Archive
On the occasion that would have been my sister’s birthday…posted 1/29/2016
Today would have been my sister Lisa’s birthday. I wanted to offer three short Langston Hughes poems that evoked Lisa to me in different ways.
Luck
Sometimes a crumb falls
From the tables of joy,
Sometimes a bone
Is flung.
To some people
Love is given,
To others
Only heaven.
Shame on You
If you’re great enough
and clever enough
the government might honor you.
But the people will forget —
Except on holidays
A movie house in Harlem named after Lincoln,
Nothing at all named after John Brown.
Black people don’t remember
any better than white.
If you are not alive and kicking,
shame on you!
Lonely Nocturne
When dawn lights the sky
And day and night meet,
I climb my stairs high
Above the grey street.
I lift my window
To look at the sky
Where moon kisses star
Goodbye.
When dawn lights the sky
I seek my lonely room.
The halls as I go by
Echo like a tomb.
And I wonder why
As I take out my key,
There is nobody there
But me —
When dawn lights the sky.
Which way forward for New Hampshire’s Medicaid expansion? – posted 1/20/2016 and published in the Concord Monitor 1/24/2016
This piece appeared in the Concord Monitor on 1/24/2016 under the title “No games on state Medicaid expansion”.
As New Hampshire’s Legislature kicks off, there is probably no issue of greater significance for the state than the future of its Medicaid expansion. More than 46,000 people are now enrolled in the New Hampshire Health Protection Program, our Medicaid expansion.
It is estimated that by the end of the year, 58,000 New Hampshire residents will have coverage. That is a major chunk of low income residents who were previously uninsured. It is not an overstatement to say that before the Medicaid expansion, these folks often could not get inside any doctor’s office.
The Legislature now has to decide whether to continue the Medicaid expansion. The program sunsets on December 31, 2016. Without reauthorization, it dies and all those who became medically insured would become uninsured again. The state would also lose an enormous amount of federal money: hundreds of millions of dollars per year moving forward.
So far, New Hampshire has taken quite an independent path in crafting a Medicaid expansion that fits our state. The state has used federal funds to offer private sector health coverage to lower income, uninsured residents. This New Hampshire-specific approach is not the conventional way and it required a federal waiver.
Medicaid is a joint federal-state partnership and all states with a Medicaid program must abide by federal guidelines administered by the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services known as CMS. At the same time, federal rules allow some freedom for states to tinker as long as the federal government ultimately approves the plan.
I think it is fair to say that early reports have found our Medicaid expansion highly successful. Besides the thousands who were previously uninsured and became insured, there has been a noticeable decrease in uncompensated care for health care providers. A study by the New Hampshire Hospital Association has shown a marked reduction in uninsured inpatient, outpatient and emergency room visits.
Less uncompensated care also reduces pressure for health insurance premium increases – not just for families and individuals but for businesses. This is an under-appreciated fringe benefit, and one significant reason that New Hampshire’s business community supports extending Medicaid expansion.
Simply put, the Medicaid expansion is a win-win. Providers get paid and consumers get coverage. Considering the mental health and opioid crisis in our state, this coverage could not be more timely. Medicaid coverage is an essential tool in these fights. It provides access to care so desperately needed for many facing addiction and mental health traumas.
Up until now, the Medicaid expansion has been paid for 100% by federal dollars. New Hampshire has not had to pony up any financial contribution which has been a phenomenal deal for the state.
Looking to the future, where things start getting sticky is the funding formula that includes a state contribution in dollars. After the first three years of the expansion, the state is obligated to kick in a small percentage of the cost. In 2017, the federal government will pay 95% of the cost; in 2018 94%; in 2019 93%; and in 2020 and beyond 90%. The feds never pay less than 90% of the total cost. So next year the state would have to pay 5% of the cost and it would gradually go up to 10% by 2020.
For perspective, in 2017 and in return for a $25 million state contribution, New Hampshire’s Medicaid expansion is projected to bring $475 million in federal funds back home, to circulate in our economy in beneficial ways.
I would submit that this is still a wonderful deal for our state. We will be receiving a very great benefit at a small fraction of the cost in state dollars. There is a weird irony in those who profess personal responsibility also wanting the state to get a free ride from the federal government on a program that provides so much benefit to New Hampshire. Doesn’t personal responsibility imply that our state pay some cost? We have skin in the game.
Not surprisingly, Republicans and Democrats have some different ideas about what the future Medicaid expansion should look like. Two bills, HB 1696, a Republican bill, and HB 1690, a Democratic bill, have been introduced and assigned to the House Health and Human Services Committee.
I will touch on some of the bill differences. The Republicans favor a 4 year, time-limited Medicaid expansion with a new sunset date of December 31, 2020. The Democrats propose to make the Medicaid expansion permanent.
The Republicans are advocating for low-income enrollees to pay premiums. Enrollees with incomes from 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level (that is $11,000 to $16,000 a year for an individual, and from $24,000 to $33,000 a year for a family of 4) would pay $25 per month. Enrollees with incomes from 0% to 100% of the federal poverty level (up to $11,000 a year for an individual and up to $24,000 a year for a family of 4) would pay $10 per month. The suggested premiums are higher than any, to date, that have been allowed by the federal government.
The Republican bill also contains a termination and lockout provision for any enrollee who fails to make premium payments within 60 days of when it is due. Those unable to pay the premium would face a 6 month lockout where they could not re-enroll. As applied to all enrollees, the proposed penalty design is more severe than any that CMS has ever allowed.
The Republican bill also imposes work requirements on Medicaid recipients. While there is legitimate room for policy discussion about the merits of such a proposal for able-bodied persons not caring for children or ailing family members, the reality is that federal law does not allow such a requirement and CMS has never approved a state waiver proposal that includes it.
The Democratic bill contains none of these provisions.
It remains unclear if the federal government, through CMS, would grant a waiver with the type of provisions that appear in the Republican bill. They impose conditions that are more stringent than have been previously allowed by CMS.
A question that emerges: would the Republican leadership in the State House and Senate be willing to sacrifice the entire Medicaid expansion if what appears to be a pet ideological laundry list is not okayed by the federal government? It is not clear if the Republican leadership, in an election year, is simply throwing red meat at its right wing base or if it intends to use the additional preconditions as justification for scuttling the expansion.
It is significant that the Republicans have not pointed out what is wrong with the expansion as it currently functions.
One observation I would make about the Republican bill: it does not recognize the degree of poverty poor people face. The overriding brutal fact of life for people living at or close to the federal poverty level is lack of income which leads to choices about what bills get paid. Basic necessities like housing, utilities, and food can reduce available cash to zero. Other costs like child care or transportation are necessary for employment. If money is short, preventing homelessness or repairing one’s car to get to and from work is likely a higher value than paying medical premiums.
