World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s easy to dismiss Black women’s lives’: Texas drags feet on maternal mortality crisis

      by

      When medical staff prepped Shawn Thierry for an emergency C-section, she knew something was very wrong. After an epidural, excruciating pain ran through her legs. Soon, she could barely breathe.“I felt like my heart was going to jump out of my chest and that I might die,” she said.She screamed for her doctor to put her under anesthesia – which happened to be the solution. The epidural, Thierry later found out, was given too high in her spine, causing a paralysis that inched toward her heart.“I was an attorney who had full private healthcare coverage and I almost died,” said Thierry, of the birth of her daughter in 2012. “I cannot imagine what the outcome would be for the thousands of other African American women without health insurance.”Years later, as a member of the Texas House, Thierry was “stunned” to learn of the state’s maternal mortality crisis.The US has the highest maternal death rate among similarly developed countries and is the only industrialized nation where such deaths are rising. But according to data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in Texas the maternal mortality rate is above the US average, at 18.5 deaths per 100,000 live births.Black women in the state are “disproportionately” affected, accounting for 11% of live births but 31% of maternal deaths. Wide racial and ethnic disparities exist nationally too.I was shocked that black mothers like myself are three times more likely to die than our white counterparts“I was shocked that black mothers like myself are three times more likely to die than our white counterparts,” said Thierry. “And no one in the legislature was really talking about it.”She has repeatedly filed legislation to combat the glaring problem. Her proposals included racial bias training for medical professionals and a bill to fix a “severe” maternal health data backlog by creating a centralized registry.They did not advance in 2019, or in the current legislative session which ends this weekend. Focused on restricting abortion rights, the male- and Republican-dominated state legislature has dragged its feet on maternal mortality.Health advocates were cautiously optimistic that in 2021 Texas lawmakers would at least usher through a proposal to extend Medicaid care to a year after birth.Lawmakers did take action. A proposal was sent to Governor Greg Abbott on Friday. But it stopped short of providing the full Medicaid expansion.‘A large racial disparity’A state maternal mortality and morbidity review committee found that out of pregnancy related deaths in Texas in 2013, about a third occurred 43 days to a year after the end of pregnancy. It also discovered that nearly 90% of such deaths were preventable. Among the leading underlying causes of death with the highest chance of preventability were infection, hemorrhage, preeclampsia and cardiovascular conditions.“It was really striking,” said Dr Amy Raines-Milenkov, a University of North Texas Health Science Center professor and member of the review committee. “We found that most of these deaths could have been prevented but the system is just not set up to prevent them. And we found a large racial disparity, which is a reflection of how we in society value women, especially African American women.”Since 2016, the committee’s No1 recommendation to help save lives has been to extend Medicaid coverage postpartum for low-income mothers to a year. Currently, Texas kicks new moms off Medicaid after 60 days, leading to delayed and less preventative care. The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support longer postpartum care.“So many health problems can develop in this really sensitive time period, so it is critical that new moms have that full year of extended coverage,” said Raines-Milenkov. “To think new mothers can identify problems, get timely appointments and follow up with their doctors within just two months of having a baby is unrealistic. Anything less than 12 months is really insufficient.”The Biden administration recently initiated incentives for states to expand postpartum coverage to 12 months. Illinois was the first to have its extension approved and other states including Florida and Virginia hope to implement measures soon.Toni Rose, a Dallas representative, joined Thierry in filing HB 133, to do just that in Texas. The Republican-dominated House passed the bill with rare bipartisan approval and nearly 70 groups, from the Texas Medical Association to the rightwing Texas Public Policy Foundation, expressed support.When it comes to saving the lives of Texas mothers, ‘splitting the difference’ is not appropriateHowever, the ultra-conservative Texas Senate – which ushered through extremist anti-abortion bills in March – did not pass the bill until the final minutes of its session. Even then, the legislation was not what was proposed. Without explanation, Republican Lois Kolkhorst of Brenham reduced the year of coverage to six months.Rose called the legislation a “victory” but said it still “falls short”. Thierry expressed dismay.“The data is clear that women are still at risk of maternal mortalities and pregnancy related complications for up to one year postpartum,” she said. “While the six months negotiated by the Texas Senate is better than the status quo, many new mothers will still be deprived of quality healthcare at a time when they are most vulnerable.“Given that this is an issue in which I have both personal and professional experience, I am disappointed. When it comes to saving the lives of Texas mothers, ‘splitting the difference’ is not appropriate.”Marsha Jones, executive director of the Afiya Center, a Dallas group that supports Black women with reproductive healthcare, said the lack of substantial progress was partly a reflection of the legislature’s misplaced priorities and lack of diversity.The Texas legislature is comprised mostly of white males: 61% of lawmakers in the House and Senate are white, even though white Texans make up just 41% of the population. Women are vastly outnumbered by men.“Black women are dying at an alarming rate for reasons that could be prevented and our state leaders cut down the main proposal that a state-appointed committee recommended to help them – why would that even happen?” said Jones. “I think it’s because it’s so easy to dismiss Black women’s lives.”The legislature expended time and energy on restricting abortion access, including passing one of the most extreme bans in the country, which allows any citizen to sue an abortion provider, as well as a “trigger” bill that bans the procedure in the event Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which safeguards the right to abortion, is overturned by the US supreme court.Both measures were “top legislative priorities” for the Senate leader, Lt Gov Dan Patrick, who did not make maternal mortality a listed priority.“It seems the only time we want to stand up and care about a life is when it’s in the womb,” Rose told Republicans on the House floor in May.‘Women are obviously choosing a life’In an ideological quest to punish abortion affiliates, Republicans have decimated the Texas reproductive health safety net by blocking low-income Medicaid patients from receiving life-saving preventative care at Planned Parenthood, a move resulting in reduced access to contraception and increased rates of Medicaid births, according to the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.A recent study in the medical journal Contraception showed a correlation between high maternal mortality rates and states that pass abortion barriers.“We have a maternal health crisis and conservative legislators once again made anti-choice bills a priority,” said Thierry. “They fail to realize all the women threatened by maternal deaths are obviously choosing life – they shouldn’t have to do so in exchange for their own.”Lawmakers made no significant gains for Medicaid in general. Texas is home to the highest number of uninsured residents in the US as well as the highest percentage of uninsured women of childbearing age, but it has declined to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act and Republicans blocked legislative efforts to help extend healthcare coverage for the working poor.Texas has one of the steepest Medicaid eligibility requirements in the US. Of 1.4 million Texans who would benefit from expanded Medicaid, 75% are people of color.“Once again, we are kicking the can down the road with many of these solutions,” said Thierry. “It’s absolutely imperative we continue to work on reducing maternal mortality. One death is too many, especially when it’s preventable.” More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court justice Stephen Breyer: Democrats must ‘get Republicans talking’

