally having his name taken off the ballot—and they are quite literally seething.
But no matter the passionate displeasure of so many of our fellow Americans, I think it very possible that these efforts will be successful to the degree where it becomes impossible for Trump to win due to the pile up of enough disqualifying cases and successful efforts to remove the former president from ballots so that the Republican Party, maybe as late as the convention, will then be forced to put forth another candidate at the top of their ticket. Somehow, some way. It might happen.
So let’s just stop right there and consider what that would be like in this country coming at some point later in this already guaranteed to be explosively chaotic election year.
Everything this massive base of Trump supporters believes is wrong with their party, their country and their elective processes will unfold exactly as they fear, right before their eyes. That alone is going to make for a s— show unlike anything we’ve ever seen. Trump is already a folk hero in much of this country. This will elevate him to political martyrdom. If MAGA can’t vote for Donald Trump on election day the national turmoil this is going to create is going to make, in my opinion, every political uprising we’ve ever seen in this country pale in comparison. JMO.
But now think of the mad scramble AGAINST THOSE HEADWATERS of the Republican Party trying to replace Trump on the ballot. What an absolute losing proposition. Mission accomplished, Democrats! It’s VERY hard to see any Republican candidate other than Trump bringing out the 80 million or so voters it’s going to take to win the White House.
Okay? So what about the other side? Well, I think it’s even LESS likely that Joe Biden will be available as the Democratic candidate come November. I’m not even going to go into arguments why. Come on! He’s the incumbent and yet he is DEEPLY unpopular, and the American people believe, quite correctly, that he’s not physically or mentally up to the job and they are, I believe, very disappointed in his policies and in the direction the country is heading. You can pump up, as I know some will, his accomplishments but you’re talking to yourselves. Out there in the eyes of America, this is a president and a party that is in deep trouble. I’ll leave it at that.
So, just like the Republican Party’s problem, but not as explosively problematic, they’re going to have a hell of time selling either Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsome as America’s best choice for its next president. You could even trot out Michelle Obama and it’s not going to sell with much of this country. Look, I hate to break it to anyone who isn’t quite there yet, but people are REALLY starting to see through this elite duopoly that controls our country and they are, I believe, desperate for another option. Hold that thought.
But step back now and take in the entire picture. Election Year 2024. Starting right now. Week One. Incumbent president running against his immediate predecessor. Then suddenly, slowly, whatever!, like a disaster movie, one by one or together in short order, both candidates fall out. I’ve only hinted at the actual chaos that will ensue. That chaos, all of it predictable, will only further disgust the American people.
The spectacle put on by both parties will cause Americans to be even MORE disenchanted with our current national politics. They will be looking for some safe harbor in what would be a complete s— storm of an election year meltdown by both of our major political parties.
Have I set the stage? I believe I have.
So now there’s this guy out there named Kennedy who’s managed to get himself on all 50 states’ ballots. There he will be. The son of RFK. People will be hearing his message, which is EXACTLY what they are going to want to hear. If you haven’t heard him, trust me, it’s exactly what the people of this country are going to want to hear, and HAVE wanted to hear, for DECADES.
These things are all very possible to even more than mildly likely to happen this year. And I think this is how Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will become our next president. And that’s what I’m predicting will happen.
The scenario that I’m describing and predicting is, of course, completely unprecedented. Here now in the year of the election, the two major party candidates, an incumbent president and his immediate predecessor as president, both involuntarily rendered by, in Biden’s case age or infirmity and in Trump’s case the actions of his political opponents, no longer available for the voters to choose as their president. This alone would be something none of us have ever seen before and would set the stage for further unprecedented upheavals.
I mean, we’re clearly heading for something like that on the Trump side of things. This is already very likely to be a quite ugly possibility. But if MAGA can’t vote for Trump because he’s not on the ballot then I predict they’re going to vote for Kennedy.
If both Biden and Trump aren’t on the ballot then I believe Kennedy will win fairly easily and that’s really the point of this piece. I don’t, at this time, want to get into all of the things that have gone wrong in the last seven years under both of these candidates’ administrations and by way of the actions and direction changes of their political parties, but all of that is weighing against the establishment at this time. This is a country that elected a TV guy seven years ago. It remains vastly misunderstood and willfully misrepresented as to why that happened. But here it is. People were just that desperate for someone else. An outsider. Someone who was telling them what they wanted to hear as opposed to someone telling them the same old s—.
This country is on the brink right now. People are already scared. If you had a clean election without RFK Jr. in it, Trump would likely win, but it would be very close. The Democratic Party is scaring the hell out of so many Americans and no one more than those of us who now self-identify, reflexively, and as a pre-emptive act of self defense, as life-long Democrats. And I’m predicting that no matter who is running for either of the major parties the most important collection of letters on the ballot won’t be Kennedy or Trump or Biden or any other candidate’s actual name. It will be the word INDEPENDENT. And that word will be sitting right next to Bobby Kennedy’s name. For that reason alone, even with Biden and Trump still in the race a Kennedy win is possible. But if you remove Trump or both Trump and Biden I think RFK Jr is going to be our next president.
The context all this is taking place in now is so different than anything we’ve ever seen with the exception of what the climate must have been like in America leading up to the Civil War. We are truly living on the brink as a nation of democratic ideals because we have so often and so routinely betrayed those ideals. The chickens have now come home to roost and, as I’ve said, the American people really are waking up and seeing through their government, the relationship between the mainstream media and their elected officials, the donors and industrial complexes who ultimately call the shots, etc. LIKE NEVER BEFORE. The election of Donald Trump in 2016 is all the proof anyone should need that this is the case. Now more and more Americans are there. It’s a trend and it’s going to continue to trend for the rest of most of our lives.
The people of this country are attempting to take it back from those who control it. I would agree with anyone who maintains that it is doubtful as to whether we will actually be able to do so. But the only thing that will stop we the people is undemocratic authoritarianism as realized by the now all powerful duopoly, its donors, and maybe most especially the vast landscape of NGOs that employ the elite political classes that inhabit the Washington DC area and the other affluent coastal regions of the country. This element is already using authoritarian and even fascist tactics to smother free speech on social media or wherever else they may find it and they are NEVER going to stop. Should Bobby Kennedy Jr. become the second President Kennedy he has vowed to dismantle the national security anti-free speech elements in our government and most prominently within the Democratic Party and allow the people of this country to once again speak on their own behalf and be heard.
Is this Kennedy simply telling so many of us what we want to hear in order to get elected? If you stay tuned you’ll get my take on that and so many other questions and issues that are sure to bombard us here in 2024. Buckle up. This is going to be an election year like no other.















When it comes to suppressing free speech, the folks at the very top of Twitter, now rebranded as Elon Musk’s favorite letter, can’t seem to resist a good slogan. Perhaps inspired by the apparent success of the FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD chant from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, Elon and his somewhat new CEO Linda Yaccarino might have forgotten from their lofty perch how it all turned out for the poor animals who were suckered in by a catchy turn of phrase.
But we nonfiction animals haven’t forgotten.
Yaccarino sat for an interview on CNBC and, in just the span of the two-minute clip I saw, the new X-CEO managed to scare the hell out of me and I’m sure many others who still held out hope that the former Twitter platform was making slow, bumpy, but nevertheless forward progress towards removing all of the algorithms and ingrained political sentiments that continue to bedevil so many of us trying to get our voices heard.
That would be heard, as opposed to not heard. Just to be clear. Yes, we still have our voices. They haven’t taken those away from us yet. But very soon after taking possession of his newest toy, Elon would start tossing around the first of Twitter’s deplorable free-speech suppression catch phrases, Freedom of Speech, Not Reach.
What that means, and has meant for so many of us, is that you can speak as freely as you like on Twitter-X. But committed X staff and their algorithms will be watching and waiting and, following instructions coming down from people unseen and powers unknown, they can make sure that whatever you decide to post on Twitter can very easily and far too often be fixed so that it will be seen by you and only you, with the exception of the X minders themselves assigned with watching and censoring us too-free tweeting users.
I said what I said. Censoring. If there was a natural flow of information on Twitter as there had been over the first decade of its existence, our tweets or replies would be visible to our followers, to those looking for a topic by typing a hashtag into the search field, or to those just scrolling through a thread where our comments would be visible along with everyone else’s.
That is not, however, how Twitter has worked for most of the last decade. Politics inherent among those who worked at the social media giant, and quite probably many special favors asked of either employees or their higher ups, often resulted in accounts being downranked, shadow banned, and whatever other technical terms or internal methods might apply to censoring people’s voices at Twitter.
Then, in an effort I’m now assuming was all about garnering street cred among angry and disillusioned Twitter users who had long felt the wet blanket of the company’s former management impacting our accounts, Elon released tons of evidence that, not only was Twitter indeed smothering the free speech of many users, but it was also partnered with and answering the many requests by elements of the US government to silence user voices on Twitter engaging on a wide variety of subjects.
It would even become common knowledge that Twitter had actually put on the payroll many former employees of government agencies like the FBI. If we weren’t already seeing the pages of Orwell’s 1984 come to life before our very eyes as we read the Twitter Files, compiled by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger, the two investigative reporters made sure to remind us of the frightening similarities.
In her sit down on CNBC, Yaccarino showed that she could check every box on a psych eval for the most Orwellian Big Sister of our darkest nightmares. From saying exactly all the wrong things, to the authoritarian demeanor, speech inflections, mannerisms and body language, all very clearly signaling her presumed superiority, including some very trippy head-tilting befitting a lord of the star chamber grown weary of bothersome questions.