Experience has shown that low-income people are very sensitive to even nominal increases in medical out-of-pocket costs. There is a wealth of research supporting that conclusion. I would cite the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. In February 2013, they produced an overview of research findings relative to premiums and cost-sharing in Medicaid. The Kaiser Commission concluded that premiums act as a barrier to obtaining and maintaining coverage for low-income populations. It is common for premiums to result in coverage loss and the elimination of access to needed care, leading to adverse health consequences.
State savings from cost-sharing and premiums are due more to eligible people dropping or declining coverage than to increases in state revenue. Significantly, early results from states charging premiums to Medicaid expansion enrollees indicate that the administrative cost of collection exceeds any money actually realized from the premiums.
One would hope the Republican leadership would familiarize itself with the substantive research showing why premiums in Medicaid are generally seen as a failure. Their current bill appears to be more rooted in political posturing than evidence-based public policy.
No doubt party positions will evolve as the legislative session unfolds. Recognizing the paramount importance of maintaining the Medicaid expansion, I, for one, hope the parties can reach a fair compromise. The Medicaid expansion, which helps so many, deserves better than to be reduced to a political game.
Some Great Places to Go in and Around L.A. – posted 1/16/ 2016
In the last week, I got to visit my son Josh and his wife Nancy in Los Angeles where they live. We did get around. Here is my selection of best places we got to:
The Last Bookstore
Located in downtown L.A. in a space that used to be a bank, this bookstore, ironically named, has volume. The place is kind of dark, poorly lit, but there are many new and used books. I didn’t have enough time to look around that much but the literature and classic literature section were especially large. It looked like they put counterculture, aliens, and horror all in the same bank vault – an interesting commingling. I found a good book on Latino history by Juan Gonzalez titled Harvest of Empire. For book lovers, worth checking this place out.
Madcapra Falafel at Grand Central Market
This place may have the best falafel ever. At least the best I have tasted. They had four falafel options. I tried the yellow which included falafel with feta, harissa, cucumbers, pickled sweet peppers and parsley stuffed in flatbread. The sandwich had heft, was very tasty, and was really more than one meal. The cost was very reasonable and the service was good. I would mention the cardoman coffee too. Any coffee lover would dig it.
Skylight Books
I have to say I love this bookstore and I always try to get to it whenever I get to L.A.. It is great to see a legit independent bookstore that survives. I would think Amazon would put all out of business. Invariably, I find books I have not seen elsewhere. It has a superior non-fiction, politics and social science section, including progressive politics. I always leave with a list of books I should check out. Most of the books I never heard of before I walked in.
Daikokuya Sawtelle
I admit I don’t know from ramen. I had never been to a ramen house before. I think of ramen in little packages where the choice is beef or shrimp. New Hampshire has no ramen houses. The ramen broth at this place was very rich and flavorful. Bowl portions were generous and the noodles had good texture. For dumpling fans, I also would recommend the gyoza. Place is not expensive. The interior was cooly designed to resemble an Asian street scene.
Hiking to Lizard Rock at Thousand Oaks
It was a cool morning and the air was very fresh as we headed out. The hike is pretty easy but the views were good. Not that much vertical. The landscape is so different from the east. Very arid, plenty of cactus. I did not see any rattlesnakes but Josh assured me they were around. You do not see anything like this in New England.
Book Review: “Avenue of Spies” by Alex Kershaw – posted 1/3/2016
I have to admit that Alex Kershaw’s book, Avenue of Spies, grabbed me right from the start and it did not let go. It is a true story that reads like a fictional thriller. You could call it an adventure story, a love story, or a tale of remarkable bravery and heroism. It is all of those.
Set against World War II in Nazi-occupied Paris, Avenue of Spies tells the story of an American surgeon Sumner Jackson, his Swiss-born wife Toquette, and their son Philip. Much of the story comes from Kershaw’s extensive interviews with Philip Jackson.
The Jacksons lived on the same street in Paris as numerous Gestapo henchmen. Right down the street was the Gestapo headquarters inhabited by an assortment of fanatics, sadists and psychopaths. In the summer of 1943, Toquette joins the French Resistance, brings the whole family into the fight against the fascists, and operates right under the nose of the Nazi leaders in Paris. The fact that Sumner Jackson was a doctor provided cover for the various comings and goings of Resistance members into his house. As a doctor, he could explain the visits as patient medical appointments.
Avenue of Spies takes you into that world with an astonishing degree of realism. You could feel the danger. You also could appreciate the bravery. So many of the French collaborated with the Nazis. The Jackson family risked everything and they paid a big price. I am reminded of an Edward Abbey quote I have always liked:
“We live in the kind of world where courage is the most essential of virtues; without courage, the other virtues are useless.”
As I noted, a truly malevolent collection of Nazis moved into Avenue Foch, the fashionable street where the Jacksons resided. Many of the previous residents exited before the Nazi arrival in 1940. The Jacksons certainly had an opportunity to leave but they ultimately decided to stay.
Among the Nazis who moved into the neighborhood, there was Theo Dannecker, head of the Gestapo’s Jewish Affairs Office in Paris. Dannecker was a central figure in the effort to exterminate French Jews. Dannecker worked closely with SS colonel Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Final Solution.
And there was Helmut Knochen, known as Dr. Bones. Knochen, a proud member of the SS and Gestapo chief in Paris, worked tirelessly to destroy all opposition to German rule in France. He worked under Heinrich Himmler, the Supreme head of the SS, to eliminate all Resistance networks in France. In his role, Knochen recruited a private army of criminals to capture, torture and murder all perceived opponents. Knochen trawled the prisons to find the toughest career criminals and sociopaths who would do Nazi dirty work.
The story includes an interesting discussion of the disagreement among Nazi leaders about how to accomplish the extermination of French Jews.. Dannecker wanted the SS to round up the Jews. Knochen wanted the French themselves to do it. Knochen got his way. On the night of July 16, 1942, 13,152 Parisian Jews, including 4000 children, were rounded up by the French police.
The Nazis hid their true intentions. They created the fiction that those rounded up were headed to a new Jewish state being created in the East.
As Kershaw says, the Jacksons were living in the heart of a vast web of informers, spies and mass murderers.
While the Jackson family was appalled by the Nazis and the Milice, the French fascist paramilitary, they had no choice but to maintain composure. Their situation required immense sangfroid.
