A Pause In Israel’s Judicial Changes, But At What Price?

March 31st, 2023 by Tom Lynch

Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the U.S. and it have created a bilateral relationship based on tangible, steadily increasing security and economic interests, not just shared values. Israel has become a lynchpin in our efforts to achieve stability in the middle east (Our success in that regard has been dubious, at best). In fact, at the final presidential debate of the 2012 campaign season, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney mentioned Israel some 30 times, more than any other country except Iran. Both candidates called the Jewish state “a true friend,” pledging to stand with it through thick and thin. And we’ve done that. Since the end of World War II, Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, assistance totaling more than $158 billion (non-inflation adjusted).

Unlike most democracies, Israel lacks a written Constitution, functioning, rather, under what are called “Basic Laws.”

The Basic Laws, enacted at various times between 1958 and 2018, number thirteen and are mostly rather vague. The 8th Basic Law, The Judiciary, enacted in 1984, lays out common sensible judicial requirements about honesty, transparency, judicial probity and process, and the like.

The Basic Laws place a heavy burden on the country’s judiciary and its Supreme Court, the High Court of Justice, making it the final arbiter. By nature, the Court is always involved in a tense relationship with its sister institution, the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. In this regard, both are critical pillars in Israel’s foundational house of democracy.

Four months ago, a coalition comprised of the conservative Likud Party and five other far right and ultra-orthodox Parties won a national election and returned Benjamin Netanyahu to power as Prime Minister for the sixth time, despite his standing trial in three current corruption cases for bribery, fraud and breach of trust. The coalition has a one vote majority with 61 seats out of 120 Knesset members.

Immediately upon taking control, the Coalition introduced a number of judicial law changes aimed at weakening the Supreme Court, chief among them one that would enable the Knesset to overrule Supreme Court decisions by a simple majority, which is currently what Netanyahu’s coalition enjoys. The reason for this seems to be that the Prime Minister’s coalition partners, without whom he cannot survive, blame the Court for stifling the establishment of new settlements in the West Bank and for being lackeys of the left. Their anger about this has been growing for years, but until now they have been unable to do anything about it. Entering a coalition with the weakened Netanyahu provides the opportunity they have long sought. If they are successful and this particular change were to become law, Israel’s Supreme Court would no longer be the “final arbiter.” Rather, it would serve at the pleasure of the Knesset.

This is a monumental change in the 8th Basic Law, in which Section 17 says,

“A verdict of a court in the first instance, may be appealed by right, save a verdict of the Supreme Court.” (emphasis added)

Further, Section 22, entitled, Stability of the law, reads,

“Emergency regulations do not have the power to change this law, to temporarily suspend its validity, or to subject it to conditions.”

Clearly, the authors of Basic Law 8 intended for the judiciary’s Supreme Court to be independent and unfettered.

The proposed judicial changes, like an oncoming train wreck, could be catastrophic for Israeli democracy.

Last week, the Knesset passed a portion of the proposed changes — a measure making it harder to remove Netanyahu, after which the prime minister announced his intention to take a more hands-on role in pushing the reforms, something he had guaranteed he would not do given the cited corruption charges and his ongoing Trials.¹

Hundreds of thousands of citizens have taken to the streets every weekend in protest. The Army, heavily dependent on highly-trained reservists, who have threatened not to obey orders if the judicial changes actually pass into law, has warned that national security is in serious jeopardy. All of Israel’s western allies have told Netanyahu he is making a terrible mistake by continuing to push for Knesset approval of the judicial changes.

Last Saturday, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who has become increasingly concerned that a growing number of reservists — including cyber warfare teams, pilots, and intelligence officers — have been skipping training duty in recent weeks because of the proposed changes, publicly urged Netanyahu to at least wait on the reforms until the Knesset returns from recess in a month, arguing pushing forward would make Israel vulnerable to attack. “This is a clear, immediate and tangible danger to the security of the state,” he said. “For the sake of our security, for the sake of our unity, it is our duty to return to the arena of dialogue.”

For this candid advice, Netanyahu promptly fired him.

The most vociferously far-right of his coalition partners, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, vowed to resign from the government if Netanyahu halts the judicial change plan. If Ben-Gvir resigned, the coalition would collapse, which would leave Netanyahu less protected with respect to his corruption charges.

That may have been the one-too-many straws that broke the enervated camel’s back. On Monday, in an address to the nation, Netanyahu announced a pause in the judicial change agenda. Not a stop; a pause, and only until the Knesset returns from its April recess. In his speech, Netanyahu blasted protesters for urging Reservists to avoid reporting for duty and Reservists for heeding that advice, saying, “The State of Israel can’t exist without the Israel Defense Forces, and the IDF cannot exist if there’s refusal to serve. Such refusal will be the end of our country.”

It would appear that Netanyahu’s coalition partners have him right where they want him. Before Mondays “pause” speech Ben-Gvir announced he would not resign and that he had agreed to back Netanyahu’s call for a pause in exchange for the Prime Minister’s promise to create an Israeli “National Guard” under Ben-Givr’s control.

This was confirmed when Ben Gvir circulated a letter to media outlets, signed by Netanyahu, in which the prime minister promised to raise the issue of forming such a body within the National Security Ministry in the cabinet meeting two days from now. Achieved through nothing but extortion, what would a new National Guard mean when placed under the control of Israel’s most far-right cabinet extremist? It seems a terrible price Netanyahu is willing to pay to stay in power.

Left out of any of these discussions are the 1.6 million Arab citizens of Israel who make up 17.2% of the population. Whatever rules, compromises, or judicial changes come out of this mess will affect them in a tangible and meaningful way, which could be far more impactful than the current political hijinks.

My modest proposal is that Israel immediately get to work on writing a constitution, as most modern democracies have done. They could dust off the one John Adams wrote for Massachusetts in 1780. It’s the oldest in the world and the model for America’s. It has stood the test of time. If Netanyahu were to announce such a move, saying the judicial changes are on a longer pause pending completion of the draft constitution, the warring factions may see the benefit of open dialogue rather than polemical threats.

Call me Pollyanna.

__________________

¹ Israel’s attorney general issued a sharp rebuke on Friday, warning that Netanyahu had broken the law by announcing his direct involvement in the overhaul while facing criminal charges — a stern statement that raised the specter of a constitutional crisis.

Tags: ,
Posted in International relations, Israel, Law

A Sad Update And One Sweet Diversion

March 29th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

Once again, into the darkness

So, here we are again.

In Nashville two days ago, the U.S. suffered its 131st Mass Shooting of 2023. That’s 131 in 86 days, for a rate of 1.52 a day — thus far.

This was also another Mass Murder, the 13th of the year. What’s the difference?

The Gun Violence Archive, which began documenting gun violence in the U.S. in 2013, defines a mass shooting as a gun violence incident in which four or more people are killed or injured, excluding the suspect or perpetrator.¹

The FBI does not have a definition for mass shootings; rather, it tracks mass murders, which it defines as an incident in which four or more people are killed.  It includes gun violence, bombings or any other incident where four or more are killed. Mass Murder would statistically be a subset of Mass Shooting.

Consequently, in the first 86 days of 2023, there have been 131 mass shootings and 13 mass murders. The event in Nashville added to both categories.

Regardless of definitions, what really matters is that in the first 86 days of 2023, 10,009 people who were alive to welcome in 2023 on New Year’s Eve are now dead by gun violence, 4,267 by homicide; 5,742 by suicide.

Gun violence incidents rocketed to another level in America in 2020 as the Coronavirus gripped the country, and since then they have not slackened at all.

I have periodically been writing about gun violence since 2005, and most recently just two months ago in January of this year.

I’m not going to rehash what I’ve written previously. I urge you to read the column from this past January. It says it all — except for one thing. It doesn’t discuss the children. In yesterday’s obscene brutality, the obviously deranged shooter killed three nine-year-old children. They were Evelyn Dieckhaus, William Kinney, and Hallie Scruggs. Also killed were Mike Hill, 61, Katherine Koonce, 60, and Cynthia Peak, 61.