      by

      The supreme court justice Stephen Breyer has told young Americans Democrats facing Republican intransigence, obstruction and outright attacks on democracy should “get ‘em talking”, in search of compromise and progress.Breyer was speaking to middle- and high-school students on Friday, in an event organised by the National Constitution Center.The same day, Republicans in the Senate deployed the filibuster, by which the minority can thwart the will of the majority, to block the establishment of a 9/11-style commission to investigate the attack on the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump on 6 January.Thomas Kean, who led the 9/11 panel, told the Guardian the Republican move was “democracy’s loss”.From the White House, Joe Biden faces Republican reluctance to engage on his plans for investment in infrastructure and the pandemic-battered economy. Amid concerted attacks on voting rights in Republican states, federal bills to protect such rights seem unlikely to pass the Senate.“You need that Republican’s support?” Breyer told the listening students. “Talk to them … You say, ‘What do you think? My friend, what do you think?’ Get ’em talking. Once they start talking eventually they’ll say something you agree with.”Democrats do not agree with Trump’s lie that his election defeat by Biden was the result of electoral fraud, which fuelled the deadly attack on the Capitol. Nor do they agree with Republican attempts to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 supreme court ruling which safeguards a woman’s right to abortion.The court has a 6-3 conservative majority, after Republicans ripped up precedent to block Barack Obama’s final appointment then installed three justices under Trump, in the last case reversing their own position on appointments in the last year of a presidency.Breyer was speaking less than two weeks after the court agreed to hear a major challenge to abortion rights.The case, which the justices will hear in their next term, beginning in October, involves an attempt by Mississippi to revive a law that bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy.In 2019 the conservative Clarence Thomas, who has backed abortion restrictions, urged the court to feel less bound to upholding precedent. Asked about the value of adhering to past rulings, Breyer said the court should overturn precedent only in the “rare case where it’s really necessary” and said law is about stability.“The law might not be perfect but if you’re changing it all the time people won’t know what to do, and the more you change it the more people will ask to have it changed, and the more the court hears that, the more they’ll change it.”Many on the left seek change on the court, in the form of Breyer’s retirement. After the death of the progressive champion Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 87 last September, Breyer, at 82, is the oldest judge on the panel. Ginsburg was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, a strict Catholic widely seen as likely to favour overturning precedent on abortion.Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative justice, was installed by Republicans after Anthony Kennedy retired, a move supported by the Trump White House. Kennedy was conservative but a swing vote on key rulings regarding individual rights. Kavanaugh, once an aide to President George W Bush, is more reliably rightwing.Breyer told the students, aged between 11 and 18, that as part of his daily routine he watches reruns of M*A*S*H, a hit sitcom that ran from 1972 to 1983. He also rides a stationary bike and meditates.Questioned about deepening polarisation some fear may tear the US apart, Breyer said he was “basically optimistic”. For all of its flaws, he said, American democracy is “better than the alternatives”.He also urged his listeners to put “unfortunate things” in historical context.“It’s happened before,” he said. “This is not the first time that people have become discouraged with the democratic process. This is not the first time that we’ve had real racism in this country. It used to be slavery before that.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans who embraced Trump’s big lie run to become election officials