Dr. Jackson rose to the challenge and was quite the operator. I should add that Toquette and Philip were equally brave. Dr. Jackson maintained ties with General Rene de Chambrun, godson of Marshal Petain, the Vichy leader. General de Chambrun was influential and had connections with authorities. Dr. Jackson effectively used this relationship to protect his hospital, the American Hospital in Paris, and to keep the Germans at bay.
Dr. Jackson was able to do this for a good part of the war years and he saved many lives. He secretly helped Americans who were escaping the Germans. He falsified records to list recovered prisoners as deceased. He helped patients disappear. He hid French-Jewish officers and made sure there was no record of their stay in his hospital.
The Jacksons certainly knew the risks they were taking in joining the Resistance. Neighbors on Avenue Foch kept their windows closed so they did not have to hear the screams of the torture victims.
Without saying too much about the ending, I will say that the Jacksons’ luck ran out in May 1944. The last third of the book is devoted to the experiences of the family in the Nazi concentration camps. Toquette lands in Ravensbruck camp for women. Kershaw captures the depravity of the Nazis and the extraordinarily awful conditions endured by the prisoners. The brutality, the hunger, the cold, the complete lack of humanity, pity or kindness demonstrated by the Nazis: it is still hard to read about, even now.
There is a quote toward the end from Jacques Delarue, the author of a book on the Gestapo.
“It was a world where people exterminated for pleasure and where the murderers were treated as heroes. It already seemed far away, like a nightmare one would prefer to forget. And yet the poisoned yeast is still ready to rise. Men have not the right to forget so quickly. They have not the right. Never…”
Philip Jackson lived to testify in war crimes trials in 1946. He testified in a trial of fourteen SS officers who had been in charge of Neuengamme labor camp where he and his father had been held. Jackson pointed out the Nazis he personally saw commit crimes. The defense attorney for the Nazis argued that his clients were “tools” and not responsible. The Nazis in this trial were sentenced to death. Kershaw wrote that the Nazis showed not even a shred of regret or remorse.
Helmut Knochen, the Gestapo chief in Paris, was sentenced to death in 1947. Incredibly, he escaped hanging. This was a person who played a major role in sending almost 80,000 Jews to their deaths. Knochen had argued: “Neither I, nor one of my subordinates could have acted otherwise, without being condemned to death immediately.”
Knochen was sentenced to death a second time during the Cold War. Knochen’s death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Then, in 1962, French President Charles de Gaulle inexplicably pardoned Knochen. Knochen returned to Germany and lived to be 93 years old before he died peacefully. He said that the extermination of the Jews by Hitler was the greatest crime in history but he claimed that he did not know the Jews of France who were deported East were being murdered.
The escape of so many Nazis from the fate that they so richly deserved never ceases to amaze. It is hard to understand how the fatuous and transparently false arguments made by Knochen and other Nazis were given any credence.
One other story I would mention: Kershaw tells how Hitler wanted Paris completely destroyed at the end of the war. Even though it was clear the Nazi cause was lost, Hitler madly ordered they fight to the last man. He wanted all the great monuments and bridges blown up. Hitler wanted Paris, the most beautiful city in the world, left a vast ruin. As insane as the Nazis were, it turned out that some of their generals did not want to go down in history as the destroyer of Paris.
Kershaw quotes the French Resistance leader, Jean-Pierre Levy:
“We lived in the shadows as soldiers of the night, but our lives were not dark and martial…There were arrests, torture and death for so many of our friends and comrades, and tragedy awaited all of us just around the corner. But we did not live in or with tragedy. We were exhilarated by the challenges and rightness of our cause.”
It was inspiring to read about and feel the atmosphere of that humane heroism.
It is time for paid family and medical leave – posted 12/26/2015
This campaign season the issues of terrorism and national security have pushed domestic matters into the background. That is too bad because we are starved for discussion of new policy ideas on the home front.
This is the first presidential election where paid family and medical leave has been discussed by the candidates as a real possibility. You have to ask: what took so long?
The Family and Medical Leave Act, also known as the FMLA, mandated 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employees in companies of 50 workers or more. The FMLA passed in 1993. Advocates at the time of bill passage thought the FMLA was only a first step in addressing family friendly employment leave policies.
Here we are 22 years later and we are still waiting for step two. This in spite of the fact that the FMLA has been widely recognized as a very successful and popular program.
In an earlier life when I worked as a lobbyist in the New Hampshire Legislature, I tried to assist bills in multiple legislative sessions that were designed to create paid family and medical leave in our state. In those efforts, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to work with Rep. Mary Stuart Gile of Concord.
Rep. Gile is the unsung heroine of paid family leave in New Hampshire. For years, Rep. Gile has brought forward bills to advance that issue. She deserves credit for consistently trying a variety of ways to promote paid family leave and for making compelling policy arguments for why it would be good for our state.
In her advocacy, Rep. Gile has been a genuine educator. As those around the Legislature know, it can often take a very long time to translate a new idea, even a very good idea, into law.
I believe the bills Rep. Gile has introduced in the past have typically stalled because of opposition from business lobbyists and also from very conservative elements in the Republican party. The lobbyists always raised questions about the funding mechanism. While the questions were valid, it often seemed like fear of something new and any possible cost immediately trumped recognition of perceived benefits.
It would be one thing if the idea had never been tried or if it had been tried and it failed. Three states have successfully instituted paid family and medical leave – New Jersey, California, and Rhode Island. In these states, predictions of adverse consequences never materialized. Where it has been tried, paid family and medical leave has helped thousands of workers.
Two-thirds of children in the United States live in homes where both parents work. That is up from 40% in 1970. Only 12% of workers in the United States have access to paid family leave. These workers are typically higher earners, often located in the high tech industry. Under the current FMLA, only about 60% of all workers are even covered by unpaid family leave. Some significant percentage of the covered cannot afford to take unpaid leave.
These demographics dictate the increased importance of paid family leave. Millions of workers juggle caregiving responsibilities for young children or aging parents with work responsibilities. The timing of the birth of a new born or an unexpected illness of a family member can throw a monkey wrench into complicated work and family schedules. The challenges of juggling work and family can be particularly acute in single parent households.
Here in the United States, we have been remarkably slow in recognizing the importance of paid family leave. While Americans like to brag we are number one in various international contests, when it comes to paid family leave we are number last. We are the outlier country. With the exception of very small Papua New Guinea, every other nation in the world now requires paid maternity leave.
Just to gain perspective, I think it is important to see what other countries are doing with paid family leave. Among the most generous, Sweden offers 16 months of paid parental leave. Finland offers 9 months of paid leave. The parents in Finland can take or split additional paid “child care leave” until the child’s third birthday.