Yaccarino passed along to everyone watching, and I for one believe her, how committed X is “to encouraging healthy behavior online.” One aspect of X’s methodology in encouraging healthy behavior that Yaccarino was especially pleased with is how ‘staggeringly’ effective X employees are at both deciding what is unhealthy content and then, if not removing it entirely, hiding from view any such unhealthiness found on her platform. She smoothly glided past a question by the interviewer regarding who gets to decide what ‘healthy’ content is as if she herself had been created in an AI lab solely to assume the position she now inhabits lording over free speech on the most important socio-political discussion platform ever.
And then came the rhyming.
Touting the success of Freedom of Speech, Not Reach, a corporate free speech suppression gimmick that literally means that you can say what you want on X, but X is in no way obliged to actually publish you to anyone but yourself, Yaccarino added another rhyming humdinger from the twisted company brain trust that brought you FOSNR.
If it is lawful, but it is awful…
Beyond this being an insult to the memory of Johnny Cochran, does the rest of what she said even matter? You know what’s coming. Censorship. Some form of (they think) clever censorship that will surely befuddle the inferior masses.
Linda, the drill makes a sound and we know that sound. You can change the name of your platform to any letter of the alphabet you like, but as you haven’t as yet figured out how to cut off the electricity to our homes or shut off our internet access and you haven’t gotten (at least not yet) to where you can turn off our access to our own money (working on it) you’re limited to either throwing us off the platform entirely, which is completely unnecessary at this point, or making sure that no one else on X can see our contributions.
If someone posts a comment on X that is, as Yaccarino puts it, lawful but awful, she openly admits that the busy bees at X will make it “extraordinarily difficult” for anyone else on the platform to see it. And the way she lays into extraordinarily you know she means it.
Who exactly, or what, is handling the incredible workload of deciding what users will be platformed on X and what content they’ve posted is either healthy or awful? Yep. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Twitter employees and algorithms.
“We have an extraordinary team of people who are overseeing, hands on keyboard, monitoring, all day, every day, to make sure that that 99.99 percent of impressions remain at that number.”
Oh, did I forget to tell you about the 99. whatever percent of impressions thing?
That’s the number of all posted impressions that Yaccarino can confidently sit before us today and say are healthy.
Hmm. Somehow she says healthy and I hear pure. I must have been infected with some less-than-optimal thoughts after reading a book or two. What then exactly is being hidden on X? Yep. You must have read the same books I did. Impure thoughts. You can have them. You can even post them on X. But we will, to staggering degrees of success, hide them from the world.
And, by the way, we’re shooting for the old Ivory Soap standard. Nothing less than 99.99 percent pure will do.
If only this were Orwellian fiction. If only so many of us were not suckered into believing that Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter would result in the platforming of free speech at a moment in both American and world history that has never more desperately needed a communications platform that would allow absolutely unfettered freedom for citizens the world over to voice our disagreements with those who govern this planet; our dissidence, our outrage, our questioning of authority, our disagreements with each other, and then to formulate and express together, as truly free citizens exercising our once unassailable right of free speech, our own thoughts, objections, suspicions, our own demands for change, and our own solutions and hopes for better tomorrows.
Say goodbye to all that.
I would love to suggest that these people don’t even know what free speech means. Oh that we were that lucky. They could then be educated. They could be turned. But that’s not what’s happening. They are corporate animals. And I am sure that every single person reading this has had some experience with corporations. The team at X has crafted a narrative that absolves them from doing exactly what they are doing. In this case, it is suppressing free speech. In any case, it is what corporations do.
But why are they doing it after Elon Musk promised to do the polar opposite with Twitter? I can say something about the inevitability of this giant billionaire-owned business eventually reverting back to behaving like a giant billionaire-owned business. I could say, as many long have, that Elon never intended to allow free speech and was only messing with us. I think there’s plenty of truth in just these two explanations coming off the top of my head. But I can’t know the specifics.
The early adoption of a freedom of speech suppressing catch phrase long before Yaccarino took the helm of Twitter was a solid hint that more of the same would be coming. Her selection as CEO set off alarm bells for many familiar with her background.
I will say that I believe with the utmost certainty that the two now most prominent figures at X know full well that they’re actively plotting and engaging in the suppression of free speech on their platform and that they are further tweaking and designing a social media X-Twitter-scape that will continue to obscure both their true intentions as well as hiding away from public view what they and the rest of the establishment classes would doubtless agree are the unhealthy thoughts and opinions of much too many of us.
I believe that Elon Musk and Linda Yaccarino fully understand what free speech is and exactly what they’re doing to it on their platform. They certainly understand what free speech means to them and their platform.
But they certainly don’t understand what free speech means to me. I promise you; they have no fucking idea. And they have no idea what free speech means to this country. Still means. Will always mean. If they did then no matter what these two have done in their lives so far or ever hoped to do going forward, they wouldn’t be doing this. They wouldn’t be doing to free speech in America what they’re doing to it right now.
Yesterday, watching Yaccarino’s first public performance as X-CEO was a dark day for me. I believe it will come to be seen as a dark day for free speech everywhere. But I have to say this, I think it was an especially dark day for the platform formerly known as Twitter.
So this is my message for the platform now known as X; its owner, its corporate leadership, and everyone who works there.
People the world over have been through so much. We’ve just come through a once in a century pandemic that killed possibly tens of millions. And throughout that pandemic we were locked down in our own homes, our businesses and schools shut down, all involuntarily. We were mandated to take vaccines that were poorly tested or lose our jobs.
And yet we weren’t permitted to speak amongst ourselves about so much of this on the social media platforms that have become our connections with each other, yours included.
We were lied to about the most likely origins of the virus. And we weren’t allowed to talk about that either.
We then found out, by way of YOU, Elon, that our government, federal law enforcement and homeland security, along with elements of the Democratic Party and party friendly NGOs were all working to silence the voices of Americans on Twitter. We learned, for instance, how the effort to crush the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election was the result of coordination between these political and governmental entities and social media platforms.
And this is just a fraction of how the ability of Americans to openly discuss and debate issues pertaining to their very lives was suppressed by Twitter’s own efforts. There is so much more that has been done to us on this platform and others.
Yes, people have been through a lot these last five years. We will be in the process of recovering from it all for a very long time. But couldn’t you give us back those five years? Elon? Linda? I’m speaking directly to you both. Couldn’t you just allow people on your platform to speak freely for five years, without your staggeringly effective suppression of our most basic freedom as Americans?
Couldn’t you give back to the people of a nation that has depended so much on free speech throughout its history the years of that precious freedom the platform you now control took from us?

So, I’ve decided to write this piece to expose, I hope to a great extent, a serious issue I’m having with this now essential, possibly democracy saving, new form of political journalism that I myself love and depend on to provide my heart and mind with the hope that at least someone with a bigger platform than my own is seeing what’s happening in the world as I see it.
And that hope was truly reinvigorated over the last five years upon discovering that so many bright well-educated young people are of much the same mind regarding our current cultural and political challenges as this old dude.
I’m referring, of course, to those now suddenly never-more important outside-the-mainstream independent media voices that initially coalesced around podcasting, moved on to the slick studio-based news and political analysis programing we see daily on YouTube and other streaming platforms, as well as the many who have found a home here on Substack.
One thing that has been a constant and oh-so-true refrain on indie media for the entirety of its existence is that the mainstream establishment press isn’t reporting on so many stories that have great importance to the public. Who could put a number on how many times we’ve heard that complaint coming from the hosts of Rising or Breaking Points or from Joe Rogan, Glenn Greenwald, or Russell Brand?
And that’s essentially why we watch and listen to these voices and why they even exist in the first place. It’s why they are necessary. They’re filling a void. The very existence of that void represents an egregious failure. It shouldn’t be there. The mainstream news media should be telling the stories we see every day on the independents. But, almost invariably, it is only on indie media that such stories are brought before the public.
I’m just going to leave that thought out there with the hope that it will continue to resonate for the remainder of this piece.
One such story, likely the most important story any journalist alive at this historic moment will ever cover, is the almost exclusively journalistic pursuit of the truth about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
I say almost because there are efforts being made in the United States Senate by the Republican minority. But heretofore it’s really been only independent journalists, along with a smattering of scientific researchers, doggedly working their way through documentary evidence, that has brought us closer than we’ve ever been to knowing how a novel coronavirus first infected humans in Wuhan, China, a truly cataclysmic event that led to millions of lives being lost around the world.
Out in that very real world, millions died from the virus, leaving behind tens of millions more permanently traumatized by what happened to their families over the last four years. But it is my observation, potentially flawed as it may be, that we’re not hearing from those people. Their tragic first-hand coronavirus stories are not, as far as I can tell, being widely shared with the public.
So it is my most sincere hope for this particular piece that I’m able to impress upon the devoted journalists and scientists pursuing the lab leak story, and anyone else for that matter, that they should look at the continuing public conversation about the lab leak and really all things relating to the pandemic and notice that there is one thing glaringly absent from the conversation: That would be the voices of those who have actually lost family to the coronavirus, their stories, their tragic details, giving first-hand accounts of the trauma visited upon them and their loved ones by this most awful, and most likely man-made, human catastrophe.
Almost two weeks ago I posted a piece here on Substack telling of one such family’s experience with COVID. It was the story of my own wife’s family; her brothers and sisters as well as one nephew.
