Once, I almost read a book of the under-rated role of the health problems of famous leaders and events. For instance President Kennedy was a symbol of youthful vigor and charisma as the baton of leadership passed to men who had been soldiers in World War 2. Apparently he took some very strong medications for his bad back. Did I say "apparently?" That's the problem: how much was hidden at the time? What can ever really be proved?
How open was the press with President Roosevelt's wheelchair?
Hitler might have been heavily drugged by a quack doctor. How did this affect the fortunes of the Third Reich?
Did the masses in the early Soviet Union understand the strokes that Lenin had had? A few years before that, how open was the press allowed to be about the quackery of Rasputin in helping the doomed Romanov dynasty in dealing with the hemophilia of the heir-apparent?
I read a biography of Bonaparte recently. The historian thought that his famous stamina had been undermined before the invasion of Russia in 1812. Did the smart-set back in Paris really understand this? What about the hundreds of thousands of cannon fodder who were to die during this invasion?
It is doubtful that Julius Caesar ever went viral on the internet during one of his fits of "the falling sickness", epilepsy.
But the all-time winner must be the legend of El Cid, whose widow supposedly had his dead body mounted on a horse, where he led his troops to victory.
____________________________________________________________
Until the last hundred years, medical knowledge was so rudimentary that even an honest appraisal by a qualified doctor might not be worth too much to an accurate understanding of how health affected history.
And I doubt that the medical appraisals were ever that honest. If somebody tells you, "But the doctor said such and such," what does that really prove? A powerful politician can always get the doctor to say what they want. If not, the doctor will be replaced by another one who is willing to "play ball."
Rising to the top of the political profession requires many years of hard work, pressure, and risks; and rather unhealthy eating at all the public events. By the time he reaches the top, a megalomaniac has likely either used up most of his good health or undermined it.
So the masses must be protected from the truth. That is how it has always worked for the great male megalomaniacs of history, regardless of their cruelty, corruption, or foolishness.
But now that a female megalomaniac is running for president -- and despite her impressive credentials in cruelty and corruption, showing herself the equal of any man -- we see her "medical episodes" plastered all over the internet. A feminist can feel pretty cheated about that. But she can't uninvent the smartphone or digital camera. What would you do if you were one of Mrs. Clinton's handlers?
1. Her sunglasses are a good idea. It prevents cameras from catching her in any more goo-goo-eyed seizures. Wrap-around Bollé sunglasses, like cyclists wear, might be even better. They might also help with her Angela-Merkel-like charisma deficit.
2. If you saw the video of today's 9/11 problems for Mrs. Clinton, you might have noticed how her entourage clustered tightly around her as her problems became visible. You would think that there would more of them and that they would respond quicker, blocking off the spying eyes of somebody's cellphone camera.
3. Can President Obama invoke the Patriot Act or find some emergency powers implicit in the Constitution to issue a diktat restricting cameras around Mrs. Clinton?
4. Don't live radio and television have a few seconds of delay to bleep out naughty words? It wouldn't take that many minutes of delay to hide any more of Mrs. Clintons's health episodes. The mainstream media just needs a few minutes to expunge any offensive footage. If anybody says, "But I was there, and it didn't happen like CNN says," they could be laughed off as conspiracy theorists.
How open was the press with President Roosevelt's wheelchair?
Hitler might have been heavily drugged by a quack doctor. How did this affect the fortunes of the Third Reich?
Did the masses in the early Soviet Union understand the strokes that Lenin had had? A few years before that, how open was the press allowed to be about the quackery of Rasputin in helping the doomed Romanov dynasty in dealing with the hemophilia of the heir-apparent?
I read a biography of Bonaparte recently. The historian thought that his famous stamina had been undermined before the invasion of Russia in 1812. Did the smart-set back in Paris really understand this? What about the hundreds of thousands of cannon fodder who were to die during this invasion?
It is doubtful that Julius Caesar ever went viral on the internet during one of his fits of "the falling sickness", epilepsy.
But the all-time winner must be the legend of El Cid, whose widow supposedly had his dead body mounted on a horse, where he led his troops to victory.
____________________________________________________________
Until the last hundred years, medical knowledge was so rudimentary that even an honest appraisal by a qualified doctor might not be worth too much to an accurate understanding of how health affected history.
And I doubt that the medical appraisals were ever that honest. If somebody tells you, "But the doctor said such and such," what does that really prove? A powerful politician can always get the doctor to say what they want. If not, the doctor will be replaced by another one who is willing to "play ball."
Rising to the top of the political profession requires many years of hard work, pressure, and risks; and rather unhealthy eating at all the public events. By the time he reaches the top, a megalomaniac has likely either used up most of his good health or undermined it.
So the masses must be protected from the truth. That is how it has always worked for the great male megalomaniacs of history, regardless of their cruelty, corruption, or foolishness.
But now that a female megalomaniac is running for president -- and despite her impressive credentials in cruelty and corruption, showing herself the equal of any man -- we see her "medical episodes" plastered all over the internet. A feminist can feel pretty cheated about that. But she can't uninvent the smartphone or digital camera. What would you do if you were one of Mrs. Clinton's handlers?
1. Her sunglasses are a good idea. It prevents cameras from catching her in any more goo-goo-eyed seizures. Wrap-around Bollé sunglasses, like cyclists wear, might be even better. They might also help with her Angela-Merkel-like charisma deficit.
2. If you saw the video of today's 9/11 problems for Mrs. Clinton, you might have noticed how her entourage clustered tightly around her as her problems became visible. You would think that there would more of them and that they would respond quicker, blocking off the spying eyes of somebody's cellphone camera.
3. Can President Obama invoke the Patriot Act or find some emergency powers implicit in the Constitution to issue a diktat restricting cameras around Mrs. Clinton?
4. Don't live radio and television have a few seconds of delay to bleep out naughty words? It wouldn't take that many minutes of delay to hide any more of Mrs. Clintons's health episodes. The mainstream media just needs a few minutes to expunge any offensive footage. If anybody says, "But I was there, and it didn't happen like CNN says," they could be laughed off as conspiracy theorists.
Comments
I find all of this campaign interesting by watching all of the control of MSM ... This whole process is like watching a monkey trying to f*** a basketball. Great entertainment.