The United Kingdom offers 40 weeks of paid maternity leave, Vietnam and Ireland offer 26 weeks, Canada offers 15 weeks, China offers 14 weeks, Congo offers 14 weeks and Mexico offers 12 weeks. Obviously, there are many countries I am not listing but what is important is that all offer some benefit.
70 countries offer paid paternity leave. To give a sampling, Iceland offers fathers 3 months paid paternity leave, Finland offers 54 days, Portugal offers 20 days, Spain offers 15 days and the United Kingdom and Australia offer 14 days.
Investigative journalist Sharon Lerner writes that many other cultures treat the immediate post-natal period as a sacred time when both the new mother and baby receive help and special attention. Too often, in the United States, the lack of time off can turn new motherhood into what Lerner calls a distressing ordeal.
No federal agency collects statistics on how much post-childbirth time off, paid or unpaid, women are actually taking. Data analyzed for the periodical, In These Times, by Abt Associates, a research and evaluation company, showed that 23% of the women interviewed were back at work within two weeks of having a baby. If true, that is a cold and brutal fact.
The data showed 80% of women who were college graduates took at least 6 weeks off to care for a new baby while only 54% of women without college degrees did so.
I believe the lack of paid family leave hits low-income workers harder. Workers in lower paid jobs with less benefits have no choice but to return to work soon after giving birth. If they don’t return, they probably lose the job. Such workers generally have no leverage with employers.
Paid family leave results in better outcomes for parents, children and businesses. It increases worker retention and it reduces turnover. More women will be able to stay in the workforce after giving birth. At the same time, businesses save dollars associated with replacing employees.
Worker stress is bad for business. It is likely that a more progressive family leave policy would result in increased productivity, improved employee morale, and greater company loyalty.
On the health side, paid family leave positively affects the health of children and mothers. I don’t think it is rocket science to recognize that more parental time at home confers health benefits to young children. It allows for better family bonding and a longer duration of breastfeeding.
There is quite a bit of research showing that the experience of interacting with familiar, responsive and stimulating primary caregivers during the first two years of life is critically important to a child’s later social, emotional and intellectual development.
The Republican presidential candidates have had little to say about paid family leave. Marco Rubio is the only Republican candidate to have any kind of plan for providing paid family leave to workers but his plan is hardly a guarantee. He would offer tax incentives to business to encourage having it. Rubio doesn’t think paid leave should be federally legislated. All the other Republican candidates oppose the idea totally.
On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have all endorsed mandatory paid family leave. Sanders described our lack of paid family leave as “an international embarrasment”, which it is.
Democrats are pushing a proposal, the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (the FAMILY Act) which would provide 12 weeks of paid leave, during which workers would receive 66% of their monthly wages. The program would be paid for through small payroll contributions made by employees and employers. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct) are the prime bill sponsors.
It is important to say that the paid leave proposal is not an entitlement. It would be an earned benefit. Workers have to be employed and must have paid into the system in order to collect benefits.
There is some polling data which shows that the idea of paid family leave is extremely popular with voters. An early 2015 poll from Lake Research Partners, a Democratic polling form, found that a large majority agreed with paid time off to care for family members. This cut across voters of all persuasions.
America should not be the worst country in the world on paid family leave. Surely we can do better than that.
Donald Trump and Fascism – posted 12/17/2015 and published in the Concord Monitor 12/27/2015
This piece appeared in the Concord Monitor under the title American Fascist on December 27, 2015.
Probably no word in political vocabulary is more misused than fascist. It gets used all the time as an insult or as a way to tag a political opponent. It may just be used as a form of name-calling to indicate political disagreement with someone seen as authoritarian or dangerous. People on the political right or left can be called fascist although it is a charge typically levelled at someone on the right.
Lately it is hard to miss all the articles appearing on the subject of whether Donald Trump is a fascist. He certainly is not calling himself that.
In trying to get a handle on whether Trump is a fascist, I thought of an article written 20 years ago by the Italian novelist and writer Umberto Eco. The article, “Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt” suggests a list of features of fascism.
How Trump stacks up with these features is one way to get at the question about whether he is the real fascist deal. Eco thinks it is enough that one feature he describes be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
Eco suggests that the first feature of fascism is a cult of tradition. Trump’s baseball cap says, “Make America Great Again”. He harkens back to a mythological American past. In Trump world, there was no genocide against Native Americans or slavery. Trump doesn’t recognize that our past was worse than our present. We have actually made some progress in overcoming original sins.
I think irrationalism is at the core of the Trump phenomenon. Facts get in the way of his fantasy. The NBC reporter Michael Isikoff asked Trump if he thought the State of Hawaii was lying in regards to Obama being born there and Trump did not answer.
Trump says he will build a wall. He will deport eleven million and shutdown immigration. He will register Muslims. He will not allow American Muslims who leave the country back in when they want to return. He will waterboard and restore torture. He will keep us safe. It doesn’t matter that so many of his ideas are utterly unconstitutional. He demonstrates a cluelessness and disregard for constitutional law. For Trump, the law gets in the way.
What is important is that he is number one, especially in the everchanging polls. He is the smartest, the best, the richest. He holds himself up as so great. You have to ask why he is so insecure that he always feels the need to tout himself so much. I am reminded of something my dad used to say: “Self-praise is poor recommendation”. While it is not unusual to expect presidential candidates to be megalomaniacs, Trump carries the megalomania to new levels of preening narcissism.
Trump is not interested in ideas. He is a man of action. Eco says that irrationalism depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Trump builds casinos and hotels. These other politicians simply talk. Trump doesn’t do policy, plans or specifics.
Without real policies beyond the cult of himself, Trump is totally mocking other candidates. They are losers, low energy, stupid, at one percent in the polls or weak. There is no room for disagreement. If you disagree with the Donald, you are, by definition, a fool. He says all who oppose him will fall. Ted Cruz is next. He sucked up but his time is now coming.
Eco says the fascist exploits and exacerbates the natural fear of difference. Fascism appeals against the intruders. The Donald is big against The Other. First it was the Mexicans. They were rapists and criminals sneaking across the border. Now it is the Muslims – all the Muslims. We must keep them out because they could be secret jihadis.
Racism is close to the heart of Trumpism. He has become a favorite with America’s pitiful white supremacists. Trump’s rants give white supremacists more room to spew their poison and to act out. In August, two Boston brothers beat a homeless man with a metal pipe and then urinated on him. The two men told the police, “Donald Trump was right.” They thought the homeless man was an illegal immigrant and they went on to say, “All these illegals must be deported.”