This is how bad things have become: guns kill more children than any other cause.

As I reported in May of 2022, the US dwarfs the 28 most economically developed countries in the 38-member OECD in deaths by firearms. Not only is our firearm death rate nearly 25 times higher than our OECD companions, our total homicide rate is eight times higher. In America, 98 people die by firearms every single day. In those other 28 OECD countries, with a combined population more than twice that of ours (712 million vs. 331 million), that number is 19.

I have found people to be mostly the same the world over. Many are smart; some are not. Many are wealthy; most are not. But we in America have two things other countries do not have: more guns than people and sky-high homicide rates.  The first leads to the second. Why? Because guns can kill fast and from a distance. It’s hard to outrun a bullet. Other methods often take some time during which a victim has a chance to run away. Countries with far fewer guns have far fewer homicides. Simple as that.

Rather than doing something about the root problem — 393.3 million guns — we’ll continue to nibble around the edges mistaking movement for progress. And more nine-year-old children will die.

What kind of allegedly enlightened society allows this to happen?

Only ours.

And now for a sweet diversion

Do you know what rheology is?

To save you the trouble of looking up the answer, I’ll tell you.

Rheology is the branch of physics that deals with the deformation and flow of matter, especially the non-Newtonian flow of liquids and the plastic flow of solids.

There. Now you know.

This is a story of rheology, an Oreo cookie, and how a couple of MIT kids may have too much time on their hands.

Graduate student Crystal Owens and undergraduate Max Fan set out to solve a cookie conundrum that I’m sure has baffled you forever: whether there is a way to twist apart an Oreo and have the filling stick to both wafers. For Owens, the research “was a fun, easy way to make my regular physics and engineering work more accessible to the general public.”

According to Fan, “There’s a fascinating problem of trying to get the cream to distribute evenly between the two wafers, which turns out to be really hard.”

In fact, they couldn’t do it. PhD candidate Owens, who studies the properties of complex fluids, said, “Videos of the manufacturing process show that they put the first wafer down, then dispense a ball of cream onto that wafer before putting the second wafer on top. Apparently that little time delay may make the cream stick better to the first wafer.”

In the lab, the research team subjected Oreo cookies to standard rheology tests (whatever they are) and found that no matter the flavor or amount of stuffing, the cream at the center of an Oreo almost always sticks to one wafer when twisted open. I have no idea how many of the failures were eventually consumed, but I think it would have been a shame to waste any of them. Maybe they had after work Oreo and Gator Aid² parties.

And to show you how MIT students go to lengths you’ve probably never dreamed of to solve a problem, Owens and Fan designed a 3D-printable “Oreometer” — a simple device that firmly grasps an Oreo cookie and uses pennies and rubber bands to control the twisting force that progressively twists the cookie open. Instructions for the tabletop device can be found here. They are marvelous, and I include them, because, you never know, you might want to try this at home.

So, what do you do after you’ve done a research study on Oreo cookies and built a 3D-printable Oreometer, to boot? Why, you publish a paper detailing your research.  On Oreology, the fracture and flow of ‘milk’s favorite cookie appears today in Kitchen Flows, a special issue of the journal Physics of Fluids.

Get your copy now.

_________________________

¹ Two other reputable non-profit organizations track gun violence in the U.S.: Everytown Research & Policy and the Giffords Law Center.

² Gator Aid is another wonderful creation invented in a University lab, in this case the University of Florida’s.

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Education, Gun Violence, Israel, Misc.

Has The Past Become Prologue Again?

March 24th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

On 30 January 1933, the 85-year-old German hero of World War 1, President Paul von Hindenburg, appointed Nazi leader Adolph Hitler as Reich Chancellor, which was akin to being named Prime Minister. Hindenburg and his German Cabinet, many of whom shared Hitler’s Nationalist positions, thought they could control the loose-cannon Hitler better if he were in Government rather than out of it. Sort of like bringing the camel into the tent, where you hope he’ll spit out, rather than leaving him outside, where you know he’ll spit in.

Thirty-five days later, on 5 March 1933, a coalition of political parties led by the Nazis won the national parliamentary election.

Just as Hindenburg and his Cabinet thought they could control Hitler, so did his coalition party partners. They were all wrong. And, just like that, the 14-year Weimar Republic was dead.

Despite winning only 45% of the vote — 55% of the country having voted against them — the Nazis were now in charge, and within three months the coalition was a thing of the past, with every other political party in Germany having gone the way of the Wooly Mammoth. The Nazis, using what they called “coordination,” had banned them all.

Immediately, Hitler’s Storm Troopers, whose numbers had grown from 400,000 in 1932 to nearly 2 million in January of 1933 (they outnumbered the Jewish population by close to 4 top 1¹) amped up their brutal intimidation and persecution of Jews, Communists and homosexuals. According to the World Committee’s Brown Book, by the end of June they had murdered 43 Jews and severely beaten hundreds more, but the chroniclers point out these estimates are likely quite low.

The Prussian police force was the largest in Germany, and Hitler put Hermann Göring in charge of it. He immediately  populated it with unhinged Storm Troopers wearing police uniforms. They arrested anyone thought to be an “unreliable” German. This included Jews, members of the non-Nazi German press, intellectual elites, homosexuals, and more Jews. In fact, so many were arrested that the country’s prisons could not contain them all. The head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler, solved that problem. On 20 March, just two weeks after the Nazis’ election victory, he announced to the press that “a concentration camp for political prisoners” would be opened at Dachau, just outside Munich. It was to be Germany’s first concentration camp and set an ominous precedent. Two days later, four police trucks ferried 200 of the Nazis’ newly ordained “criminals” to their swell new digs. The citizens of Dachau watched them go by.

Three weeks later, to show they meant business, Himmler’s guards took four Jews out of their cells, brought them outside, stood them against a wall, and shot all four dead.

Dachau, however, was not an improvised solution to an overcrowding problem. As far back as 1921, Hitler had declared that when they came to power, the Nazis would imprison German Jews in concentration camps along the lines of those used by the British in the Boer war.

But the Nazis did much more in the first three months of the Third Reich than round up their version of the usual suspects. They also eviscerated higher education. On 7 April 1933, the Reichstag, the German parliament now controlled by Hitler, passed the Enabling Act, which contained a civil service provision that provided for the dismissal of “politically unreliable” state employees. This was a catch-all phrase for Jews, Communists, non-Aryans, as well as  anyone who had had the temerity to criticize the Nazis. And since, unlike other countries, all colleges and universities were state-owned, that meant many of Germany’s best and brightest were now out of work and facing physical danger. This included 20 past or future Nobel laureates. Albert Einstein was one of them — Germany’s loss; Princeton’s gain. But the Nazis never cared.

And they did not stop with professors and scientists. On 10 May 1933, at the instigation of Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, German university students organized an “act against unGerman spirit” in nineteen university towns across the country. They compiled a list of “unGerman” books, seized them from all the libraries they could find, piled them up in public squares, and set them all alight. Goebbels joined the students at the Berlin burning, the biggest, telling them they were “doing the right thing in committing the evil spirit of the past to the flames.” One after another, books were thrown onto the funeral pyre of intellect.

We’re not burning books in America — yet, but we sure are banning them.

That is how it started in that most momentous of years, 1933, a year scholars have likened to the Jacobin Reign of Terror of 1793 and 1794 France.

But in reality, the Nazis’ rise to power began with a quickly-put-down revolution in Munich immediately following the end of World War 1. Right up to the very end, the German military and the Kaiser had convinced the German people the country was winning the war. The Armistice signed on 11 November 1918 came as a huge shock, and the people felt they had been betrayed or, as one man put it, “Knifed in the back by the ruling class.” Then came the Treaty of Versailles with its draconian terms of surrender.