But the piece I published, ‘Let the Inquisition Begin’ isn’t just a story of COVID hitting some people, it’s a story of COVID hitting certain people, a certain type and class of Americans who aren’t really on the radar of either the prestige legacy media or even the indie voices who appear to share with their mainstream counterparts an economic and educational background that stands very far apart from the kind of people who typically live in the regions of the country where my wife, her family, and I all come from.
My piece is the story of what happened when a lab-engineered supervirus hit one Western Pennsylvania family. And, as such, it’s also very much a story about COVID hitting a family in the context of that family’s socio-economic positioning in America and, also, to their tragic detriment, their place on the world stage of events.
How our family reacted to everyone suddenly coming down with COVID maybe speaks to how so many Americans reacted to coming down with COVID and why there was a disproportionate amount of more severe cases and deaths the further down in class victims of the virus happened to be.
But my piece is also a story of the many working-class eccentricities of Americans living outside the coastal enclaves of the highly educated and generationally affluent and how those eccentricities played into the outcomes that were more likely to be experienced by such Americans.
Interesting stuff, no? They used to call these human-interest stories. I’m not sure if they still do. They’ve been an essential part of the journalistic tradition forever. They bring often tragic personal stories home to readers in such ways that people can more easily relate to. They have an emotional impact that mere factual reporting most often doesn’t.
These are all things that are contained in my piece. Some of it is overtly addressed and some of it is written between the lines. And some is probably just baked into my writing without me even knowing it due to my voice being that of a person who comes from that very same background. These are the things that make my piece important and, as incredible as this seems to me with upwards of 10 million dead worldwide, more than just a little bit rare at this moment.
But these are the kinds of things I would be talking about, if anyone in the media was actually talking to me about my piece.
Today, whenever someone is unjustly killed, murdered in a criminal act, or by an act of negligence, or by accidents that just shouldn’t have happened, even just one single human being, we might hear about that death on the news for years. Then that single solitary death might be deemed a historically important event and be recorded as such and thus live forever as a political touchstone.
The lead story on one of the 10 PM news broadcasts here in LA the week prior to me publishing my piece was of demonstrations calling for justice in the absolutely unacceptable police shooting of a Trader Joe’s worker that happened after a gunman entered the store in which she was working. It was a terrible and unnecessary taking of a much-loved young woman’s life. But it happened five years ago. Just one death. And yet here it was opening the 10 PM news broadcast in Los Angeles five years later.
And that’s fine. It really is. But the thing is, in contrast, we’re not hearing at all from families who suffered the worst outcomes of a pandemic that very well might have killed upwards of 10 million people worldwide. Are we? My sincere answer to that question is that we are not, but if I’m wrong about that please, someone, show me those stories.
There’s no question that a major factor in the dearth of stories coming from families who suffered the worst outcomes during the pandemic is that the general public, by and large, especially the part of the public that isn’t watching independent media on YouTube or reading Substack newsletters, is unaware of how convincing the evidence has become that the virus was the result of both gain of function research and an accidental lab leak.
And even though a recent poll shows that two thirds of the American public believe a lab leak to be the most likely cause of the coronavirus pandemic, we’re still a long way from anything that looks like a firm confirmation of that likelihood being delivered to and processed for what it is by the citizens of this country and the rest of the world.
So if a significant percentage of Americans are still ambivalent about the origin of the virus, if there’s no breaking news confirmation of the lab leak theory on their broadcast network television screens, something that appears unlikely under any foreseeable circumstances, and they’re looking at the pandemic as a terrible, once in a century act of nature, then I will admit there’s not going to be much of a market for stories of people’s families getting sick with what the mainstream media has consistently and quite rigidly maintained was a completely naturally occurring virus.
It’s only the looming possibility of COVID-19 having come from dangerous scientific research and a disastrous accidental lab leak that supercharges the millions of tragic individual stories that can be told from around the world of the destruction of lives that occurred as a result of government funded scientific research gone horribly wrong.
Thus the piece on my wife’s family’s devastating encounter with the coronavirus has turned into almost an unintentional scientific experiment of its own. Where does this story go? How far? Does it just die on my Substack page with pretty much no one having read it? It seems at this point that that’s where things are going. Or will my wife’s family’s story be carried to a wider audience?
Are any of the conversations happening around these matters even now being carried to wider audiences? I’m referring to the daily coverage and analysis on indie media of the many COVID controversies over vaccines, lockdowns, and, of course, the highly polarizing journalistic pursuit of the true origins of the virus.
It seems to me that all of these subjects and the discussions surrounding them are, at this point, occurring only between a few thousand people, if that, largely on social or new media platforms that the vast majority of the human race doesn’t interact with.
How do we get these stories in front of a wider audience? What happens if we are unable to? At what point do even people with powerful voices and important stories to tell simply give up?
I find myself grappling with those questions a lot lately. If virtually no one is reading my pieces, if they’re not even being shared by the like-minded, how much longer will I continue to do this?
At this point it would seem to me that everyone is part of the control mechanisms of who gets heard in society. Not just the government or social media platforms overtly trying to limit and control free speech. It’s even fellow travelers. It’s even those working in the areas of uncovering the truths about the pandemic and those directly fighting the government and corporate efforts to censor the voices of the American people.
Everyone is now a part of the determining of whose voices are heard in society. This is now an unavoidable modern-day reality that’s part of the inherent feature set of the mostly social media platforms we’re all using to interact with each other.
As of this writing, it looks like 144 people have read my Inquisition piece here on Substack.
Some of the more important voices on this platform have hundreds of thousands of subscribers and collectively millions of followers on Twitter. Just one retweet from any of the indie media accounts I tagged when I first published my piece almost two weeks ago and thousands would have already read the story of what happened to my wife’s family.
Everything that the independent media is doing on the subject of the COVID-19 lab leak story and most every other subject they cover is about telling people what happened. That’s what they do. And I’m sure, that by telling people what happened, they’re hoping that people will then demand better from those in power.
What the independent media is all about is getting a response from the public. Is it not?
I’m certainly no different. I’m not writing pieces on Substack for my own enjoyment. I’m writing them because I want them to be read, I want my voice to be heard, and I want to have an impact on the issues that I believe matter most to the American public. I’m that old dude.
And from what I can see, I’m no different, in that respect, than those who make up the independent media. I think we’re all trying to accomplish the same things.
The quality of work and analysis coming from this relatively tiny group of individuals who make up the independent left media is I believe unmatched in my lifetime. In comparison, I’m just a grumpy voice coming from the back row where I belong. But all of our voices are badly needed right now, maybe like never before in the history of this country.
I don’t worry about the sincerity and commitment of the independent media voices I follow and support. It does however seem to me to be a bit of a clubby closed group with a lot of people competing for the attention of a limited segment of the public and any rewards that might bring.
I would strongly suggest to those who make up the independent media that they should more readily embrace voices coming from the general public who make the kinds of serious efforts I’ve made as well as so many others.
They must be seeking an impassioned response from the public as they produce their badly needed journalistic work. Things only change when there is such a response from the public. My pieces here on Substack are a part of that response.
Please help make sure that our voices from the back row are being heard, too.
The first we heard of sickness back home was mid-November 2021. My wife’s youngest brother, Anthony, an associate English professor at Robert Morris University, was having GI issues. Persistent diarrhea to be exact. Then the entire family still living in our hometown of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania had what seemed to be bad colds, then fevers.
Bernadette is one of eight siblings: four brothers and four sisters. We’re in Los Angeles. Another sister is in Florida. The other six, along with her youngest sister’s husband and 26-year-old son, lived in three households in the Pittsburgh area. That makes eight close family members in all living in western PA.
Like a pair of California cliches, we got on Amazon and ordered for Anthony a Chinese herb we’ve taken in the past for digestive problems. He’d been the one relaying information to us here in LA and it wasn’t long before updates on the three brothers living together under one roof in the Plan 12 section of Aliquippa became less frequent but increasingly worrisome. My wife came back to LA in late March 2022 after her first trip home to Pittsburgh since COVID struck her family. She brought back the Chinese herb we’d ordered on Amazon four months earlier. It was unopened.
Throughout the pandemic, most Americans were confused about what exactly to do should they fall ill with COVID. From the first large wave of outbreaks in the US in the late spring of 2020, when hospitals were at or near their capacities due to emergency rooms being flooded with people sick from the novel coronavirus, the official stance centered largely on folks contacting their personal physicians. It seemed from there the advice of doctors was mostly to isolate at home and to not go to a hospital until the onset of significant difficulty breathing.
Of course, many Americans don’t have a family doctor. This inconvenient wrinkle in the American healthcare system would only compound the potential missteps for so many who happened to be suffering a sudden and potentially deadly illness. This certainly played a role in what happened to my wife’s family. So for them, and I’m sure so many others, the confusion about what to do should someone fall ill with COVID, something that persists to this day I would suggest, combined with the realities of the tenuous relationships so many Americans have with their own nation’s health care systems, all but guaranteed countless unnecessarily bad outcomes.
The part of Pennsylvania where we come from, sitting near the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, is in the heart of what was once America’s rust belt. Despite being just west of Pittsburgh, with its great universities and thriving downtown, Aliquippa and the surrounding communities, like most of the areas outside of the city, have never really recovered from the decline of the American steel industry.
So take that national confusion about what to do in the event that you or someone you know should come down with COVID and drop it deep into what’s left of a tough industrial working-class mindset. People are stubborn and apprehensive of even generating an ambulance bill, let alone what might come later in the mail from a trip to the ER. Mistakes will be made. None of the five living in our hometown had a primary care physician and there was a real resistance to dialing 911 in all three households.