Rhetoric matters and Trump’s unhinged style has green-lighted violent vigilantes and white supremacists. I think we can expect more attacks on those perceived to be Muslim. It would appear that for American fascists Muslims are filling and replacing the role previously designated for Jews.
It probably does not need to be restated where scapegoating led during the German Nazi era. I will say millions perished. The historical track record of fascism is littered with corpses. Trump has commented favorably on Operation Wetback in the 1950’s and he has been equivocal about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. In spite of almost universal condemnation of the Japanese-American internment, Trump still sees it as a tough call.
Trump plays to the frustrations and insecurities Americans feel about the economy and terrorism. He indulges simple-minded solutions. Bomb them, kill them, deport them. To the rest of the world he is the stereotypical Ugly American. I would note that there is a popular petition going around the United Kingdom right now which would ban Trump from travelling there.
It is sadly ironic that some white working class and middle income people fall for the Donald’s celebrity routine. Trump tries to act like a regular guy but he is a one percenter through and through. Trump said his dad helped get him started with a small loan. The loan was for $1,000,000. Doesn’t everybody get that?
There is a dark side to the glitz. I find it surprising that the media has not more closely investigated his bad business practices. The multiple bankruptcy filings, the bad real estate deals, the evictions carried out against poor and elderly people, all are part of the Trump story and they deserve an airing. The media likes the fact that Trump’s celebrity has increased viewing and ratings.
Trump says he is not dependent on campaign contributions from rich people but what he is not saying is that he acts in the interests of his 1% friends. He will never do anything about economic inequality.
What Trump does when he scapegoats Muslims or Mexicans is to point the finger away from Wall Street and Big Business profiteers who did tank our economy. It is not Muslims or Mexicans who shipped good American jobs overseas, reduced wages and harmed our standard of living. In thinking about Trump supporters, I am reminded of this quote from the writer, Michael Lind.
“The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is hidden in plain sight.”
Whether Trump is considered a fascist or a demagogue, his candidacy poses a special problem for Republicans. Trump is no conservative. He is not about conserving what is valuable in America’s laws and heritage. He has crossed enough lines to indicate he is something else altogether.
Being Jewish, I would admit to a special concern about fascism. The words “never again” ring in my mind. The maligning of broad groups like Muslims or Mexicans is unacceptable coming from any political candidate.
I do think members of the Bar have a particular responsibility to repudiate Trump’s unconstitutional antics. We need to protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. During the Nazi era, the German Bar and judiciary did a terrible job of repudiating fascism as it advanced to power. They accommodated fascism and ended up as fascist apologists. Americans lawyers and judges have a responsibility to do far better than the disastrous performance of their German counterparts.
It would be wrong to expect fascism in America to evolve as a duplication of previous fascist incarnations whether in Germany or elsewhere. It would likely be uniquely different and as Eco writes it could come back under the most innocent of disguises. Americans of all stripes need to repudiate fascism in whatever form it takes.
Frank Gifford, The NFL Concussion Lawsuit, and Justice for Brain-Injured Players – posted 11/29/2015 and published in the Concord Monitor 12/6/2015
This piece appeared in the Concord Monitor on 12/6/2015 under the title “Devastating Hits”.
With the passing of legendary football star Frank Gifford, chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE claimed its most famous victim. CTE is a progressive, neurodegenerative disease found in people who have experienced a history of repetitive brain trauma. It is marked by depression, anger, disorientation, memory loss and suicidal ideation. It is being increasingly recognized as the signature brain injury suffered by NFL players.
Gifford, the former New York Giants running back and Monday Night Football broadcaster, died in August. The Gifford family announced that Gifford had “experienced firsthand” symptoms associated with CTE. The family decided to have Gifford’s brain studied in the hopes of contributing to the advancement of medical research concerning the link between football and traumatic brain injury.
The Gifford family did not offer specifics but they said that they suspected he was suffering from the debilitating effects of head trauma. A team of pathologists confirmed the CTE diagnosis. At this point CTE can only be diagnosed after a person’s death.
Being from Philadelphia and being an Eagles fan, I watched on TV and saw the famous, vicious hit Eagles’ player Chuck Bednarik delivered on Gifford in November 1960 at Yankee Stadium. Gifford was knocked unconscious and he lay flat and absolutely still on the field. Sam Huff, a great Giants linebacker, has been quoted saying at first he thought Gifford was dead. The play became an iconic NFL image.
Gifford spent ten days in the hospital after the hit and he missed the entire following season. Gifford did return to football in 1962 and he played two more seasons. He played twelve years in the NFL altogether.
I would note that Bednarik, who also died this year, had a reputation as one of the toughest players to ever play the game. A Hall of Famer, Bednarik, nicknamed Concrete Charlie, was one of the few players to play both ways. He was a center on offense and a middle linebacker on defense and he often played the whole game. Interestingly, after he died the Eagles released a statement saying he died after a “brief illness” but Bednarik’s eldest daughter disputed that. She said he had Alzheimer’s disease and she said he had been suffering from dementia for years.
It is hard to know what the effect of one particularly vicious hit can be but Gifford took that one devastating hit as well as many others in his career and he was known for never wanting to be taken out of a game.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell predictably responded to Gifford’s death. Recognizing his many contributions, Goodell praised Gifford for his efforts to improve safety in the game and for helping the medical community understand more about CTE.
The thing that was left out by Goodell was the fact that the NFL, under his leadership, continues to fight to exclude CTE as a compensable injury in the lawsuit filed by former NFL players. While Goodell has been rightly criticized for many other decisions like Ray Rice and Deflategate, I think the NFL’s exclusion of CTE is his most pernicious mistake. It could end up hurting thousands of former players who have or will eventually obtain a CTE diagnosis.
The NFL players’ lawsuit is currently before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal court approved a settlement agreement between the NFL Player’s Association and the League but 90 players have appealed the agreement. Oral arguments were just held. Whatever the outcome at the Third Circuit, I think it is very likely the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The problem with the NFL settlement agreement is that the great majority of retired football players experiencing physical, emotional, and behavioral impairments following a history of repetitive concussions would not be compensated. The agreement compensates certain discrete, small groups. Those with ALS, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s will be well-compensated. Those who suffer some of the most disturbing symptoms, mood and behavioral disorders, will not be compensated.
Those players who suffer from CTE face a narrow window. If you die after April 22, 2015, the date of the concussion settlement in federal court, and you obtained a CTE diagnosis, you and your estate get zero. If you died before April 22, 2015, and you had a CTE diagnosis, you and your estate would obtain up to $4 million.
That result is neither fair nor equitable. No one alive now would ever receive future compensation for CTE under the agreement as it stands. The NFL is among the deepest of deep pockets and its litigation strategy is designed to save it maximum dollars at the expense of its brain-injured players.