Out of the shock and humiliation of that defeat, a small group of radical, fanatical zealots began to slowly poison the soul of what, at that time, was the largest and most advanced country in Europe. In the 14 years of the Weimar Republic between the end of the war and 5 March 1933, the Nazis gradually unleashed a cultural revolution that eventually became an unstoppable national revolution — which ended 12 years later, deep in the ground of a Berlin bunker.

The Nazis did not come to power overnight, but the circumstances of the 1920s and early 1930s sowed fertile ground for their eventual ascendancy. People wrote them off at the beginning. But an economic depression, tremendous bitterness over the perceived betrayal at the end of the war along with the humiliating terms of the Versailles Treaty, and one man of messianic and evil determination was all it took. And millions upon millions paid the price.

Americans knew what was happening in 1933 Germany. Our journalists covered it in detail, and our newspapers published what they wrote: the beatings, the discovery of Jews lying in gutters covered in blood, the book burnings. All of it. But we had our own problems back then, so nobody did a thing to help. Right here, it’s fair to ask, could anything have been done, by anyone, to reverse the unfolding terror. The behavior of the Nazis had been horrific, but the regime had been in power for only a few months. At the same time, the entire world was still in the midst of a global depression, and most countries looked upon what was happening in Germany as a German problem that Germans would fix. At that point, no one cared. Germans had done it to themselves and had walked into that biggest of bear traps with their eyes wide shut.

In America right now we are undergoing our own cultural revolution, and it has some of the same chaotic characteristics of the early 1920s in Germany. Of course it’s different, and we’ve built systems that we hope will withstand the current partisan fanaticism. But January 6th really happened, and it could have been catastrophically worse, just as Adolph Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch really happened in November 1923, ten years prior to his coming to power. We might want to note that, while 335 of the January 6th insurrectionists have been sentenced to prison thus far, Hitler and his putsch cohorts also went to prison.

It’s what happened afterwards that made all the difference.

____________________

¹ According to the United State Holocaust Memorial Museum, there were approximately 523,000 Jews living in Germany in January, 1933.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in History, Politics, Racism

Time And Time Again, It’s Hubris That Does Us In

March 22nd, 2023 by Tom Lynch

Trying to follow, much less get your head around, America’s ongoing culture wars, ridiculous partisanship, and all the bile spouted repeatedly by hypocritical politicians is like being at a Rappers Convention. It’s constant chaos.

In the middle of that rancid daily lunacy, we might be forgiven for missing a significant milestone: This week marks the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Make that the second invasion.

In January 1991, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, the U.S. went to war with Iraq to free the country of Kuwait (and all its oil), which Iraq had invaded and taken over in August, five months earlier. America had 33 allies in the venture including most Arab states. Iraq had no allies. Not one.

After American and British airpower destroyed more than 30% of the Iraqi military’s capability, the ground operation, Operation Desert Sabre, brilliantly planned and executed under the leadership of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, lasted all of 100 hours before Saddam Hussein was forced to accept a cease fire.

And that’s where it stopped. President Bush, General Schwarzkopf, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell decided not to continue on to Baghdad, which frustrated a lot of hawkish politicians.

It was the right decision. The war had been won, Kuwait freed, and Hussein humbled and forced to agree to international inspections to root out any weapons of mass destruction he might have stockpiled. Moving on to Baghdad would have mired the U.S. down in a protracted slog, and the Arab allies would never have agreed, anyway. For that matter, it’s likely none of our allies would have agreed.

The 1991 invasion showed American leadership at its finest. The 2003 invasion, the second invasion, showed it at its worst, and we’ve been paying for it ever since.

President George W. Bush’s 2003 invasion demonstrated in vivid colors what hubris can do to otherwise rational people. After 9/11, our job was to capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al Queda. Nearly every country in the world was on our side. Then came the stupidity of Iraq.

Claiming without a shred of verified evidence that Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, — it didn’t — the Administration invaded. Soon, we had taken over the country. We were the dog who caught the bus.

Tragically, Bush did not have his father’s wisdom (remember “Mission Accomplished?”), and he and his neocon associates believed they could conquer and rebuild Iraq in the image of America, just as Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon had believed the same about Vietnam. All of these five presidents were catastrophically wrong.

Nearly three million U.S. soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan beginning in 2001. Twenty-five hundred are still in Iraq today. According to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, more than 7,000 of our troops had died there by the end of 2019. Thousands more were wounded, many of those maimed for life.

Just as so many Americans now have experience fighting, dying and being wounded in the Middle East, I have experience in Southeast Asia, where more than 50,000 of my brothers in arms died in a hostile place.

Thirty-five years after I landed in Saigon and got to participate in one of America’s worst mistakes — until then, — President Bush and his Neocons  dropped us into another awful, no-win position. He and men with names like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl, Kristol, et al, were blinded by the bright lights of “American exceptionalism.” Few, if any of them, had ever known a day of military service. They knew the right people and either had deferments, lots of them, or, like George Bush, were weekenders. Although it appears to have been fine for weekenders of Mr. Bush’s social and political status to skip those tiresome drills if they proved inconvenient.

A lifetime spent walking war’s sanitized sidelines, never hearing that unforgettable and very special sound a bullet makes as it whizzes past your ear,  may prevent one from appreciating the chaotic hell of war and from grasping how terrifying it really ought to be to rip men and women from the fabric of their families to face the horrifying prospect of fighting and dying in a strange land for a counterfeit cause.

The Iraq war has been a national nightmare, but what I always found most horrifying about it was that once we were in it nobody, especially the egotists who tossed us into that deepest of pits, ever had any idea of how to get us out of it, which is exactly the same thing that happened to us in Vietnam. Vietnam, where lessons should have been learned, but weren’t. Instead, they were swept under the nation’s political rug for posterity to trip over. And it did.

In the pantheon of man-made catastrophes, our wars in Vietnam and Iraq have been monumental achievements.

Happy anniversary.

 

Tags: ,
Posted in History, Leadership

The Calendar, The Nuts, And A Long-Ago Time In A Faraway Place

March 20th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

No political punching today. This year’s terrific NCAA tournament (my bracket was busted in about a minute and a half) has put me in a good frame of mind.

So, let me tell you a story.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, a 23-year-old, newly minted, Infantry 2nd Lieutenant Airborne Ranger with my name spent a fair amount of time in a little woebegone country in Southeast Asia called Vietnam.

In Vietnam, I took command of a platoon of about 30 draftee soldiers, none of whom wanted to be there and all of whom never understood why they were. There were no college graduates among that lot, and a few never finished high school. They were America’s flotsam and jetsam, and they all knew it. I would grow to love every one of them.

Month after month, my guys and I patrolled the mountains in the north of South Vietnam, occasionally encountering North Vietnamese Regulars who were doing the same thing. Those were interesting meetings. We didn’t talk much when we met, but we did frequently have a somewhat frank exchange of views.

Our Platoon had some memorable moments in Vietnam, such as The March to the Sea, The Rescue, The Whistling Mortar Round, The Search for the Body That Turned Out to Be a Piece of Wood, and The Flying Flywheel. But those are stories for another day. For right now, for today, we’re telling the story of The Calendar and the Nuts.

Four months before the end of my first Vietnam tour, the Army promoted me to 1st Lieutenant, made me say “goodbye” to my guys, sent a Huey chopper to fly me out of the jungle, and gave me a staff job on Firebase Vegel in northern South Vietnam. A firebase was a temporary army camp built by the Corps of Engineers on top of a mountain. It supplied the troops in its area both logistically and militarily. And by “militarily” I mean weapons, ammunition, and helicopter gunship support and transportation. Firebases were cushier than the jungle, but often more dangerous, because they were stationery targets. That was made apparent to me a number of times in vivid ways.

