Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

A Sad Update And One Sweet Diversion

Wednesday, March 29th, 2023

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. | Comments Off on A Sad Update And One Sweet Diversion

Updates On Recent Stories I Covered

Friday, March 3rd, 2023

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 | Comments Off on Updates On Recent Stories I Covered

Israel: A Democracy Facing A Judicial Disaster

Monday, February 13th, 2023

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 | Comments Off on Israel: A Democracy Facing A Judicial Disaster