A wild card in this settlement is the relatively primitive state of brain science around concussions. Much knowledge has been gained in the last 20 years, including an awareness of the existence of CTE, but the science is in its early stages. Scientists predict that within the next five to ten years, CTE will be able to be diagnosed in the living.
The settlement agreement does not include an adequate provision about scientific advances. It only requires the settling parties to “meet at least every ten years and confer in good faith about possible modifications”. The NFL would retain veto power over any prospective changes. You don’t have to be a cynic to know in what a weak position this provision would leave brain-injured, former players.
Earlier this year, a study done by researchers at Boston University and the Department of Veterans Affairs found that out of 91 former NFL players’ brains examined, CTE was found in 87. Dr. Ann McKee, the chief of neuropathology at the VA Boston Healthcare System stated that these latest numbers are “remarkably consistent” with past research.
It would appear that the NFL, which previously tried to manufacture doubt about the existence of CTE, is now ignoring clear findings at least as far as litigation is concerned. The almighty dollar rules. In the tension between making money and player safety, the balance tips toward money even where the cost of safety is a relative pittance compared to the wealth of the league.
I suppose in fairness I should acknowledge some positive steps the NFL has taken regarding player safety. It has adopted important concussion protocols. If it is suspected that a player has suffered a concussion, the player is supposed to be removed from the field for a medical evaluation. Prior to a return to play, the player must have returned to baseline status, including cognitive and balance functions. He also must be cleared by the team physician and an independent neurological consultant.
As the recent situation with Rams quarterback Case Keenum showed, there can be problems with the implementation of the protocol. In a game against the Ravens, Keenum stayed in the game for several plays after he was concussed. Keenum had taken a sack and he appeared woozy after he was slammed into the ground. At first he could not get up. The Rams have failed to provide a good explanation for why he was not pulled from the game.
That situation is hardly different from many others. Possibly readers remember the hit Julian Edelman took in the Super Bowl last year. Kam Chancellor of the Seahawks smashed Edelman in what appeared to be an illegal helmet-to-helmet hit as he was going over the middle. Edelman continued to play. After popping up after the catch, he ran about ten yards and stumbled down, appearing dazed as he tried to regain equilibrium. Although Edelman showed signs listed by the concussion protocol, the Patriots and concussion observers let him stay in the game. When asked about it after the game, Edelman responded, “We’re not allowed to talk about injuries.”
I think there are at least two real factors which work against the concussion protocol. Teams want to keep key players on the field as long as possible to enhance the chance to win. I think that was going on with Edelman in the Super Bowl. Players are also reluctant to acknowledge their concussions. Players desperately desire playing time. They may feel that toughing it out during times when they have headaches or concussion-like symptoms is a necessity as their careers hang in the balance. For so many players, football may be their best ticket out of a life of relatively low wages and obscurity and I expect they feel the risk is worth it.
Last week Reggie Bush, the Lions running back, likened NFL games to being in a car crash. That is not a bad analogy as in both situations the brain sustains a blow where it is moving rapidly inside the skull. In that context, Bush was lamenting Thursday night games because players who have to play in those games do not have enough time to recover from the previous Sunday game. It is well known that players and coaches generally hate Thursday night games because of the lack of recovery time but the TV ratings and money have led the NFL to expand those games. This is another one of those bad, profitable decisions the League makes dictated by the bottom line.
On Christmas Day, the new Will Smith movie, Concussion, will open around the country. The movie is about a forensic pathologist’s efforts to publicize CTE. It dramatizes how the NFL suppressed research on the brain damage suffered by pro football players. It could not be more timely. So many people play football at all levels in the United States that we, as a society, do need to think about the public health implications of so much possible brain injury.
In our era, an almost ghoulish love of money remains a dominating value. Billionaires want more billions and never can get enough. NFL teams share that obsession but they should not do it in a way that treats players like they are simply a disposable commodity. Justice for the brain-injured players is a matter of fundamental fairness.
Shady at the beach and on top of Mount Kearsarge – posted 11/21/2025
-
- img 0676
-
- img 0738
Presidential Candidates and Foreign Policy – posted 11/15/2015 and published in the Concord Monitor on 11/20/2015
This piece appeared on the Concord Monitor on 11/20/2015 under the title “Foreign Disasters”.
As the various presidential candidates make their case for why each would make the best president, I have been struck by how little they have had to say about American foreign policy. This is partly understandable because domestic policy is a primary concern for voters. They want to know what the candidates will do about jobs, the economy, the environment, education and health care.
Still, I find the absence of any original discussion on foreign policy a potentially worrisome sign. Mention of the word “terrorism” provokes knee-jerk, bellicose reaction. Instead of critical analysis, there is macho posturing. Attacks like those that just happened in Paris lead to anger – not thought.
Candidates simply try to look tough. The image they want to project is that, if given the opportunity, they will face down and take down any perceived opponent of American interests, anywhere. American interests are defined to include the whole world.
Looking broadly at the last 50 years of American foreign policy, I think there is a pattern of non-recognition of mistakes made leading to repetition of the same or similar mistakes. I am reminded of the famous Albert Einstein quote: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Wars, as in Iraq and Vietnam, were fought for bad or stupid reasons. Justifications offered were pitiful. At the same time, money gets heaped on the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex hugely expands, including a massive growth of private contractors. Out of these wars, thousands of American lives were ended or ruined. Soldiers return home damaged, disturbed, and traumatized.
There is no accounting for the damage done and no assessment of whether the wars were worth it. We blunder forward into the next war and the next. In her excellent book, They Were Soldiers, Ann Jones looks at the catastrophic damage done to our soldiers by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians who want to put boots on the ground in Iraq or Syria now are glossing over the heavy cost already paid. They are too cavalier about the lives of other peoples’ children.
It is hard not to think that all the talk about honoring our veterans is lip service. After the experience of the last 14 years, the idea of sending more to die in Iraq or Syria is a pointless waste. It was delusional and arrogant to think we were going to turn the Middle East around. So many veterans have returned and are still returning with troubles that will last a lifetime. Their care here and their future prospects are often highly problematic and that is a nice way to put it. So many veterans fall between the cracks of the system and they are simply forgotten.
I don’t think either the war in Iraq or the war in Vietnam were worth it. Both wars were sold on the basis of lies. In the case of Iraq it was lies about the weapons of mass destruction. In Vietnam, it was the phony domino theory. However with the exception of Bernie Sanders, I don’t see candidates in either party drawing these conclusions. Both parties remain wedded to the war machine and have an inadequate critique of our excessive militarism.
