Eskow Denies He's Dead

An absence explained.

My favorite headlines of the last couple of weeks were the ones than said “Trump denies he’s dead” or something similar after an unexpected cutback in the president’s public appearances.

I haven’t published anything new in more than two weeks. That’s an eternity in a digitized media landscape where writers and publications succeed or fail based on the constancy, as much or more than the quality, of their content. I don’t know how many people actually noticed I was gone, but those of you who did deserve an explanation. I don’t like to discuss personal matters too much, but here’s the gist of it.

I had some minor ear surgery about two weeks ago, which unfortunately failed to fend off an ear infection. This minor medical procedure turned into a major medical mishap when the powerful antibiotics I was prescribed interacted with another medication. The effect was so severe that paramedics were sent to my home.

Fortunately, my vital signs were great. (I’m primarily descended from sturdy peasant stock, which fortunately prevailed in this case over the disturbingly aristocratic threads that also inhabit in my bloodline.) For that reason (and to avoid the new strains of Covid that are being so lovingly cultivated by RFK Jr. et al), my wife and I decided not to have them take me to the hospital. (She did most of the deciding; I wasn’t thinking too clearly.)

This combination of medications can be fatal. How could it happen? One of the few positive effects of increasing monopolization in the health sector is that pharmacy software systems are typically able to flag potential interactions like these. Why didn’t it work? The answer to that question is also linked to monopolization, and to for-profit healthcare in general, but any further elaboration will have to wait for another day.

I’m still recovering from this iatrogenic eff-up. That’s why there’s been no new writing and this week’s Zero Hour episode will be a rerun. I did do an interview for a West Coast radio show this morning, however, so I'm clearly bouncing back.

I was putting the final touches on a new column when this happened and I hope to publish it tomorrow. I also hope to publish much more frequently once I’m fully recovered, which will hopefully be as soon as this weekend. That said, I don't want to push myself too hard. (Well, I do want to, but my family objects.) Recovery times can vary, even for those of us who are descended from peasants. (Even the aristocrats were soldiers, and stolid. What both lines share is this: however hardy the males were, the women were always consistently tougher than the men.)

I’ll publish this morning’s interview when it’s up, but the final question and answer from this morning’s interview is as good a way to conclude as any, I suppose. (Lightly edited)

Interviewer: What is the thrust of the ideas, or who do you talk to and or what do you talk about, on The Zero Hour?

Me: A wide variety of things, but mainly how we can change the world for the better— fundamental transformation. I've worked in the incremental-change world. But we're out of time on a lot of critical issues and there will to be some rough times ahead. There are rough times already. The silver lining is that I think people are increasingly willing to explore fundamental change. I want to help with that.

I'm not going to live forever. Nobody does. So in the time I have left I want to talk about that—because it really is the zero hour.