When we were able to get through to Anthony, he was often barely able to speak. One evening he told us his next oldest brother, John, was lying half off his bed, semi-conscious. Anthony himself was too weak to check on his oldest brother, “Winnie,” a tough 73-year-old Vietnam vet who was now bedridden in another part of the house.
Across town from Anthony and his two older brothers, in the DiMattia section of Aliquippa, Mickey, the oldest sister at 70, was sick but able to move around her house and answer the phone. But her younger brother, Jay, 67, who’d moved in with her about a dozen years earlier, hadn’t been out of bed in more than a week.
Anthony and John are 58 and 60 years old respectively. They are referred to in the family as “the boys.” I’m 65 and I’ve known them since they were 10 and 12 years old. By now everyone fully suspects that this is COVID. Text messages from Anthony told us that things were only getting worse where he was in Plan 12 with his two older brothers. So the day after Thanksgiving we called my wife’s youngest sister, Basie, who lives about 25 miles away on the outskirts of Pittsburgh and told her that the two youngest boys needed to go to the hospital.
This led to a moment when the unforgiving biological realities of the coronavirus would collide with the uncertainty and suspicions of strong-willed people who had been, up to that very moment, able to live most of their long lives virtually outside of the American healthcare system.
Basie and her husband Keith were going to make the half-hour drive down to Aliquippa. So the conversation from here in LA went something like this:
Don’t go into the house. Call 911 and watch the EMTs put the boys in the ambulances and then go home. The hospital will admit them. Whatever you do, don’t go into that house and don’t drive the boys to the hospital yourselves. Call 911.
And this is how we left it. The boys would be getting proper medical care, and that’s all we needed to happen at that time.
But Basie was sure she’d already had COVID back in the spring of 2020. She’d had some minor symptoms consistent with COVID and had lost her sense of smell and taste for weeks. She felt that she had immunity to the virus. Keith also thought that he’d been exposed to COVID at work and could count on having some immunity. And there was that hesitancy to call 911 and incur likely hefty ambulance bills. So the pair did go into the house in Plan 12 and proceeded to drive Anthony and John themselves to the ER at UPMC-Heritage in Beaver, Pa.
This was Friday evening, November 26.
It’s stunning for us to think about it now, but until this very moment in November of 2021, with the US death toll slowly nearing 800K, neither of us here in California had known a single person who’d had COVID. And after what had been a merciful respite from the many waves of coronavirus here in LA throughout the summer, we felt safe enough in November, with about 60K other people, to go to a Sunday Night Steelers-Chargers football game at SoFi Stadium.
There’s not a personal story about someone’s tragic experience with COVID that’s likely to hold the average American’s attention for long at this point. We’re all just so over this horrific era in human history. And yet the politicization of the pandemic, on all of its many fronts, from masking and lockdowns to the wars over vaccine mandates and harmful side effects of the jab, seems to grow more passionately divisive every day and will likely be with us long after the last COVID variant disappears over the horizon.
In the ER the boys sat waiting for hours before being taken back to an examination room where they tested positive for COVID. They were told that their vital signs were good and that it was too many days into their infection for them to receive colloidal antibody treatment. They were given Tylenol and sent home. During the long wait at the ER, Keith had taken Basie home. He then drove the boys back to their house in Aliquippa.
When we learned that the boys had been sent home from the hospital we were devastated. The family was well into their second week of what we now knew to be COVID and were only getting sicker. By that time, in late 2021, we thought Delta was the most likely variant the family was suffering with and so we knew the danger they were in. These were days of agony for my wife.
A week after the boys were sent home from the ER, Bernadette walked into our apartment from work with her cell phone to her ear. She was talking with Mickey, her oldest sister. The pitch of Bernadette’s voice froze me in my seat and on the other end Mickey was speaking so loudly I could hear every word she was saying from across the room. Jay’s car hadn’t been started in weeks and he’d gotten out of bed, dressed, and gone outside to move it from the street into the driveway. But that was 45 minutes ago and now, Mickey said, he was just sitting there, behind the wheel.
I’d experienced something like this before in my life. What I always remember about that time is that it didn’t really seem like what it was. And if it wasn’t for what I knew was happening back in Pennsylvania at this moment, and the stress in my wife’s voice when she came through the front door, I honestly wouldn’t have been paying much attention to what was being said between these two sisters.
“Tell her to go outside and check on him.” I remember how my words startled my wife. It was as if me simply telling her to tell Mickey to go out and do this most obvious thing had pushed a button that instantly brought Bernadette’s worst fears to the surface. The reality was a most devastating realization of those fears.
Jay had passed away sitting in the driver’s seat of his car. You never forget these moments in your life. The details of a family tragedy will always burn themselves into your memory. For me it was my wife shouting into the phone over and over again, “He’s dead?” clearly begging for it not to be true. And then her wailing.
This was a family of eight siblings who’d reached, on average, their mid-sixties without ever having lost anyone. Jay’s death was simply unbelievable to all of us.
Jay had possessed such a brilliant mind that when we were young I remember always being intimidated in his presence. I will never, in all my life, read as many books as Jay consumed in any one single year of his. He was incredibly soft-spoken but he was the kind of person you stepped up to with your own intelligence. What I remember most about every conversation I ever had with him was the questions which so often stumped me but also what an intense and respectful listener he was. I so wish now that I’d spent more of the last 37 years I’ve been in LA back home talking with him and learning from him.
But we could hardly focus on grieving for Jay. We couldn’t simply do what families do when a loved one passes and try to process our loss. This was COVID-19 and our eyes were wide open. Jay was 67 years old but he was in solid physical condition. He took vitamins by the handful. He walked every day, was a frequent hiker and, for most of his life, a weightlifter. Other than Anthony, he was certainly the next most physically fit member of the family. He had no comorbidities and no health issues at all that the family was aware of and yet COVID had killed him in a little over two weeks. Across town, Anthony, John, and Winnie were likewise three weeks into a virus that so often only begins to do its worst to the human body as infections move beyond the second week. Bernadette was now terrified that she would lose even more family to the virus.
My wife, her sisters, Keith, and I discussed whether we should tell the boys that Jay had passed. We all agreed that it wasn’t the right time, as we believed that the three were themselves still very much in a fight for their lives. So when Bernadette talked with Anthony the next day and he asked how Jay was doing, she told him that Jay was in the hospital. His response will stay with her always, “That’s where I should be.”
The next day, Basie and Keith had just left the boys in Aliquippa and called us on their way home. We were told it was a beautiful Saturday in Pittsburgh. I remember my wife and I were driving somewhere in Santa Monica to get dinner and we four were on speaker phone in the car. As far as they could tell the three brothers’ conditions hadn’t worsened and we all took that as good news. I think after such a terrible loss we needed one moment and just one phone conversation that could be characterized as hopeful. But at the end of our conversation Basie added that she had a scratchy throat and felt like she was catching a cold.
So, if you’re wondering, by now, as everyone reading this must surely be, was anyone in this family vaccinated? The answer is no. No one was vaccinated. There was a very strong anti-vaccine sentiment among the girls in the family that, believe it or not, persists to this day. The boys, however, were far less political and had seemed more or less ambivalent about getting vaccinated against COVID. But, ultimately, none of the four brothers were vaccinated.
Three Ambulances, Three Hospitals
The next day Keith drove down to Aliquippa alone to check on the boys as Basie had gotten sicker overnight. Moments after stepping into the house in Plan 12 and without even looking in on the other two brothers, Keith was on the phone with 911. Anthony, a marvelously fit bicyclist and hiker, and a notoriously healthy eater, was unresponsive, apparently conscious but staring blankly and unable to move or speak. Keith immediately suspected that he’d had a stroke.
Each of the three brothers were taken to different hospitals. Winnie, the Vietnam vet, was taken to the VA hospital in Pittsburgh. He would be there for almost a month as he was treated for a blood clot on his lung. John, who’d been so weak that he was unable to speak on the phone since the entire ordeal began, was taken to UPMC Sewickley Valley Hospital with COVID pneumonia where he would stay for three weeks before being transferred to an extended care facility for an extra month to recover his strength.
Anthony was life-flighted to Presbyterian, the stellar University of Pittsburgh adjacent medical center in the Oakland section of the city. The main threat to his survival those first weeks he was at Presby was still very much COVID-19. His oxygen levels were so low that the next step would have been putting him on a ventilator. My wife and I here in California were now the family contacts making medical decisions for Anthony. There was a conversation with one of the incredibly kind doctors taking care of him. I remember he used the word devastating to describe the stroke Anthony had suffered. He said it three times.
The takeaway from the discussion was that given the severity of Anthony’s stroke and the difficulties he would have simply recovering from that level of brain injury, putting him on a ventilator for an indeterminable period of time was something that neither the family nor the doctor felt would have been the best decision for Anthony.
Fortunately, it never came to that. Slowly, the grip that COVID-19 had on Anthony’s respiratory system eased. Within a month, he would be transferred to UPMC Montefiore which specializes in rehabilitation. But Anthony’s condition was not suitable for the level of rehabilitation therapies offered there so we were immediately tasked with finding a skilled nursing facility that had room for him and, it was hoped, one with a good track record for rehabilitating stroke victims.