My job on Vegel was to dream up crazy search and destroy operations for the “grunts” in the jungle, the crazier the better. I did my best to make them crazy enough to satisfy the Commanders, but not crazy enough to get our folks killed. It was not easy.

The Army of North Vietnam and their comrades in the south, the Viet Cong, were a determined foe. They were fighting with biblical devotion for a purpose they believed in — their country. They weren’t going anywhere until the war was over and they had won. We, on the other hand, were the political pawns, the shmucks who were there because we had to be, and none of us liked it all that much. Wasn’t our country. And all of us knew, with a fair degree of certainty, the date we were scheduled to go home — if we could stay alive long enough.

With two months to go in the country with the biggest mosquitos on earth, I began to get a bit anxious. I knew guys who had come to untimely ends with only a few days left, one, a good friend, within three hours of leaving. So, realizing I needed a diversion to take my mind off things, I decided to create one — my very own 60 day, Short-Timer’s Calendar.

I confess while deep in the jungle in the 1960s my admiration for and envy of Hugh Heffner knew no bounds. Consequently, my Short-Timer’s Calendar was the centerfold of the June 1970 Playboy magazine. To build the Calendar, I enlisted the aid of my Battalion Commander Bulldog Carter (that’s right, Bulldog), and Buck Kernan, my partner who went on to become a Lieutenant General, like his father before him. The three of us divided the luscious photo into 60 puzzle-like areas counting down from 60 to one. The trajectory of the progression became increasingly lascivious.

Thereafter, we held a nightly, candle-lit ceremony in the bunker occupied by Buck and me.

⏺⏺⏺

But before I describe the ceremony, I have to tell you about the Macadamia nuts.

During Vietnam, soldiers who were unfortunate enough to find themselves in that hellhole were allowed a ten-day R&R (Rest and Relaxation) vacation, usually a little after the mid-point of their tour. Unmarried soldiers usually went either to Bangkok, Thailand, or Australia.

Most of the time the married folks went to Hawaii to meet their wives. So, when my turn came, I hopped a plane at Da Nang airbase halfway up the coast of the South China Sea and flew off to meet my wife, Marilyn, in Honolulu.

When we first checked into our hotel and got to our room, we discovered the hotel had left a small jar of macadamia nuts for us. Up until then I had never tasted a macadamia nut in my life, but once I tossed the first one down the gullet, I was hooked. I subsequently learned Hawaii is noted for its macadamia nuts. There’s even a Macadamia Nut Visitor Center somewhere on Oahu.

You may forgive me for saying with the exception of the inside of our hotel room and the balcony outside it on Waikiki Beach, the one with a beautiful view of Diamond Head up the coast, we never did see much of Hawaii for the first four or five days.

But toward the end of the R&R, after we’d come up for air, seen the sights, sampled the beach, and done the obligatory Don Ho nightclub show, we went to the PX (Post Exchange) at Scofield Army Barracks and bought a large jar of Macadamia nuts for me to take back to Vietnam. In Vietnam, little things became luxurious delicacies.

The next day, Marilyn and I boarded our separate planes, she to return to the civilized world of Massachusetts, and me to head back to something completely different.

⏺⏺⏺

Back to the ceremony.

The bunker assigned to Buck and me had a single bunk bed. There was only one bed, because Buck and I took 12-hour shifts in the Operations Center, where we prevented the dominos from falling and kept the world safe for democracy. One of us would end his shift, head to the bunker, wave as he passed the other guy, and crash into the bed.

Every night, at 2000 hours — 8 p.m. to you — the three of us, Bulldog, Buck and I, would gather in the bunker. I had scrounged a small table which I had placed against the wall to the side of the bed. I had lovingly pinned Miss June to the wall above the table. At the appointed hour, I would light the two candles I had placed on each side of the table under the pin-up. I would open the jar of Macadamia nuts, which occupied a special spot in the center of the table, and hand each of my comrades one nut, taking one for myself. We would then spend a moment in quiet reflection, meditating on the bounty before us, after which I would, with a red marker purloined from the Ops Center, X-out that day’s descending number on Miss June’s tantalizing body.

We would then eat the nuts.

We did that for 59 consecutive nights. Fifty-nine red Xs covered Miss June. We were down to ONE! On the final night, we held a special ceremony, inviting the Battalion XO, the other six staff officers, the Battalion Sgt. Major, and the Chaplain, Father McBride, into the bunker, which became almost as crowded as the stateroom scene in “Night at the Opera.” We gave everyone a Macadamia nut that night, and, to great applause, I placed the last red X on Miss June’. Even Father McBride smiled.

Then, in a service worthy of priestly ordination, I passed the jar of Macadamia nuts to Buck — who, because he still had six weeks to go, later on would replace my centerfold with his centerfold and continue the tradition. We retired my centerfold to a place of prominence on the side wall of the Ops Center, where it looked down on all the guys, and where Bulldog could see it every day, its 60 red Xs pointing the way to his bit of heaven back in the U.S. Six weeks later, Buck’s would hang his beside it.

The next day, I choppered south, boarded a chartered Pan Am plane with about three hundred other happy survivors, and flew home to what we called “the world.”

Since then, Macadamia nuts have occupied a special place in my heart.

Tags:
Posted in History, Misc.

Updates On Recent Stories I Covered

March 3rd, 2023 by Tom Lynch

Israel’s judicial crisis continues as far right bills advance in Knesset

In mid-February I wrote about Israel’s descent into judicial chaos.

Israel had gone through three elections in late 2022 to elect a new government. To regain power, the historically conservative Likud Party, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, joined in a coalition with five right-wing and religiously conservative parties, some of which are hugely influenced, perhaps dominated, by Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community, known as the Haredim. The coalition won the third election, and Netanyahu became Prime Minister for the sixth time. Six days after the election the government filed bills in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, to severely limit the power of the country’s Supreme Court in that:

  1. A simple majority in the Knesset, 61 votes out of 120, would have the power to annul Supreme Court rulings. This would enable the government of the day to pass legislation without fear of it being struck down. It is called the “override” provision, in that the Knesset could override a Supreme Court ruling;
  2. The Supreme Court’s ability to revoke administrative decisions by the government on the grounds of “reasonability” (what would a reasonable person say about this?), would end, significantly decreasing judicial oversight; and,
  3. For the Supreme Court to strike down a Knesset-passed law would require 80% of the court’s 15 judges voting for such a ruling. But even if that were to happen, a simple Knesset majority could “override” the ruling.

At the time I wrote about this there was a singular complication: Benjamin Netanyahu is on trial, actually three trials, for corruption. If he is convicted of anything and appeals, the coalition government could override any Supreme Court ruling. Some might say this places Netanyahu at the mercy of his coalition partners.

Update

In order for these measure to become law requires passing three readings in Knesset committees. Last week, in a long and tense plenary session, the combined bill passed its first reading in the Knesset. Yesterday, the Knesset’s Constitution Committee advanced the bill for its second reading.

The judicial crisis was only made worse last Sunday when, in revenge for the killing of two Jewish Israeli brothers as they drove through the West Bank town of Hawara, near the city of Nablus, a mob of Jewish settlers attacked the town, torching 36 homes and 15 cars. The Palestinian Red Crescent reported one death and 98 Palestinians wounded in the attack. Three ambulances were also destroyed.

The attack was met with a public outpouring of support from settler leaders and Knesset members. Moreover, the Israeli coalition Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a firebrand of the first order, told the settlers, “Hawara must be destroyed.” It nearly was.

The U.S. condemned the violence in unusually strong terms. “Just as we condemn Palestinian incitement to violence, we condemn these provocative remarks that also amount to incitement to violence,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said.

It does not seem too much of a stretch to conclude the new coalition government, with its uber-nationalistic sway, has emboldened the highly nationalistic settlers who continue to gobble up land and force Palestinians into ever more woeful conditions.

