Errata: A chronicle of untimely comentary

One of the hazards of commenting on current events is that, sooner or later, they aren’t current. In almost 30 years of writing and publishing, I have had my share of “Dewey Defeats Truman” moments. It’s never fun, but things seem to have taken a darker turn lately.

Last September, I wrote about the Royal family. It wasn’t a hit piece, but it wasn’t entirely complimentary. Six hours after I submitted my story, the announcement came from London that Queen Elizabeth had passed. Fortunately, I had not written anything derogatory about Her Majesty, but it was a glaring omission, and I couldn’t help but feel awkward about it.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the inverse relationship between the evolution of cable news and the devolution of objectivity in broadcast journalism. In that column, I mentioned Rupert Murdoch as one of the earlier movers and shakers in that industry. The day I submitted that column, Murdoch resigned as chairman of Fox Corp and News Corp after a seven-decade career. It wasn’t an egregious error, just laughable timing.

Last week, I wrote about our aging legislators, referencing Diane Feinstein as the oldest serving member of Congress. On the day the column was printed, I received a press release from Governor Pillen’s office urging Nebraskans to lower their flags to half-staff. Why, you might ask? It was in honor of Senator Feinstein, who had passed away at 2:00 a.m. that morning.

I meant no disrespect to Senator Feinstein. She served her country faithfully and was respected on both sides of the aisle. The ironic humor of the situation was at my own expense, but it didn’t stop there. When I complained to a colleague about my hapless timing, he simply responded, “Don’t write about me.” Was he implying a cause-and-effect relationship? I have had many highs and lows in my life, but being regarded as something akin to the curse of Tutankhamun is not something I expected.

The bottom line is this: When we commit our thoughts to paper, the words on the page remain static as the rest of the world continues to turn. Random mishaps are bound to happen, but sometimes I’m just plain wrong. Lately, I have been reading about the resurgence of COVID cases, and it’s hard not to be reminded that I defended Tony Fauci for far too long.

I’ll stand by my assertion that Mr. Fauci had a solid reputation in the medical community and was a catalyst for positive change for many years. Since the 1980s, he advised multiple presidents and was awarded the Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush in 2008 for his work in an AIDS relief program.

Fauci had been a voice of reason at a time when many of our fellow countrymen hadn’t yet decided if the AIDS epidemic was a medical condition or the wrath of God. He took a bit of abuse from those who preferred to view the disease as a moral issue, and I suspected that similar elements were behind the conspiracy theories about him during the COVID outbreak.

In late 2021, we learned that some of those conspiracy theories weren’t so wrong. Under the pressure of a pending investigation, the National Institutes of Health admitted to funding gain-of-function research through a New York-based non-profit organization associated with the Wuhan lab.

Then, in March of this year, the Republican-controlled, nonetheless bi-partisan House of Representatives Oversight Committee issued a report saying that based on “science, facts and evidence” and “the biology of the virus itself,” the COVID-19 infections that claimed an estimated seven million people were “likely the result of an accidental lab leak in Wuhan.” Testimony before the committee also confirmed that there were unusual actions in and around Wuhan in 2019, including gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV).”

A panel of well-qualified witnesses also testified that American tax dollars contributed to the gain-of-function research and came “not only from NIH, but from the State Department, USAID, and DOD.”

The committee further concluded that Dr. Fauci “used unverified data to dismiss the lab leak theory in favor of natural transmission.”

Tom Dewy did not, in fact, defeat Harry Truman in the 1948 presidential election, and at this point, I have no choice but to accept that the conspiracy theories about Dr. Fauci aren’t entirely wrong.

I still don’t believe that the release of the virus was intentional, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the actions of NIH under Fauci were negligent.

I’m also thinking that, given my recent track record, Dr. Fauci should be careful crossing the street for the next few days.