Deciding on where Anthony should go led to one of those cards-on-the-table moments that no family ever wants to face. My wife and I were out walking on Canon Drive on a bright January morning. Her cell phone rings. It’s a patient relations rep at Montefiore following up on what extended care facilities in the Pittsburgh area might work best for Anthony. We step into the doorway of a closed shop and put her on speaker phone. But in order to give informed input on where we would like Anthony to be sent, we now have to have, finally, that no-illusions discussion establishing exactly what his condition is, what it really means, and what his prospects are.
There’s not much talk about sending Anthony somewhere where he’s going to get specialized physical rehab, he’s far from being a candidate for that. He’s paralyzed, of course, on his right side but they have to keep him restrained because he’s not mentally aware enough to avoid interfering with the IV and feeding tube with the mobility he still has on his left side. These graphic realities of her youngest brother’s condition move across my wife’s face like a shadow. She would tell me later that until that moment, she’d had hope. She’d really thought Anthony was going to get better.
While all of this was happening, back in Oakdale, just outside of Pittsburgh, Basie had continued to worsen. At one point her son would find her unresponsive in the bathroom. When the ambulance took her away, her husband was too sick himself to accompany his wife to the hospital. Basie would spend the better part of three weeks in the hospital but would ultimately pull through without any long-term complications. Keith would quickly recover from his COVID infection.
Their slim 26-year-old son, however, would also come down with the virus, and he would develop a blood clot, something that by all accounts was very rare in younger COVID patients. But thankfully, he too would recover within a few weeks.
Jay’s official cause of death was recorded as a pulmonary embolism, a blood clot in the lung, that came as he and his three brothers were into their third week of being bedridden with COVID. But COVID isn’t mentioned on his death certificate. Anthony’s stroke was caused by a blood clot in the brain. Winnie had a blood clot in his lung. Basie’s biological son developed a blood clot. All within one month’s time. None of these people had been vaccinated. All had COVID. None had received any COVID treatments before presenting with blood clots or the devastating effects of blood clots. None of them were ever placed on a ventilator.
We know that what happened to my wife’s family was unusual. Eight sick with COVID. Six of those eight, very ill. Total time spent in hospital by the family was close to four months. Four blood clots. One devastating stroke that ruined a 58-year-old’s life forever. And one tragic death. Yes, this was unusual. But it wasn’t unheard of during COVID. And it wasn’t anywhere close to being the worst outcome suffered by an American family during the pandemic.
A Call For Justice
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we were told repeatedly to trust the science. And more than anyone on the face of the earth, the person most representative of the science that Americans were being told to trust was Dr. Anthony Fauci. But now we see that Dr. Fauci may have knowingly circumvented the 2014 directive of former President Barack Obama to pause any further gain of function research on harmful viruses within the American scientific research community.
We have also recently learned that Dr. Fauci may have influenced the creation of a paper entitled The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2 that sought to divert attention away from the idea that the novel coronavirus had been engineered by research scientists in the Wuhan Institute of Virology working off a grant that had come from Fauci’s own National Institute of Health.
If this is true it likely led to a scenario never before seen in human history: A pandemic, actively killing millions around the world, caused by a virus that was created in a laboratory through research that was both outlawed by the government of the United States, while at the same time it was being sanctioned and funded by decision makers at the highest levels of that very same government’s public health apparatus. And the highest-ranking health official of all, someone we now know to have been administratively connected to the risky research itself as well as the deadly lab-leaked pathogen it created, was the most prominently displayed figure on our television screens as the representative of the science that we were being told to trust.
People have called for something akin to the Nuremberg trials to pursue justice in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Certainly, some form of international world court would be justified and appropriate in the wake of the global death and societal destruction caused by what appears now to have been scientific research gone terribly wrong. Families and victims of what happened over the last four years should be far more than simply present at any such proceedings as mere voices on the sidelines. People who have lost loved ones must have the most prominent of voices in any official proceeding that seeks justice for this most disastrous course of human events in any of our lifetimes.
The court must be unimpeachable in the eyes of the public the world over and the punishments it hands down must be commensurate with the unprecedented loss of life that resulted from both the failures of scientific negligence as well as the intentional bureaucratic acts that paved the way for this human catastrophe. Justice must be served for the tens of millions whose lives were taken if we are to ever trust science again.
Likewise, anyone who participated in a cover up of evidence pointing to a scientifically engineered super-virus and the potential of that virus escaping from the Wuhan Institute of Virology must also face the most severe of punishments.
Just think of what could have been done had we known precisely where and how the virus originated back in the early days of the pandemic. We could have had the most pinpoint focused contact tracing possible enabling us to quarantine only those who had actually been in direct contact with the virus instead of locking down the entire human race for nearly two years. And it is entirely possible that we could have isolated SARS-CoV-2 in one region of the world and avoided completely the deadliest global pandemic in over 100 years.
Aftermath
My wife has lived in LA for 35 years and almost every one of those years, with the exception of 2020, she’s flown home at least three times a year to be with her brothers and sisters. Her love for her family is so strong that it would surely be seen as irrational by those who suggest severing ties with family members who refused to be vaccinated.
In the 16 months since her first trip back after COVID struck her family she’s gone home to Pittsburgh ten times. She spends most of her time there now with her brother Anthony in the skilled nursing facility where he has been for the last year and a half. Bernadette always believed that Anthony would get better, and at the end of the day nothing she could have been told by those attending to her brother would have changed her mind.
Anthony was a physical specimen throughout his pre-COVID life. He was naturally muscular even as a teenager and was devoted to keeping himself fit. Many years ago, I pointed out to Bernadette how similar in physique, facial appearance and mannerisms her youngest brother was to a young Lebron James. (Except for Anthony being 5’9” and Italian.) And just like that, a lifelong Lebron James fan was born. We all believe that had Anthony not been in the condition he was in he would not have survived COVID.
My wife’s love and devotion to her brother has lifted his spirits and the many hours she’s spent with him has made a pronounced impact on his progress. Her familial instincts and her faith that Anthony would get better have been proven correct. He has gotten better. He smiles, laughs, and tells us that he’s happy. He can now even stand up on his own and walk short distances.
But gone is the person he used to be.
Yes, Anthony can speak. And his mind will sometimes latch onto a big word. But they are only shards of thoughts that don’t really make much sense and are, to his family, only faint reminders of the fierce intelligence that Anthony once possessed. He cannot read. He cannot answer questions. He cannot seem to formulate his thoughts. Gone is the person who spoke and wrote Russian and spoke French and Kazakh fluently. Gone is the person who taught English for 15 years in Moscow and Kazakhstan for the United States Information Service and Georgetown University as a Senior English Teaching Fellow. Gone is the intellectual that Anthony once was.
I speak now for him and Jay and for my wife and her family and I suspect millions of families around the world when I say that someone has to pay for this.
A most sincere and deeply felt thank you goes out to all of the independent media voices and journalists for helping, by way of their relentless hard work and dogged professionalism, to provide an appropriate and long-awaited resolution to this piece which was started over a year and half ago. Those journalists have kept this story alive and brought us to this point where we have never been closer to finding out the truth about the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. But let this moment be only the beginning of a global effort by humanity to achieve justice for what has occurred over the last four years.
Scrolling through the articles on the NYTimes app it was impossible to find the newspaper of record’s coverage of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement that he will be seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2024. There’s a very good reason for that. It wasn’t there. A piece reporting on the fact that a member of the nation’s most storied political family was once again running for president didn’t rate the same visibility on the Times’ app as features with titles like “What Would You Do for a Taylor Swift Sweatshirt?” and “An A.I. Hit of Fake ‘Drake’ and ‘The Weeknd’ Rattles the Music World.”
It wasn’t until I came across a tweet on my Twitter app that I was led to the Times’ article on Kennedy’s announcement and the event that was held at a ballroom in Boston’s Park Plaza Hotel.
I’d woken up to the speech. Literally. When I groggily picked up my phone and clicked on Twitter I saw the event being broadcast (not sure broadcast is the right word for it) on Twitter Spaces and caught the entire speech, with the exception of a few momentary glitches, from start to finish.
To say that the Times’ piece, written by Trip Gabriel, the newspaper’s former editor of the Sunday paper’s “Styles” section, did not reflect the speech I’d heard RFK Jr. deliver would be an understatement worthy of, well, the New York Times’ own penchant for slanting the news and burying important story angles behind walls of misinformation. Gabriel dismissed the event as being a gathering of those with a “shared skepticism about vaccines and the pharmaceutical industry.”
“Mr. Kennedy is the latest in a history of fringe presidential aspirants from both parties who run to bring attention to a cause, or to themselves.”
That statement is as stunningly off key and out of tempo with the era we’re living in as anything I’ve ever read in the Times. The journalist who revitalized the paper’s Sunday Style section “into a multifaceted presentation of fashion, lifestyle, entertainment and celebrity news” continues:
“For Mr. Kennedy, that cause is vaccine skepticism… at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, he sought to undermine public trust in vaccines.”
Gabriel states that “Both Facebook and Instagram took down accounts of a group he [Kennedy] runs for spreading medical misinformation.”
First off, it’s hard to read the perspective presented by Mr. Gabriel and reconcile it with the calendar. It’s now 2023. Skepticism of Covid-19 vaccines is a widespread feature of the American political landscape.
Skepticism of Covid-19 vaccines exists primarily because of the myriad instances of the American people being presented with false and misleading TRUE AND ACTUAL medical misinformation, fed to us by our government, its national health care apparatus, and the establishment news media. Whether it was about efficacy or the prevention of transmission of the virus, medical misinformation told to the public about the vaccines was a feature and not a bug throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
There’s so many instances of this happening that I’m not going to bother detailing them. That’s not what this piece of mine is about. It’s also completely unnecessary. If you’re reading this you already know how very often something we were told about the Covid-19 vaccines through official government medical channels here in the US turned out to be incorrect.