Israel’s other western allies, for example the UK and France, have also condemned Sunday’s violence and, along with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have told Mr. Netanyahu—to his face—that the judicial reforms he is championing are a serious threat to the future of their relationship. So far, the Prime Minister and his coalition partners are calling their bluff.

At this point, it does not appear this situation will end well—for anyone.

Mississippi extends Medicaid postpartum coverage duration

In February, I wrote about maternal mortality in America. Bottom line: It’s the highest in the developed world. At that time, I wrote:

Federal law requires Medicaid to cover postpartum care for only 60 days following birth, which is one of the prime reasons for our lagging maternal mortality global performance. In the other OECD countries, mothers not only receive postpartum care for a year, they also average 51 weeks of paid maternity leave. (The U.S. is the only OECD country with no requirement for paid maternity leave.)

The  American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) created an option for states to extend postpartum coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries from 60 days to a full year. Under the Act, the option was scheduled to expire in 2027. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the 12-month extended Medicaid postpartum coverage option was made permanent. Now once states take up the option to extend the postpartum period from 60 days to 12 months, federal matching funds will continue to flow. Thus far, 35 states have already taken advantage of the option and the federal cash that goes with it.

Nine other states have legislation pending to follow the 35. Mississippi is one of them.

Update

I can’t tell you how happy I am to report that yesterday the Mississippi legislature passed the postpartum permanent extension, and Governor Tate Reeves signed it into law. Reeves had been opposed to the measure, but had a change of heart when he realized that a lot more babies were about to be born in Mississippi due to the repeal of Roe v. Wade and the state’s strict (to say the least) anti-abortion laws, which meant some mothers could die without the postpartum extension, and the politically astute Reeves did not want to be the one taking incoming fire for helping that to happen. To which I say: Whatever works.

Mississippi’s joining the postpartum extension club only happened because Division of Medicaid Executive Director Drew Snyder, whose department reports to the Governor and who for months has refused to take a stance on postpartum coverage extension (how medically courageous of him, eh?), wrote a letter on 27 February to House Speaker Philip Gunn voicing his newfound support for the legislation’s passage (notably, after his boss, Governor Reeves had his change of heart). Gunn had been vehemently opposed to the measure, believing it put the state in the awful position of expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, something he has vowed would never happen. In his letter, Snyder assured Gunn that permanently extending Medicaid postpartum coverage would not equate to expanding Medicaid a la the Affordable Care Act, and he urged the Speaker to come on board for all the reasons that had swayed Governor Reeves. You know, all those babies about to be born in Mississippi. He also reminded Gunn the state has a $3.1 billion surplus, the annual cost of the extension is pegged at $7.1 million, and the feds will chip in more than $35 million. Reading Snyder’s letter is like reading George Orwell.

Whatever the reasons, Mississippi has done the right thing.

Ely Lilly to drop the cost of basic insulin to $35 per vial

I have written a number of times about what I consider the obscene price of insulin for Type 1 diabetics. See here and here for the history of the discovery and how we got to this point. Bottom line, as I wrote in 2018, the three discovers of insulin, led by Frederick Banting, who won the Nobel Prize for it:

sold the patent to the University of Toronto for the princely sum of $3.00. When asked why he didn’t cash in on his discovery, Banting said, “Insulin is my gift to mankind.” With Banting’s blessing, the University licensed insulin’s manufacturing to drug companies, royalty free. If drug companies didn’t have to pay royalties, Banting thought they would keep the price of insulin low.

And they did. For decades.

But patents expire, and capitalism being what it is, people get greedy, and greed is why we have no generic, low-cost insulin today and why, over the past 20 years, insulin prices have risen anywhere from 800% to 1,157%, depending on the variety and brand. It’s why, lacking health insurance, some Type 1 diabetics have recently been driven to ration their precious insulin. Some of them have died.

Update

Yesterday, the Ely Lilly company, the first company to license Banting’s discovery, announced price reductions of 70% for its most commonly prescribed insulins and an expansion of its Insulin Value Program that caps patient out-of-pocket costs at $35 or less per month. In its press release, the company said it is:

  • Cutting the list price of its non-branded insulin, Insulin Lispro Injection…to $25 a vial. Effective May 1, 2023, it will be the lowest list-priced mealtime insulin available, and less than the price of a Humalog® vial in 1999.
  • Cutting the list price of Humalog® …, Lilly’s most commonly prescribed insulin, and Humulin® (insulin human) injection … by 70%, effective in Q4 2023.
  • Launching RezvoglarTM …injection, a basal insulin that is biosimilar to, and interchangeable with, Lantus® (insulin glargine) injection, for $92 per five pack of KwikPens®, a 78% discount to Lantus, effective April 1, 2023.

Lilly also said:

  • Effective immediately, Lilly will automatically cap out-of-pocket costs at $35 at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance using Lilly insulin.
  • People who don’t have insurance can continue to go to InsulinAffordability.com and immediately download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

This, of course, is marvelous news for the 1.3 million Type 1 diabetics in the country not on Medicare, which already has a $35 cap thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It is not an exaggeration to say insulin made Eli Lilly and Company and Novo Nordisk two of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world. It also hasn’t hurt the bottom line of Sanofi, the company that rounds out the insulin producing triumvirate and is the world’s fifth largest pharma by sales. I think it is a good bet these last two will quickly follow Lilly’s lead.

The greed of these three companies over the last two or three decades has hurt a lot of people, both physically and economically. Let’s hope this move by Lilly is the first step in making amends.

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in health care, International relations, Medical Issues, Public policy

Ukraine: One Year In And It’s 1915 All Over Again

February 24th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

This morning, politicians, diplomats, generals, and just plain folks all over Europe and America are asking the same questions: Where do we go from here and how do we get there?

One year ago today, Vladimir Putin launched his Blitzkrieg invasion of Ukraine. It failed to capture the capital Kyiv. This is reminiscent of the German invasion of neutral Belgium on 3 August 1914. Germany’s plan called for an all out sprint through Belgium to capture Paris and defeat France before the French could mobilize their defense. Although the Germans made it to 90 miles from Paris, they never got there, and following an August filled with German atrocities, the arrival of the British to join the slaughter, French counterattacks, and the absolute refusal of America to become involved, everyone settled in for four years of trench warfare, where millions of rounds of artillery shelling bracketed wave after wave of soldiers insanely charging across “no man’s land,” to capture a few feet of ground they would lose the next day.

It wasn’t until 1917 when the discovery of the Zimmermann Telegram¹ gave President Woodrow Wilson the excuse he needed to bring America into the war that the tide began to turn leading to Germany’s surrender in November, 1918. The Versailles Treaty that followed completely changed the world’s political geography and furnished the political ammunition that led to Adolph Hitler and the Second World War.

The trench systems on the Western Front in World War 1 were roughly 475 miles long, stretching from the English Channel to the Swiss Alps, although not in a continuous line. In Ukraine today, the battle line extends about 600 miles, and the Russians are dug in all along it. The trench system they have built is formidable. The two sides exchange artillery constantly, while Russia periodically fires more Cruise Missiles into Ukrainian cities. The ones Ukrainians fail to shoot down kill more civilians and destroy more infrastructure. That’s the whole point of them.

No one, I mean absolutely nobody, knows how the current war in Ukraine will end. What we can say is what most observers thought would happen a year ago hasn’t. One year ago, I wrote:

Ukrainian troops are fighting valiantly, as did so many in Hitler’s way in 1939, but, as with those long ago heroic defenders, they fight alone and their cause is hopeless. True, they will make Putin pay a high cost in Russian blood, but it seems inevitable that Kyiv will fall. Putin will decapitate the government, assassinate the leaders he can find, install a puppet regime, declare Ukraine restored to its rightful place in the arms of Mother Russia, and that will be that.