The history I have mentioned suggests America needs a more modest foreign policy and an appreciation of limits. It also suggests that diplomacy has been underutilized. One thing that was striking about President Obama’s deal with Iran was how long it has been since we have seen a positive example of diplomacy. War has been a first resort, not a last resort, and the consequences have harmed America.
I would suggest that there are other ways to fight violent jihadi extremists than sending troops to the Middle East. The brutal terrorist acts of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda need to be interdicted and prevented. They need to be ideologically undermined and they need to be pursued criminally. We do need to look closely and better understand why so many young people feel an affinity for such a despicable organization as the Islamic State. We need to win the war of ideas so that young people see the Islamic State for what it is: anti-human, murderous, totalitarian, and anti-modern. Since the Islamic State is an international entity, we need to cooperate with allies to figure the best ways to stop them. The project of preventing sponsors of radical jihadism from extending their influence should bring many nations together.
We should have learned by now that we cannot be the world’s policeman although we act like we are. Having the over 800 military bases we have around the world can lead to a wrong-headed over-reliance on military options. Realistically, America does not have the money or troops for interventions everywhere. Also we need to acknowledge that more often than not over the last 50 years, our interventions have done far more harm than good.
I would mention two historians, Andrew Bacevich and the late Chalmers Johnson, who argued the points I am making. Both have argued for a narrower conception of American interest. Rather than a strategy of open-ended global war where we could be fighting in almost any country, Bacevich and Johnson argued against that type of grandiosity. Bacevich particularly cites the George W. Bush presidency. Bush set out to transform the Islamic world. From the perspective of over a decade later, we can see what a costly misjudgment that war turned out to be.
Part of the pattern is that we destroy and then we destabilize. We take down dictators but then there is no plan for what comes next. Witness Iraq and Libya. Into the vacuum steps the Islamic State. We are the unwitting architects of the Islamic State. It must be emphasized that without our intervention, there would have been no Islamic State.
Even worse, we are also the unwitting provider of arms for the Islamic State. When the Iraqi Army has fled from battles, as it seems to do frequently, it has left behind huge caches of weapons and vehicles which were then expropriated. An example is when the Iraqi Army abandoned its second largest city, Mosul, in June 2014, ISIS acquired 2300 American-made humvees that were left behind. We should not be arming our opponents.
Critics who question these failed policies are tagged as isolationists and they are dismissed. I would suggest that the purveyors of the conventional wisdom which led us to the Iraq quagmire are the ones who should be dismissed. Their track record should be obvious to all.
There are so many questions that need to be asked that are not getting asked. Here are five:
- How do we maintain an alive and vital Fourth Amendment protection against search and seizure in an era of demonstrated mass surveillance overreach?
- Are drone assassinations authorized by the president legal?
- Should we have a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, making secret law based on secret proceedings with no adversarial process, when we know that court sides with the government 99% of the time?
- Is the practice of torture, black sites, and rendition consistent with American values?
- How much does the rapid growth of the military-industrial-surveillance complex since 9/11, which is invested in war as a profit-making business, drive our foreign policy?
I also think the candidates should be seriously addressing climate change and abolition of nuclear weapons. It is pretty late in the day to be bringing this up, especially with climate change. Precious little has been said about either in the Republican and Democratic debates.
Bacevich writes that there is a long-standing American foreign policy tradition that harkens back to George Washington and John Quincy Adams. In his farewell address Washington warned against foreign entanglements. Adams said, ‘The United States does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy”. Bacevich says:
“The proper aim of American statecraft… is not to redeem humankind or to prescribe some specific world order, nor to police the planet by force of arms. Its purpose is to permit Americans to avail themselves of the right to self-determination as they seek to create at home a “more perfect union”.”
We have been led astray by presidents who saw their mission as combating evil and remaking the world. I would suggest that defending the United States and its vital interests should be our goal. We need a less grandiose and more clear-headed assessment of what those vital interests are. In the presidential campaign, I have not heard that debate.
Coming to terms with the Indonesian genocide – posted 11/1/2015 and published in the Concord Monitor on 11/8/2015
This piece appeared in the Concord Monitor on 11/8/2015 under the title “Hidden Genocide”.
If asked where genocide occurred in the 20th century, I expect most politically informed people would answer Europe under the Nazis, Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge, and possibly Rwanda. Some might mention the Armenian genocide or the mass murders in the Soviet Union under Stalin. I doubt people would think of the genocide in Indonesia. It is the hidden genocide.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Indonesian genocide. It is estimated that 500,000 to one million people died in Indonesia in 1965-1966 but the story has been buried, especially in the United States. How is it possible that a genocide could be hidden or erased from consciousness at this late date?
I think the main reason is that what happened in Indonesia in 1965 was perceived as great news and a political victory in the United States. The defeat of communists submerged the fact of their mass murder. It was the time of the Cold War and the American media did not look too closely. Genocide against a hated political movement was not seen the same as genocide against an ethnic, religious, or racial group. The murders were minimized and the victims were dehumanized.
The United Nations defines genocide as extermination of people on a large scale because of ethnic, religious, or racial reasons. It also considers the extermination of an entire political group or political movement genocide.
The 1965 story needs to be told. In the aftermath of an uprising called the September 30 Movement, General Suharto, a powerful figure in the Indonesian military, and his allies in the Indonesian Army seized control of the country. A bloodbath ensued. The Indonesian military, youth paramilitaries, and gangster-led death squads butchered massive numbers of people they perceived as opposed to a military dictatorship. The primary target group was the Indonesian Communist Party and its front organizations. However, anyone who could be accused of being an opponent of the military was swept up. That included union members, landless farmers, intellectuals, leftist artists, teachers, women activists, and the ethnic Chinese.
For those who may not know, Indonesia is a huge country. It is an archipelago in southeast Asia, comprising over 17,500 islands. It is the fourth biggest country in the world by population with over 255 million people. Up until the time of the genocide, Indonesia was led by President Sukarno, a charismatic leader who had balanced political rivals on the right and left. Sukarno was Indonesia’s first President. He had led the fight against Dutch colonialism and he was a leader of the non-aligned movement in the Third World.
Sukarno had allied with the Indonesian Communist Party which was a powerful force in the impoverished country. The Indonesian Communist Party was the largest communist party in the world outside the communist bloc countries. It had an estimated 3 million members with as many as 17 million supporters if you count front organizations. The Indonesian communists had gained popularity by leading the fight for land reform and by fighting for better conditions for the working class. At the same time, the Indonesian Army was strongly anti-communist with close ties to the United States.