Gabriel also characterized RFK Jr.’s speech as “rambling.” He highlighted the fact that many of Kennedy’s own family members don’t agree with his positions on vaccines. He quotes Bob Shrum, who claims, according to the reporting here that, “Kennedy’s attacks on Dr. Anthony S. Fauci and the federal government’s top medical and scientific agencies would have infuriated his uncle. [deceased former Massachusetts senator and presidential candidate Ted Kennedy]
This is essentially what the New York Times wants the public’s takeaway to be from its news reporting on the candidacy declaration and near two-hour content-rich speech by the nephew of one assassinated president and the son of an assassinated candidate for the same high office.
Stick a pin in the assassination angle for a moment.
So I’ve already said that this Times piece reporting on Kennedy’s officially announcing his seeking the presidency in 2024 did not reflect the speech I heard nor the event that I witnessed on admittedly shaky video feeds coming out of Boston. The speech I heard was brilliant. It was not rambling. It was densely filled with the Kennedy intelligence, the Kennedy grace, the self-deprecation, the humility, the humor, the vision, the honesty and the TRUTH, and the exact version of patriotic inspiration that this country is so desperate for. And, make no mistake, Kennedy’s speech demonstrated innately brilliant political instincts. (We’ll talk more about this here on The Lost Democrat very soon.)
OF COURSE this speech was not broadcast live on CNN, MSNBC, or any other national TV news network. Because if it had been carried live on any of the mainstream media outlets, Robert F. Kennedy would already be the odds-on favorite to be the next president of the United States. Because this speech was something the American people have been starving for for generations. It was that good. It was a tonic reminder of all that we wish we could be as a nation and certainly as a Democratic Party that is supposed to represent the people of this country.
Kennedy appeared to be speaking without a teleprompter. Off the top of his head. Yet the speech had so many signature quote lines that it could and will, I’m sure, be mined for things he might say at his inaugural, should he get that far. Also, the stories he told, so many stories, graphically revealing just how qualified and experienced he actually is to be president and how ready he is to replace the low-grade quality of politicians we’ve been electing to high office now for most of the last two decades.
Kennedy spoke the truth and nothing but the truth for almost two hours. One highlight that stood out to me was his passionate insistence that the current government of the United States has, not just abandoned adherence to the Constitution, but is actively working to undermine it and the protections it affords the citizens of this country. But, Kennedy asserted, “The Constitution was built for hard times.”
Know this. The Times piece on Kennedy’s big announcement is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in Boston yesterday. It’s author lies about the speech RFK Jr. so eloquently delivered. The comments to the article, so few being evidence of the low online visibility of the piece on the newspaper’s website and app, reflect the opinion of those who read this article but who certainly did not seek out or listen to the actual speech for themselves.
Kathleen from San Luis Obispo writes: “This is just sad. His father and uncle ran for president with soaring rhetoric–not two-hour rambling speeches–and a vision of America as a beacon of hope for the world.
Had Kathleen actually heard RFK Jr.’s speech, she would have known that her words were an exact characterization of what that speech contained.
Brooke’s Mama from NYS wrote: “I hope the Kennedy family arranges an intervention soon. It’s a sad situation when someone has gone off the rails so publicly.”
One comment, however, was truly problematic. No one needs to be reminded of the fate of President John F. Kennedy or his brother Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Their assassinations in the 1960s turned this country upside down and we’ve never fully recovered from those deadly interventions in our elective destiny. But despite the impact those tragedies have had on the country, the world, and certainly the Kennedy family, the New York Times comment moderators saw fit to allow a Mr. Mike from NY to offer this suggestion regarding Bobby Kennedy’s son:
“Maybe he should share the fate of his betters.”





(The following is the first piece from my new Substack newsletter #MeToo CONFIDENTIAL which I’m posting here on 50lux because I’m currently in the mood for some system redundancy. Hope you all enjoy and please forgive me if this isn’t your cup of tea or, if it is, bring your self over to metoo.substack.com and enjoy your tea there with me!)
As the long overdue Summer of 2021 Time’s Up reckoning continues with CEO Tina Tchen deservedly following the embattled organization’s board chair Roberta Kaplan down Resignation Lane, I’d like to start off my very first #MeToo CONFIDENTIAL Substack newsletter with something I wrote over two and a half years ago.
“The Great Pretenders
The entertainment industry’s awards season has arrived in earnest and the January 6th Golden Globes brought up some concerns I’ve had since last year’s telecast.
The first is that Hollywood hates #MeToo and the pretty pony it rode in on. The second is that Time’s Up was and is Hollywood’s attempt to create its own social justice hashtag phenomenon, once again coming from its own ranks, but this time a viral movement the industry can both take credit for and, more importantly, control entirely by limiting its focus.
Yes it must be said. Time’s Up accomplishes great things connecting victims of workplace sexual misconduct with legal representation around the country. But that’s really the point of Time’s Up. The “around the country” part. Meaning far from Hollywood, where Time’s Up was founded with entertainment industry money by entertainment industry lawyers.
Think of Time’s Up as Hollywood’s carbon tax. Do undeniably good works in Kentucky and Louisiana to garner good will from women’s groups and the public in order to deflect scrutiny from its own industry where historically rampant workplace sexual misconduct ignited the #MeToo revolution in 2017.
It’s my opinion that Time’s Up represents a small optically correct self-serving pseudo-step in the right direction that puts many sincere and committed women in a position of being used by the prevailing powers of their various industries to appropriate the energy and hunger for change that gave birth to and drives the #MeToo movement.
How else do you explain the Golden Globes telecast? How do you explain an industry that has, over and over again down through the decades, memorialized most every conscience-wrenching moment in the history of our nation’s onward march towards a more civil and just society, choosing to forego any mention at all of #MeToo, what the Los Angeles Times called the ‘most significant’ social justice movement in modern history?
How do you explain a global phenomenon exploding off the Twitter account of one of Hollywood’s own, actress Alyssa Milano, taking the world into what has been referred to as the #MeToo era, and then juxtapose that with the person who triggered it all sitting quietly in the ballroom of the Beverly Hilton, given not a moment nor a mention on stage, her contribution to the forward progress of the entire species, as well as her presence in the industry she has worked in her entire life, all, completely and abjectly, ignored?
Alyssa Milano has advocated for the Equal Rights Amendment in the halls of congress and made her activist presence known by placing herself before cameras on a host of bedrock liberal issues from animal rights to gun control reform to more humane treatment of migrants at the border as well as being a leading voice in the push back against any perceived encroachment on the public’s right to vote.
She speaks out daily from her Twitter account and in public appearances and has been recognized for her efforts by being honored by organizations such as the ACLU and GLAAD. A brief bio accompanying her recent op-ed in the Washington Post states that Ms. Milano is “the founder of #NoRA, focused on counteracting the influence of the gun lobby in the American political system.”
But it was #MeToo that placed the former child star in the pages of TIME Magazine along with the other famous faces who came forward before, during, and after the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke in October of 2017.
And it was Ms. Milano’s tweeting of the idea that brought her, along with victims’ advocate Tarana Burke, to their present status as social justice icons at the forefront of a movement the impact of which will continue to grip the public conversation around sexual misconduct for years to come.
If Hollywood truly embraced #MeToo and what it represents in terms of progress for victims of sexual misconduct in workplaces everywhere and the effort to curtail a future wherein countless more victims will face the same abhorrent behaviors in pursuit of careers in its own industry, then one year out that industry would have certainly, at the very least, found time in a three-hour telecast to mention the person whose tweet and celebrity activism set off #MeToo.
At best we might have seen an appropriately emotional and uplifting video montage highlighting the social justice sea-change the #MeToo hashtag movement had brought worldwide and the role the now unstoppable member of its own acting/activist community played in using the celebrity Hollywood afforded her to help make it all happen.
But underestimating the willingness and the power of Hollywood to influence and control the #MeToo narrative and thus defend itself against the corrective efforts of something born from a desire to curtail sexual abuse in its own workplace is to overlook the greatest threat to #MeToo that it will likely ever face: The massive entertainment and media empire the hashtag phenomenon helped bring to a reckoning can easily absorb the principle voices of the movement and by doing so control both its focus and its targets.
So instead of any mention of #MeToo at the Golden Globes, what we saw were Time’s Up pins. And Alyssa Milano would be afforded only one brief instant on television as the camera cut to her sitting docile and unbothered in the audience, seemingly happy just to have been invited.
From the moment I first heard the words ‘Times Up’ on the stage at last year’s Golden Globes ceremony, I found the timing dubious and the wording and focus of the movement to be suspect. That something might be offered up as an alternative to #MeToo, however, and so quickly after the hashtag phenomenon’s explosion into a global conversation around sexual misconduct in Hollywood, was not a surprise to me at all.
Hollywood had no control over #MeToo and #MeToo was wreaking havoc on Hollywood. What the industry needed above all at that precise moment was a catchy hashtag movement of its own but one that was subject to its own influence. Hollywood has always been in the business of cultural appropriation. From political movements to the most important American roots music to teen trends in everything from dancing and new waves in street style, Hollywood’s creativity in turning such culturally important moments into massive profits is unprecedented in the annals of American business.”
(Yes, there was more to this piece and yes, you would want to see it. But no, I don’t want that kind of heat yet so I’ll stop right there.)