Like everyone else, I was wrong, but happily so. Still…

British and American Intelligence agencies think around 200,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded over the last year. That includes thousands of the infamous Wagner mercenary group, financed by wealthy catering tycoon, ex-convict, and all around Russian loose cannon Yevgeniy Prigozhin. He enlisted thirty to forty thousand convicts from Russian prisons, and then used them as cannon fodder, which is one reason he’s having difficulty getting any more prisoners to trade their cells for an extremely remote chance of staying alive long enough to get a taste of  freedom. The Wagner group, however, does have around 15,000 actual soldiers experienced in small squad tactics, but, despite all the press their leader has garnered, “they have played only a minor role in the war thus far,” according to Michael Kofman, the Russian studies Research Program Director at the Center for Naval Analysis.

Despite far-right congressional Republican opposition here at home to aiding Ukraine, up to this point the United States has succeeded in keeping NATO and the European Union united in resisting Putin’s immoral, illegal, and savage aggression. The western powers have levied economic sanctions and provided a vast amount of military aid. Thus far, the sanctions have hurt the Russian economy, but not its defense industrial production; Iran and North Korea have stepped in to restock Russian shelves with armaments, but that supply will eventually run out like toilet paper during the pandemic. Which is why Putin is turning to China and the Global South, particularly Africa and India, which has increased its importation of Russian crude oil by a factor of more than seven since the conflict began. Much of the Global South sees America as an Imperialist power and will not join in sanctioning Russia.

The U.S. has, over the last couple of weeks, repeatedly warned China not to provide “lethal” aid to Russia, but China is in a difficult position. It desperately wants Russia not to lose the war, because if that happened America and the West would assume even more global domination. The problem is China has a vast supply of ammunition and other armaments, and Russia needs them, but China would risk significant economic and diplomatic harm by providing them.

Right now, Russia has begun its long-awaited winter offensive, without much success to this point. It’s anticipated that the Ukrainian plan is to ward off this Russian attack and then begin its own spring offensive when it might have more and better western armaments to throw into the fight.

Meanwhile, back in Russia, Putin, who has been planning this invasion for more than a decade, has finished consolidating his power. Elite Russians who vociferously opposed the war at its beginning have left the country; the people who stayed have gladly swallowed the propaganda. The independent press, that is, what was left of it before the invasion, has been eviscerated. Ditto to his political opponents, who have all been jailed. Even Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church is a strident supporter. The result is that Putin is, quite literally, preaching to his choir.

And he seems more than ever in for the long haul, believing he can actually outlast the opposition, in that western unity will over time crack apart like Humpty Dumpty’s egg.

At the one-year anniversary of this barbaric war, we should ask the question: What if that happens? What if western support slowly goes away?

Here’s a scenario hard to contemplate. Most experts now agree this is a multi-year war; it’s a long slog. Less than two years from now America holds a presidential election. If a far-right-leaning, Russia-tolerating Republican wins that election (it happened in 2016³) with a platform saying the war has cost America far too much, we should now get out, and the Ukrainians should fight it out by themselves, the entire European and Ukrainian picture could change. It’s hard to imagine this happening, but without U.S. leadership, Russia and its stone-cold-killer² president would then have license to hold nothing back.

Another scenario. What if western unity remains strong? What if a staunch Ukrainian independence supporter wins our presidential election and Putin realizes the egg will not crack? What if Ukraine pushes Russian forces back to the boundaries of 2014?  What if Putin realizes he is in danger of losing Crimea, which, as opposed to a year aqo, President Zelenskyy now says is a solid goal Ukraine will achieve?

Would Putin then think it was time for a tactical nuclear strike? Would he be that crazy? What would China do then?

What would we do?

So many questions with not an answer in sight.

_____________________________

¹ In January 1917, British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico after the war was won in return for joining the German cause.

² Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates’s term for him.

³ Ask yourself where we’d be, where Ukraine would be, if the Russian invasion had happened on Donald Trump’s watch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Ukraine

The Roger Ailes Road To Shame And Infamy, Twenty-Five Years In The Making

February 22nd, 2023 by Tom Lynch

In 1996, trying to replicate the success that made him a billionaire in Britain, Rupert Murdoch hit the US airwaves with Fox News Channel. The news and political commentary network operated under the umbrella of the Fox Entertainment Group, the film and television division of Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox (formerly News Corporation). Murdoch hired Roger Ailes to run the new  network as CEO. Ailes had been a senior Republican consultant and strategist during the presidential campaigns of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush, a campaign in which he and Lee Atwater came up with the Willy Horton ad that doomed the candidacy of Mike Dukakis.

When he was dying of inoperable brain cancer, Atwater apologized to Dukakis for the “naked cruelty” of the Horton ad; Ailes never did.

Ailes lasted at Fox for 20 years, until in 2016 Murdoch forced him to resign in disgrace after several female Fox employees, including on-air hosts Gretchen Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Andrea Tantaros, accused him of sexual harassment. Murdoch and Ailes’s accusers eventually settled all the cases for about $45 million. Ailes, himself, walked away with a severance package of $45 million. Crime pays.

Ten months after leaving Fox, Ailes, a hemophiliac, died from injuries he suffered in a fall at his home.

During his 20 years as CEO, it was Roger Ailes who set Fox News on the highly successful road of right wing, conservative “opinion reporting” by the likes of Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, et al. Ailes and Fox attracted a base of fiercely loyal viewers for whom Fox became the one and only place to hear their truth, regardless of what the real truth was. Fox’s news division reported actual news with a conservative slant, but it was the prime time opinion shows with their hyperventilated hyperbole and outright lies that propelled Fox’s ratings.

A television network makes money in a number of ways, but the two primary ones are through licensing fees cable operators pay to carry the channel and through advertising. Licensing fees are based on multi-year contracts, but advertising rates are determined by viewership, the market where the ads will appear, the time of day they’ll run, and how often, with viewership being the most important. What an advertiser pays will be based on how many thousands of people will see the ad. It’s called Cost Per Mille, or CPM. Viewership determines ratings, and ratings determine what a network can charge for an ad. For 20 consecutive years, under Roger Ailes’s leadership, Fox News Channel outscored all its rivals in viewership, which led to huge profits for the Murdoch family and big paydays for its on-air personalities.

All of that became threatened with the presidential election of 2020, the election Donald Trump lost by more than seven million votes.

Four years following the Ailes departure, the road he built led to a single moment a whisker after midnight on election night when all the fecal matter in the Fox television universe thwacked into the giant whirring instrument sitting in the middle of the company’s New York City headquarters. For that was the moment Chris Stirewalt, Fox News’s digital politics editor, polling chief Dana Blanton and analyst Arnon Mishkin called Arizona, and its 11 electoral votes, for Joe Biden. That was the moment everyone in Trump-world began to think something might be very wrong.

Stirewalt later testified before the House Special Committee Investigating the January 6th Insurrection. In his testimony he took great pride in calling Arizona for Biden. “We were able to beat the competition,” he said with a broad smile.

For beating the competition, Fox fired Stirewalt in what it labeled “a company-wide restructuring.” Bill Sammon, a longtime Fox News executive who was also involved in the Arizona call was forced to resign as the network cleaned house.

At that singular moment when Stirewalt and the Fox Digital Election Team gave Biden Arizona, the Fox election desk team came to a fork in the Roger Ailes Road. On one side, a trail led to announcing the unfortunate result, bemoaning how terrible they thought it was that their favorite had lost in Arizona, and then moving on. The other trail, the one that bore to the right, the far right, led to disputing the results in all the states Trump eventually lost, fabricating conspiracies to account for the losses, hosting whack-a-doodle theorists in prime time to vividly detail the fake conspiracies, thoroughly and publicly agreeing with all the nuttiness, while privately calling it “insane” and “crazy”—and blaming everything on Dominion Voting Systems, a company that provided voting technology machines to 28 states during the 2020 election, including swing states Wisconsin and Georgia. The conspiracy accusations, made with almost biblical certainty by Trump election advisors Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell claimed the Dominion machines had been “rigged” to falsify votes so Biden could win.