Facts about the September 30 movement events that preceded the genocide remain disputed. Six of Indonesia’s most senior army generals were kidnapped and killed by a group of junior officers. While it is not clear who was behind the September 30 movement, it is clear that General Suharto used that movement as a pretext to exterminate all his perceived enemies. He then stayed in power as dictatorial leader for over 30 more years.
The genocidal killings were not of the Nazi depersonalized industrial style. There were no gas chambers. Suspects were beaten, tortured, shot, dismembered alive, garroted and beheaded in an up close and personal fashion. In his 2013 documentary, the Act of Killing, the director Joshua Oppenheimer interviews former death squad killers about how they killed. It is a hard but fascinating movie to watch. The killers remain proud of their mass murders. Hatred of the communists was whipped up on the basis that they were evil atheists, amoral and hypersexual. In the documentary, the killers described how the murder methods they saw in gangster movies inspired how they killed.
Many of the murdered victims were taken to rivers and and their bodies were dumped, left to drift out to sea. So many bodies were tossed into rivers that Indonesians stopped eating fish out of fear that the fish were consuming human flesh. Family members were never told what happened to their relatives. This was similar to what happened in Latin America back in the 1970’s when right wing militaries disappeared their opponents.
There are thousands of unopened mass graves scattered across the Indonesian archipelago. Along with the killing, hundreds of thousands were detained in prison for many years with no trial. The property and possessions of those killed were often confiscated by the killers.
In 1966, Bertrand Russell wrote “in four months, five times as many people died in Indonesia as in Vietnam in 12 years.”
A little known aspect of the genocide is the role of the United States. Much still remains unknown. Human Rights Watch has pushed unsuccessfully for years to have related U.S. government documents declassified. The reporter Kathy Kadane has documented that the United States played a significant role in the genocide by supplying the names of thousands of leftist activists, both communist and non-communist, to the Indonesian army. The lists of Indonesian Communist party leaders included over 5000 names from top echelons to village cadre. If true, this alone makes our government defacto accomplice to a mass murder.
In Kadane’s articles which appeared in major newspapers like the Boston Globe and the Washington Post in 1990, she quoted Robert J. Martens, a former member of the U.S. Embassy’s political section who was then a consultant to the State Department. Martens said,
“It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.”
According to Kadane, prior to the genocide, Martens had headed an embassy group of State Department and CIA officers that spent two years compiling the death lists that were delivered to the Indonesian army.
The United States also provided key logistical support to the Indonesian military to assist the slaughter, including jeeps and state-of-the-art radios which allowed U.S. operatives to listen in on what the Indonesian military was doing. The special radio system allowed for coordinated killing so the leadership in Jakarta could know what was happening on the islands. The radios filled a gap in army communications.
What is unique about the Indonesian genocide is that there has never been any public reckoning. Honest accounting of this history is still taboo in Indonesia. Many of the perpetrators are still in positions of power and under Indonesia law, they are immune from prosecution. Indonesia’s President, Joko Widodo, the first leader after General Suharto to have no ties to military or political elites, has refused to issue an apology to the survivors and victims’ families.
In Oppenheimer’s documentary, one of the death squad leaders says it is the victors who decide what is a war crime. That appears to be the case in Indonesia. The perpetrators are still proud of the mass murders. To date there is no Truth and Reconciliation Commission doing an investigation into what happened in 1965-1966.
The picture Oppenheimer presents of Indonesia is scary. Gangsters and paramilitary thugs operate freely, shaking down legitimate business people, shop owners and others. Corruption and graft appear to be a way of life. The population remains cowed, existing in a state of fear and silence. Those who had been associated with any type of progressive politics remain severely stigmatized. Oppenheimer describes a veritable shadow state where gangsters, paramilitaries, and the army are all beyond the law.
I would mention that Oppenheimer made an important companion documentary, The Look of Silence, released this year, that focuses more on the victims of the genocide. For those who want to learn more about these events, Oppenheimer’s documentaries are a good place to begin. Oppenheimer is no longer welcome in Indonesia.
There are current efforts toward accountability. Last December, Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, introduced a “Sense of the Senate Resolution” condemning the 1965-1966 atrocities in Indonesia and calling for declassification of U.S. government files about the mass killings. The resolution also encourages the Indonesian government to acknowledge the massacres and to establish a truth commission.
On November 10-13, the International People’s Tribunal on 1965 Crimes against Humanity in Indonesia will meet at the Hague. This tribunal of experts in human rights law and Asian history was established to examine the mass killings and other crimes against humanity in Indonesia. The Tribunal is an initiative of the International People’s Tribunal 1965 Foundation which was set up in 2013 by a group of victims in exile and in Indonesia, as well as human rights activists, intellectuals, artists, journalists and academics. The Tribunal follows in the tradition of the Russell Tribunal which investigated war crimes in Vietnam.
The Tribunal has charged Indonesia with the commission of crimes against humanity and with violations of international law. The prosecution case is based on extensive inquiry carried out by a large group of researchers. Material brought forward will include documentary evidence, witness testimonies, victim impact statements, and audio and visual materials. Among the crimes alleged are murder, enslavement, torture, sexual violence, unjust imprisonment, enforced disappearance and persecution though propaganda.
The judges of the Tribunal will examine the evidence presented by the prosecution, develop an accurate historical record and apply principles of international customary law. public international law and Indonesian law to the facts found. They plan to read their verdict in Geneva next year.
The Tribunal is not a criminal court. It has no power of enforcement but it hopes to shatter and puncture the culture of impunity around these events.
The website of the Tribunal is http://www.1965tribunal.org. Since this Tribunal has received virtually no publicity in the United States, I would encourage readers to read the indictment, which is readily accessible on the website. While much of the focus is on Indonesia, the Unites States, the United Kingdom , and Australia are also charged with knowingly aiding and assisting the State of Indonesia with commission of crimes against humanity and serious breaches of international law.
The historian Gabriel Kolko accurately summarized these events. He wrote:
“The “final solution” to the Communist problem in Indonesia was certainly one of the most barbaric acts of inhumanity in a century that has seen a great deal of it; it surely ranks as a war crime of the same type as those the Nazis perpetrated. No single American action in the period after 1945 was as bloodthirsty as its role in Indonesia, for it tried to initiate the massacre, and it did everything in its power to encourage Suharto, including equipping his killers, to see the physical liquidation of the Indonesian Communist Party was carried through to its culmination. Not a single one of its officials in Washington or Jakarta questioned the policy on either ethical or political grounds…”
History is about what we remember from the past. Some events survive in memory and some are gone into a black hole. I do think how we disappeared a genocide in which our nation is implicated deserves further consideration.
Jonathan P. Baird 