After #MeToo exploded in October of 2017, the rapidly approaching awards show season, beginning with the Golden Globes on January 6th, was Hollywood’s best chance to quickly rehabilitate its reputation with the public. They took the opportunity that very early January telecast afforded them and made damage control gold from it. It was a brilliant scheme, the imagery was perfect, and no entity in recorded human history is better at creating an image and selling it to the public than Hollywood.
I know now that I wasn’t alone in cringing every time I heard “Time’s Up” during that telecast. Maybe it was because I’d been anticipating that Hollywood would try to somehow offset #MeToo by finding a way to appropriate the public call for change the hashtag phenom had triggered. But I couldn’t have dreamed up anything as diabolically brilliant as Time’s Up. In one fell swoop Hollywood created a viral hashtag movement of its own, but one with which it could obscure its true motives beneath the subterfuge of also having established an organization of women lawyers who truly did good works on behalf of powerless sexual misconduct victims badly in need of legal representation.
Of course, we now know that that’s not all Time’s Up was doing. But, as it turns out, you really can only fool some of the people, some of the time. And you can only undermine the efforts of women to seek redress against sexual misconduct in their workplaces for so long before the patterns become clear and those very women would begin to expose the darker purposes of Time’s Up.
So Hollywood won great favor with women’s and victim advocacy groups for Time’s Up helping those in places far from Hollywood or anywhere else the most powerful abusers in America lurk. On that end they certainly kept up the payments on their carbon tax. But what would they be getting away with in return? What toxic behaviors by powerful men would be covered up and permitted to go on damaging the lives of women? What did Time’s Up not want anyone to see?
How would the dirty end of the carbon tax deal play out in the real lives of women who’d experienced sexual misconduct in entertainment industry workplaces or in the vast political ecosystems that we now know would be near and dear to the hearts of those behind Time’s Up, and the organization of entertainment industry lawyers and Democratic Party operatives who were making the decisions at Time’s Up Now and the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund?
Well, we’re hearing what that all looked like in the stories coming now from many sources, most famously Enough is Enough: An Open Letter from Survivors to TIME’S UP + National Women’s Law Center | by Alison Turkos | Aug, 2021 | Medium calling out Time’s Up for its many failings. The letter was co-signed by nearly 150 survivors including 17 obviously exasperated current and former Time’s Up clients and staffers.
The letter opens with the charge that Time’s Up has abandoned those it was supposed to be helping, saying the organization instead has been “working with our abusers in the shadows.” Of course it has.
“There is a consistent pattern of behavior where the decision-makers at TIME’S UP continue to align themselves with abusers at the expense of survivors. TIME’S UP should be ashamed.”
Later, the otherwise brilliant and brave letter makes this assertion.
“TIME’S UP and the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund were founded and funded to be visionary organizations meant to provide three-dimensional support to victims and survivors as we navigate the legal system and the public eye. TIME’S UP and TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund were built to advocate for those who make the bold decision to hold our abusers accountable.”
I’m sorry, Ms. Turkos, but that’s just not true. It’s my most firm belief that Time’s Up was founded for the reasons laid out in this piece by me here in 2021 and, as I’ve shown, my suspicions about the organization go back as far as the moment I first heard those two words on the 2018 Golden Globes stage.
I’m certainly not the only one who believes these things about the nefarious intent that inspired the creation of Time’s Up. You can be sure of that. And I don’t believe Time’s Up has lost its way. What I do believe is that thanks to you and the many women who are bravely standing up now telling of their experiences trying to find support and justice through Time’s Up, the duplicitous scam this organization always was is finally being exposed for what it is.
The first direct and damaging hit landed by the press on Time’s Up came back in April in The Daily Beast’s Insiders Say #MeToo Group Time’s Up Has Lost Its Way (thedailybeast.com) by Emily Shugerman. Ms. Shugerman’s article opened the Pandora’s box of what was actually going on at Time’s Up. (Now former) Time’s Up CEO Tina Tchen is quoted above the body of the article by a source as admitting in a staff meeting, “We have always been an organization of wealthy and powerful people,” Tchen said, according to the source. “That is what Time’s Up is.”
Well what does THAT look like, Tina? We might all have been wondering before we even began reading the piece. Shugerman does not waste our time, describing Tchen herself as having conducted a “whisper campaign” against the documentary film On The Record that detailed sexual assaults perpetrated by hip hop and fashion mogul Russell Simmons. Tchen is said to have told staffers that the producers of the film were “not good people.”
But Tchen might have hastened her own departure from the Time’s Up stage when she shared that sentiment with one of the absolutely last individuals on earth she should have, Drew Dixon, the music producer whose experiences with Simmons function as the documentary’s main story line.
“Tina Tchen said to me on the phone the night Oprah backed out of the film, ‘The filmmakers are bad people’ and when I disagreed with her she said, ‘You have to trust me on this,’” the survivor said. “She implied that Time’s Up would support me as a survivor, but only if I backed away from the film.”
The article adds the following note about the survivor quoted here, who has given permission for me to identify her as Ms. Dixon.
“The survivor spoke to The Daily Beast on the record, but later asked for her name to be withheld after a founding member of Time’s Up sent an email lashing out at her for participating in this story.”
(So let me add a note of my own here. Unless I’m given express permission to use a name I’m going to treat any survivor I allude to here on #MeToo CONFIDENTIAL as if they too might be a potential target of emails lashing out at them for having their names appear on my newsletter. And so for that reason I won’t be, by and large, using survivor’s names here. There will certainly be exceptions as I feel they are warranted such as in the case of very public persons or those who I have decided must be called out for any of the many problems associated with the current state of #MeToo. But if anyone recognizes themselves by way of their story being told here and wishes that their actual names should appear then please drop me a line and I’ll rewrite those sections to positively ID you.)
Caught Up
Last Saturday night, on Twitter, peddling her latest piece on the troubles at Time’s Up, New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor, who won a Pulitzer exposing Harvey Weinstein, the rapist whose decades long reign of terror in Hollywood was ended by the women he’d assaulted speaking out to Kantor and her partner Meghan Twohey, as well as The New Yorker’s Ronan Farrow, got her own reputation entangled in Time’s Up’s problems, partly for when she used a superlative to describe a statement by Time’s Up co-founder Shonda Rhimes regarding her organization’s current troubles. Kantor called Rhimes’s comment one of the most forceful quotes she’s ever published in her career as a journalist.
That tweet, and the glossing over tone of the article itself, angered many on Twitter.
So I’d like to end my first piece here on #MeToo CONFIDENTIAL with a superlative statement of my own for Ms. Kantor. Here it is.
From the moment it was conceived of in some industry law firm or top agency’s executive suite, to its disingenuous launching at the 2018 awards shows, right up until this very moment, there has NEVER been a more deliberate betrayal of a social justice movement than what Time’s Up perpetrated against the women in Hollywood, in politics, and doubtless elsewhere who tried to fight back against their powerful abusers by daring to come forward and simply say, #MeToo.
Postscript:
Make no mistake, the forced resignations of CEO Tina Tchen and board chair Roberta Kaplan from their leadership positions at Time’s Up is a great victory for women everywhere and survivors of sexual misconduct in particular. That it was a collective unified expression by survivors saying Enough is Enough that ultimately drove both Tchen and Kaplan out is a graphic demonstration of the true power that exists when large numbers of women, or anyone else, speaking as one, demand better from an organization that is supposed to be operating on their behalf.
This victory belongs to those women who rose up and demanded accountability and that there should be serious consequences for those responsible for their betrayal at Time’s Up.
But if anyone believes that the intrinsic nature of what Time’s Up is and the fundamental reasons it was founded are things that have or can be changed by simply replacing its current leadership, I would caution that such an outcome is extremely unlikely.
What is much more likely, in my opinion, is that those who continue to place their faith in Time’s Up will inevitably find themselves right back where they were just a few days ago with this organization, facing the same crushing disappointments as it continues to undermine survivors seeking support and justice by way of its promised assistance.
Because I don’t believe that Time’s Up was created for the purpose of doing what it purports itself to have been created to do. In fact, I believe the opposite. I believe that Time’s Up was created as a diversion from the infinitely more potent #MeToo movement. That its true purpose was to dazzle and distract the public and women’s rights advocates’ attentions alike away from #MeToo by accomplishing truly good works, far from its bases of power, for women who badly needed the legal help Time’s Up could provide them. But all while acting, as one survivor put it, as a spider’s web to attract and capture and ultimately frustrate others who turned to the organization seeking support and justice after facing abuse at the hands of the powerful and well connected.
These are the things I believe. But they only scratch at the surface of what I’m going to be writing about here on my new Substack newsletter.
Please subscribe if you don’t want to miss any future pieces by me and rest assured they will be arriving here and in your inboxes very soon.
Coming next week: The Great Pretenders Part II: Nexus of Evil
Doesn’t that sound like fun? You don’t want to miss it!
db
Next →














Apologies to Raymond Carver. Reposted from the early days of 50lux.com I think of the best stuff when I’m half asleep. It’s called hypnagogia and …
What We’re Talking About When We Talk About Light




























If you’re reading this then you too are participating in an experiment to see whether I can find happiness in this new completely changed version of WordPress. Let’s see how this works.
This is a repost of the very first real blog entry (after Hello World!) on this website back in 2012. I was in a very bad place at that time. My best friend was dying. I was not good with that. I was in one of those places where a person has no patience for the simpering superficial bullshit people tell each other mostly to make themselves feel better about themselves.