Remarkably, that was the road Fox took. Three months later, on 26 March 2021, Dominion Voting Systems Corporation sued Fox News Network, LLC, for $1.6 billion. This, after another voting technology company, Smartmatic, which provided its technology to one county in America, Los Angeles County, had already sued Fox, Powell, Giuliani, and others for $2.7 billion.

Last week, after significant Discovery, Dominion filed its Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. It’s damning in how it shows Fox’s political commentators saying one thing on-air and the opposite privately to each other.

Before he resigned in the “company-wide restructuring” that purged Stirewalt, Managing Editor of the Washington , D.C. Bureau Bill Sammon said, “It’s remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things.”

When Stirewalt and his independent crew called the Arizona race, Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity were angry and concerned, texting each other, as well as Fox executives, that the network was in danger of losing those fiercely loyal viewers who would feel betrayed by the Arizona call. Losing those viewers would lead to diminished ratings, which would impact profits, which would jeopardize big paydays for them.

They were right. After the Arizona call, viewers immediately began to pound Fox on social media for betraying President Trump. They headed for the Fox door and the Fox far-right competition, Newsmax and OAN. By January, 2021, Fox viewership had dropped 20% and CNN’s had soared. But by the following June, the viewers had returned to the nest as Fox fed them what they wanted to hear. From April to June, Fox averaged 1.2 million viewers per day, far ahead of MSNBC (847,000) and CNN (654,000). In primetime, it was even further ahead (2.2 million viewers to MSNBC’s 1.5 million and CNN’s 914,000).

In hindsight, Fox executives and on-air talent believed that, while Arizona had been truly lost to Trump, most of the danger would have been avoided had Fox waited until other networks called it and then gotten in line at the rear. As it happened, Biden won Arizona by 11,000 votes, but other networks did not make their own calls until eight days had passed. Eight days of terror for Fox. It was during those eight days that the conspiracy nutjobs took their seats of honor at the Fox dinner table.

Three days after the election, Maria Bartiromo interviewed Sydney Powell on Fox Business. Powell claimed Dominion created a secret “algorithm to calculate the votes they would need to flip. And they used the computers to flip those votes from Biden to—I mean, from Trump to Biden.” Bartiromo agreed with her. And it was Powell who told Lou Dobbs on his show that Smartmatic and Dominion Voting Systems conspired with Venezuela’s communist leadership, ditto with Cuba, and “likely” China to create software to fix the election for Joe Biden against Donald Trump.

Night after night, for nearly two months, the hosts on the opinion side of Fox News fed the conspiracy dragon. Not one of them ever said publicly the conspiracy theories were “crazy” or “insane,” but that is exactly what some of them said to each other, as the Dominion Brief makes crystal clear.

Pirro, Bartiromo and especially Lou Dobbs, who had been with Fox since Day 1, repeatedly repeated the lies. Dobbs was the highest-rated host on Fox Business. He often doubled his lead-in’s ratings. But 24 hours after he and Fox were named in the $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Smartmatic, Murdoch fired him. Fox News’s official reason for canceling Dobbs’ show —”a post-election programing adjustment”—is a nice way of saying they had to throw some high-rated somebody over the side.

The Dominion Brief says the company tried an eye-popping 3,600 times without success to get Fox to retract the nonsense.

The Fox defense is the same one Sydney Powell made when Dominion sued her individually: No reasonable person would be expected to believe this stuff.

Except people did, reasonable or not, and the Roger Ailes road, the one he started building 25 years earlier, ended with five dead and 140 injured at the January 6th Insurrection, a day of national shame and infamy, unrivaled since the Civil War.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in 6 January Select Committee, Politics

Israel: A Democracy Facing A Judicial Disaster

February 13th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

In Israel, the Knesset is the legislative branch of government. It is joined by the Executive, which forms the Cabinet, the Presidency, which is mostly ceremonial, but carries significant gravitas, and the Judicial, headed by the Supreme Court. As in America, the legislative branch passes laws, and, if challenged, the Supreme Court rules on their constitutionality. It’s democracy in action. Checks and balances just as in the USA.

That may be changing.

When Israel’s Bennett-Lapid government fell on 30 June 2022, a caretaker government took control until 1 November when the country held elections intending to install its 37th government since 1948. There are 120 seats in the Knesset. Consequently, to take control requires 61 seats, and through two rounds of elections a clear winner did not emerge.

That shifted on 29 December 2022, when the third round of elections created a coalition government, a government unlike any that came before it, a government that is threatening the very fabric of democracy in Israel.

The coalition government consists of six political parties—Likud, United Torah Judaism, Shas, Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit, and Noam—and is led by Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu, who has taken office as the Prime Minister of Israel for the sixth time. With the exception of Likud, the other five parties are right-wing and religiously conservative, hugely influenced, perhaps dominated, by Israel’s ultra-Orthodox community, known as the Haredim.

The Haredim have long enjoyed benefits unavailable to other Israeli citizens: exemption from army service for Torah students, government stipends for those choosing full-time religious study over work and separate schools that receive state funds even though their curricula barely teach government-mandated subjects.

In the December election, Netanyahu’s Likud party corralled 32 seats, the other five parties another 32. The coalition, with 64 seats, took control of government and formed a Cabinet, a far right, autocratic Cabinet.

Nearly the first thing the new government did was to announce plans to limit the power of the Supreme Court.

Under the plans announced by Justice Minister Yariv Levin on 4 January, a simple majority in the Knesset, 61 votes, would have the power to effectively annul Supreme Court rulings. This would enable the government of the day to pass legislation without fear of it being struck down. It’s called the “override” provision, in that the Knesset could override a Supreme Court ruling. This would absolutely happen, because, unlike in the U.S., where legislators may vote their conscience (of course, they may pay for that later), Israeli Knesset members must vote as their coalition demands.

The new plan also seeks to end the Supreme Court’s ability to revoke administrative decisions by the government on the grounds of “reasonability” (what would a reasonable person say about this?), significantly decreasing judicial oversight. And it envisions giving the government and the coalition in parliament absolute control over appointing judges. Unlike the U.S., Israel’s Supreme Court has a say in appointing judges, at least for the moment.

The final spanner the new government threw into the judicial works is that for the Supreme Court to strike down a Knesset-passed law would require 80% of the judges voting for such a ruling. But even if that happens a simple Knesset majority could “override” the ruling.

There is another issue to deal with. The religiously conservative coalition members have long been fervent advocates for more Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. The proposed law could make it easier for the government to legislate in favor of such settlements without having to worry about challenges in the Supreme Court. To blunt international criticism of settlement construction, Israel has in the past pointed to the power of the court to rule against it. If the Override law passes, the country won’t be able to use that defense again, exposing it to even fiercer critiques.

This plan passed out of its Knesset Committee this morning, which is significant, and is now on the way to passage in the full Knesset (it will have go through three votes to cross the finish line—a matter of a week or two).*

The Biden administration, the American Jewish community and most of the European Union are dead set against this remaking of the Israeli judicial system. As is the Bank of Israel, whose governors opined the change will do significant harm to the nation’s economy. As are the CEOs of the country’s leading industries, especially technology and manufacturing.

American Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly criticized the Israeli government when he met with Netanyahu on 2 February in Israel. The next day, Netanyahu flew to Paris where French President Emmanuel Macron told him to his face the plan would “hurt Israel’s place in the world economy.” Macron “expressed bluntly” that the proposed judicial shakeup “threatens to break the power of the Supreme Court, the only institutional counter-power in the government,” and that, “Paris should conclude that Israel has emerged from a common conception of democracy,” if the planned changes take effect. And yesterday, President Biden also politely suggested the plan is a bad idea when he said, “Israeli democracy is built on an independent judiciary.”