And although I feel strongly (always) about the message of this post, I didn’t repost it the last few Memorial Days. I was probably in a better mood. This year though, with Memorial Day coming so closely on the heels of more gut wrenching domestic tragedies, and given everything else I see on the streets and read in the newspaper, I’m once again in a dark and unforgiving mood about my country. So fuck it.
Robert Frank’s ‘The Americans’ exposed much of the truth about America. We might have looked at that work and been properly shamed and sought to make a course correction. But we didn’t do that. Anyway. Enjoy this holiday. Don’t thank our troops. Remember instead the dead ones, and their wives, and their children, and their mothers, and their fathers. And forgive me for encroaching into sanctimonious behavior with a self-righteous attitude. I have no room to talk. It’s taken me over half a century to finally wake up.
Memorial Day
Cookouts. Barbecue. Hot dogs and hamburgers. Beer. Friends and family. Unofficial start of summer. Hell yeah! That’s what Memorial Day is all about. Right? Oh, and, of course, the Memorial Day mattress sale at Macy’s.
Then there’s those people who try to remind you of the more sober aspects of the holiday. Sanctimoniously thanking ‘our’ soldiers. Does that really stick with you or are they just as annoying as the people at Christmas telling us all to remember the spirit of Christmas and that Christ ‘our’ savior was born on Christmas Day?
So they had this event down at a new memorial in Irvine for service men and women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw it on the 11 o’clock news. The Northwood Gratitude and Honor Memorial looks really nice and is said to be the first of its kind in the country honoring those who have fallen in the wars on terrorism we’ve been fighting for the last eleven or so years.
But they’ve got this open mic thing going. And the wives and mothers of those who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan come up to the mic and, if you didn’t see it, I’m telling you these women are just fucking raw. All are emotional but more than a few can barely get their words out; they’re just dying up there.
Blubbering women. Most of them young enough to be my daughter, if I’d had one. Talking about what they feel on Memorial Day.
While these women are stepping up to the mic, one at a time, to tell you the names of their husbands and sons and what happened to them – as best as they can between the sniveling and gasping and choked-off words – all over this country, millions of Americans are getting drunk, washing down burgers with Bud Lite, laughing the day away talking easily about everything that careless partying Americans talk about on a summer holiday together. Most Americans are having a good time, a welcome day off from work, celebrating the start of summer and vacation time – which is and always has been the real point of Memorial Day in our culture.
A really young woman steps up to the mic in Irvine. Her two hands are in a wrestling match with each other as she speaks.
“My name is Brooke Singer and my husband was killed in January.”
Brooke looks to be about 22. She’s wearing a pretty black dress with nickle-sized white polka dots and spaghetti straps that cut into the soft skin of her shoulders. She seems to have more to say but after that one solitary sentence she puts the back of her right hand to her face and unsuccessfully tries to stifle a sob. That hand has a mind of its own and, almost to conceal the degree to which it is shaking, Brooke drops it momentarily but then quickly raises it back again to cover her mouth, which is contorted in a way she’d obviously rather the entire world doesn’t see.
A girl who looks like she could be Brooke’s younger sister stands helplessly to her left. A woman who must be her mother puts her arm on Brooke’s back and whispers something into her ear.
If you need to be told at this point that Memorial Day isn’t about cookouts and really good shopping then I don’t know what to say to you except that you’re not alone. Not in my America.
But if you still think it’s about thanking ‘our’ soldiers and telling them how much we love them and appreciate what they’re doing for us then you really need to either wake up or grow up or maybe just look up the word ‘memorial’ in a dictionary.
If this country can ever find its soul again it will be on some hopefully not-too-distant Memorial Day. One day when enough Americans are finally able to look squarely and, maybe more than anything else, responsibly, at young women who can barely breathe as they muster the courage to stand in front of a microphone in a public square and somehow manage to choke out the names of their dead husbands.
db
Film images made with a Leica M7 and 50mm 2.0 Leica Summicron lens.
I grew up in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. Aliquippa was the home of a giant steel mill; at one time it was the largest in the world. The entire monstrosity was near 11 miles long and employed close to 15k workers.
The town was like something out of a rust-belt boom-town dream. Or was it a nightmare? Aliquippa was in the Guiness Book of World Records for having the most bars per square mile. A recent article in our local newspaper put it this way. “Aliquippa was a dirty little town of 30,000 with more bars, bordellos and gambling rooms than most would care to admit. In 1918, a state Supreme Court justice offered the following assessment of Aliquippa:
It is said that the region is largely peopled by uneducated foreigners, who invariably carry concealed deadly weapons; that murders are common; and that when a quarrel ensues, the question as to who shall be the murdered…
View original post 367 more words
More from the Nikon Coolpix 950. Probably from around 2000 to 2004. I’m like Vivian Maier Lite. Less calories. Less filling. Etc. Please enjoy responsibly.
Yes it just keeps on going. I THINK all or most of these were taken, as were the rest in this week’s blast from the past, with the Nikon Coolpix 950. Trusty little devil. Between 2000 and 2004. Which is mighty trusty indeed for a first generation digital camera. Solid.
Again, these images were taken with one of the first great digital cameras, the Nikon Coolpix 950. Probably from around 2000 to 2004. I had so much fun with this camera that twisted the part with the viewfinder from the side with the lens. Twisty little sucker. Like having a viewfinder camera and I don’t know why I remember it being ‘live view.’ Maybe I’m misremembering. Anyway. Yet even more images to come tomorrow.
Very busy time for me. Please accept and enjoy these collections from last summer while I re-situate. 😉
All of these images predate even my first DSLR, the Nikon D70. These were, believe it or not, taken with one of the first great digital cameras, the Nikon Coolpix 950. Probably from around 2000 to 2004. Yes, I’ve been doing this a long time. More to come.

I’m going through some archive realignment ordeals lately but the upside is I am relocating older images as I go. These were all taken the few months with what was then a really hot number, Nikon’s big splash in the consumer enthusiast DSLR market, a camera that was a true game changer, the D70. Anyone remember custom tone curves?
Here are some of the shots I’ve always remembered for various reasons.


My first outing with the Leica M9 back in 2011 was a weekend trip to Chicago. I only could afford the wonderful Leica 35mm Summarit after shelling out the money for what was my dream camera at that moment. I’d never heard of Vivian Maier at that point, as most people hadn’t. But, save for the color, this first shot I think captures a bit of the spirit of shooting on a Chicago sidewalk as she so often did. Anyway. Here’s some more. I think in some of them there is wonderful color. In others, uh… a hint of the incredible struggles to come I would experience trying to produce passable color with my M9.

Fun times with the Leica glass.
The Los Angeles Center of Photography has applied for a $100,000 grant to help teach LA’s Boys & Girls Clubs photography. To win the grant requires votes from friends of both photography and kids!
More from the LACP:
There are 51 proposals in our category and right now, we’re in 20th place. We must be in the top 10 for a chance to win. (The committee selects the winner from the top 10.) Our proposal outlines a yearlong photography program in LA’s Boys & Girls Clubs. The grant is meant for non-profits with projects that will help create a better LA, now and in the future. VOTING ends on November 3.
PLEASE VOTE!!! It will take only five minutes. Here is how to do it:
1. Go to: http://www.LA2050.org
2. Hit the hot pink tab that reads VOTE IN THE MYLA2050 GRANTS CHALLENGE
3. Choose a Submission Category (Our proposal is under CREATE)
4. Now you have to sign up. Signing up is easy. See the top right corner of the LA2050 home page, where it reads, “Join.”
5. Then find our project (you will see a picture of me in a classroom with the Boys & Girls Club kids) and VOTE for LACP’s proposal!
6. You will then get an email confirming your vote. (This may take up to an hour to get this, so don’t fret.) You have to click on the link in this email to confirm your vote.
More on the proposal from Julia Dean:
About our proposal: I set up the curriculum and began our one-year program at the Variety Boys & Girls Club in Boyle Heights on Jan. 14, 2015. I teach every Wednesday afternoon. We have completed the basic, portraiture and street shooting class so far. The documentary class began last week. The plan is for each boys & girls club to document their own community and exhibit the work at LACP. Our first exhibit — from the Variety Boys & Girls Club — will take place in February 2016. There are 26 clubs in LA County. We hope to implement our program in all of them, once we raise enough money.

One of the moments with my new M-E when I realized that I had something. This day completely turned around my street photography and set the stage for all the images I would post on 50lux.com thereafter. Seriously. I can’t believe I’ve never reblogged or reposted this. Here it is….
Here is a link to the great website American Suburb X and a group of street photos by newly discovered street photography master Helen Levitt. The difference between these pictures and the vast majority of her other previously shown work is that these images are in amazing color.
Seeing those images this morning inspired me to share some of my recent shots. You know, I’ve always thought of myself as a black and white street photographer. But I rarely shoot black and white street photography. I really have done very little in B&W over the last ten years. I think I have to come to terms with the fact that I’m a street photographer who works primarily in color.
Color is the only way to capture the parts of Los Angeles I continue to want to shoot most. Hope these images from my Leica M-E capture both the timeless grit…
View original post 12 more words
Happy Birthday and much love to my big sister, Linda. So amazing to have her as a friend at this age. We are really the only two left in our family and I think we both feel really so fortunate to have each other and that we’re both healthy and sane and sober (for the moment 😉
Love you, Linda, and thank you for your friendship and you guys have a great day I’m sure watching the Steelers. Talk to you later today!!!