You can add the Israeli public to the naysayers. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands poured into streets around the country to protest, 80,000 of them outside the Knesset.

In this witch’s brew there exists a significant looming complication: the Three Trials of Benjamin Netanyahu, a long-delayed, 3-part felony corruption case.

Prime Minister Netanyahu faces bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges, each being tried separately at the same time in Jerusalem. He  has denied all accusations, vociferously attacking those who seek to prosecute him. Sound familiar?

Israel’s former Justice Minister brought the charges against Netanyahu in 2021, but circumstances, mostly pandemic-oriented, forced two delays. But that’s in the past, and the trials are ongoing now. Netanyahu has said that he will not use his new authority as Prime Minister to upend the legal process, he’ll be mindful of “conflicts of interest.” However, Netanyahu is the leader of the coalition carrying this foul-tasting, stink-producing, judicial bag of ten-day-old fish through the Knesset.

And here’s a question, a pretty big “what if.” What if the Knesset passes the override law as is and Israel’s Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional? In that event does the government simply say, “No, we’re overriding you?”

Amir Tibon, Senior Writer and Editor for Harretz, a leading Israeli liberal newspaper, has reported that as far back as a decade ago Netanyahu staunchly defended Israel’s judicial system and continued to do so right up until this latest government. To get along with his coalition partners that faith in the judiciary may be a thing of the past.

Last night, recognizing that this road ends with a long fall from a high cliff, Israel’s President Isaac Herzog in a surprise address to the nation stressed the importance of reaching a broad compromise and presented his own plan for Israel’s balance of powers. Harretz reported today that, in what might be a violation of Netanyahu’s “conflict of interest pledge,” following the President’s address he and Justice Minister Yariv Levin met late into the night to discuss it and plan a response.

Will any of the national and international criticism make any difference? The religious political parties are basing their passionate advocacy on deeply held religious beliefs. Netanyahu and Likud need them to stay in power. How does one ask people to temper their beliefs?

Israel and America are longstanding, dedicated partners. Despite meaningful differences in our approach to the middle east, our two countries aspire to similar values. Tearing apart Israel’s judiciary will remove an important, perhaps vital, brick in its house of justice, its house of democracy, a brick we each have long held dear.

The coalition government is doing its best to pound a square peg into a round hole. I know it can be done. I also know if it is, the peg will no longer be round, no longer be square, but it sure will be ugly.

____________________________________________

*Sorry, I could not resist a reference to Sunday’s Super Bowl, a game where, once again, I picked the losing side.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Law, Public policy, Religious affiliation

Maternal Mortality In America: The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 Is Here To Help

February 9th, 2023 by Tom Lynch

The maternal mortality rate in the US is the highest in the developed world.

The World Health Organization and the OECD define maternal mortality as “the annual number of female deaths from any cause related to, or aggravated by, pregnancy or its management (excluding accidental or incidental causes) during pregnancy and childbirth or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of the pregnancy.” The rate of maternal mortality is the number of these deaths per 100,000 live births.

The U.S. defines it differently. In the U.S., the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) covers a full year following birth, not the 42 days of the WHO and OECD. This is why the CDC reports the latest MMR figures  in the U.S. as 17.3, while the OECD has it at 5.8 (for 2020). To confuse things even more, a highly regarded study in The Lancet in 2016 noted, ” The overall decrease from 1990 to 2015 in global maternal deaths was roughly 29% and the decrease in MMR was 30%.” However, the same study pointed out the U.S. rate for 2015 had risen to 26.4.

But regardless of how you count it, our rate still outpaces all the other developed nations. Moreover, according to the CDC, the U.S. rate has been rising since 1987, while our OECD global competitors have seen theirs decline since 1990.

In America, the maternal mortality rate is much higher among Black, Hispanic, and Native American communities. An October 2022 study by  the GAO (Government Accountability Office) put it this way:

• The maternal death rate for Black or African-American (not Hispanic or Latina) women was 44.0 per 100,000 live births in 2019, then increased to 55.3 in 2020, and 68.9 in 2021. In contrast, White (not Hispanic or Latina) women had death rates of 17.9, 19.1, and 26.1, respectively.
• The maternal death rate for Hispanic or Latina women was lower (12.6) compared with White (not Hispanic or Latina) women (17.9) in 2019, but increased significantly during the pandemic in 2020 (18.2) and 2021 (27.5).

Disparities in other adverse outcomes, such as preterm and low birthweight births, persisted for Black or African-American (not Hispanic or Latina) women, according to GAO analysis of CDC data.

The GAO study lays this squarely at the wide open door of racism:

Additionally, racism negatively affects the health of millions of people, according to CDC. We previously reported, and research has shown, that racial and ethnic disparities in maternal health outcomes persist, even after controlling for other factors like socioeconomic status, education, and access to care.¹ Some studies described specifically how racial discrimination can contribute to worsened maternal health outcomes. For example, chronic stress associated with racism can cause physiological changes and adverse health conditions. Moreover, bias or discrimination within the health care system can create communication challenges between providers and their patients, which may increase the risk of adverse outcomes. For example, pregnant women may be reluctant to ask questions about their condition if they faced discrimination from their provider.² In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted racial and ethnic health disparities.³

From the GAO study

MMR is highest in Louisiana, at 58.1, and lowest in California, at 4.0, which is the average for the OECD.

Federal law requires Medicaid to cover postpartum care for only 60 days following birth, which is one of the prime reasons for our lagging global performance. In the OECD, mothers not only receive postpartum care for a year, they also average 51 weeks of paid maternity leave. (The U.S. is the only OECD country with no requirement for paid maternity leave.)

Enter the  American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA), the Act Republicans derided and didn’t vote for, but love to take credit for back in their home districts. The Act offers significant resources for states to extend postpartum care for Medicaid beneficiaries.

Here’s how it’s working. ARPA created an option for states to extend postpartum coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries from 60 days to a full year. Under the Act, the option was scheduled to expire in 2027. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023, the 12-month extended Medicaid postpartum coverage option was made permanent. Now once states take up the option to extend the postpartum period from 60 days to 12 months, federal matching funds will continue to flow. Thus far, 35 states have already taken advantage of the option and the federal cash that goes with it.

And today, the Washington Post’s McKenzie Beard, author of The Health 202 newsletter, reported Republican legislatures in nine red states have pending legislation to extend postpartum health coverage for their Medicaid beneficiaries, thereby joining the other 35 states in taking up the option created by the ARPA.

For these nine states, and their red state peers, this is all in response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade, a highly unpopular decision all around the country, which could create a significant uptick in pregnancies. There is a quite justified fear among Republican Governors and legislators that as they severely tighten restrictions on abortion our already horrible maternal mortality rate will worsen even more and they will be the ones held responsible. By extending postpartum care for 12 months they may avoid that unhappy and unfortunate political outcome while actually doing something good for the poorest of their citizens.

This is the one positive thing I have seen come out of the Roe v. Wade decision.

_________________________________________

¹See two studies of severe maternal morbidity in New York City: E. Howell et al., “Race and Ethnicity, Medical Insurance, and Within-Hospital Severe Maternal Morbidity Disparities,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 135, no. 2 (Feb. 2020): 285-293; and
M. Angley et al., “Severe Maternal Morbidity in New York City, 2008–2012,” New York Bureau of Maternal, Infant and Reproductive Health (New York, N.Y.: 2016).

²See R. Hardeman et al., “Developing Tools to Report Racism in Maternal Health for the CDC Maternal Mortality Review Information Application (MMRIA): Findings From the MMRIA Racism & Discrimination Working Group,” Maternal and Child Health Journal, vol. 26 (2022): 661–669.

³See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “COVID-19 Weekly Cases and Deaths per 100,000 Population by Age, Race/Ethnicity, and Sex,” accessed 9 February 2023.

Tags: ,
Posted in Medical Issues, Racism, Research, State News

« Older Entries