      by

      Republicans who have embraced baseless claims about the 2020 election being stolen are now running to serve as the chief elections officials in several states, a move that could give them significant power over election processes.Sign up for the Guardian’s Fight to Vote newsletterThe campaigns, first detailed by Politico last week, underscore a new focus to take control of election administration. Secretaries of state, who are elected to office in partisan contests that have long been overlooked, wield enormous power over election rules in their state, are responsible for overseeing election equipment, and are a key player in certifying – making official – election results.Winning secretary of state offices across the country would give conspiracy theorists enormous power to wreak havoc in the 2024 presidential election, including potentially blocking candidates who win the most votes from taking office.“This is an indication of wanting, basically, to have a man inside who can undermine,” said Sylvia Albert, the director of voting and elections at Common Cause, a government watchdog group. “Clearly these are not people who believe in the rule of law. And people who run our government need to follow the rule of law. So it is concerning that they are running.”In Arizona, Mark Finchem, a Republican in the state house, is seeking the GOP’s nomination to be secretary of state, the top election official in Arizona. Finchem, who was at the US Capitol on 6 January, has repeatedly voiced support for the “Stop the Steal” movement, falsely claimed the election was stolen from Donald Trump, and backed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. He is also a staunch supporter of an ongoing Republican effort to review 2.1m ballots cast in Arizona’s largest county, an exercise experts say is designed to try to undermine the election results.Jody Hice, a Republican Georgia congressman who voted to try to block certification of the electoral college, is also running to serve as the top election official in his state and Trump has already endorsed him. He is trying to unseat Brad Raffensperger, an incumbent Republican, who drew Trump’s ire after refusing to “find” votes for him there.In Nevada, Jim Marchant, a former Republican congressional candidate who alleged fraud and tried to overturn his loss last year is running to serve as secretary of state there. Kristina Karamo, a Republican who made baseless claims about fraud in Michigan, is also running to be the top elected official there.Finchem, Hice, Marchant and Karamo all did not respond to interview requests.Jena Griswold, Colorado’s top election official and the chair of the Democratic association of secretaries of state was blunt in her assessment of the four candidates. She said it was concerning many of them were running in swing states where there were attempts to overturn the 2020 election.“People who spread lies about our elections to try to help their own political parties are not fit to protect elections,” she said in an interview. “They should not be elected to these offices.”Michigan’s secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, said she was “deeply worried” about the prospect of people who spread lies about elections becoming top state election officials.“We’re seeing now an escalation of the tactics and a proliferation of the tactics that we’ve experienced over the past year to undermine democracy,” she said. “And they’ve now taken on this focus on who has the authority over our elections in 2022 and 2024 really. And using the time now to change the rules of the game and the people who oversee it.”The role of a secretary of state can vary in each state, but in many places they wield enormous unilateral authority to create voting regulations and interpret election rules. That power was on display in 2020, when secretaries across the country made key decisions on access to drop boxes and sending out mail-in ballot applications, among other measures. After election day, Republican and Democratic secretaries of state in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and Nevada stood as bulwarks against Trump’s efforts to overturn the results, both by dispelling accusations of fraud and refusing to stop the certification of elections.Benson, Michigan’s top election official, noted that secretaries of state were often one of the most trusted sources of information around election processes.In March, Benson’s office released a detailed report dispelling claims of abnormalities in Antrim county, which had become a major focus of those who believed the election was stolen. She also beat back claims there was wrongdoing in Detroit, where Trump used baseless accusations of fraud to try to stop certification of the result, and released a statement in March noting more than 250 audits had confirmed the results of the election.The Nevada secretary of state, Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, investigated GOP claims of fraud and publicly said in April there was no evidence for the claim – a move that earned her a censure from her own party. Raffensperger was one of the most prominent voices to defy Trump last year and say there was no fraud in his state and championed audits and hand recounts that backed him up.“You have inherent in the position of bully pulpit to amplify truth, or in the cases of bad actors, perhaps amplify misinformation,” she said. “That’s another pernicious aspect of individuals who would seek to occupy this office as the state’s chief election officer who are not committed to telling the truth … they are instead committed to spreading the big lie or other misinformation that create chaos.” More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Wrong and un-American’: Biden blasts Texas Republicans’ SB7 voting bill

      by

      Joe Biden has condemned as “wrong and un-American” a Texas state bill set to pass into law which the president said “attacks the sacred right to vote”, particularly among minorities.The bill, known as SB7, clamps down on measures such as drive-through voting and voting on Sundays. It would also empower partisan poll-watchers. Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, has said he will sign it. Democrats have said they will challenge it in court.The bill follows moves in other Republican-controlled states which sponsors insist merely seek to guard against voter fraud but which are seen by most analysts to be aimed at restricting voting by sections of the population which tend to vote Democratic.According to the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice, nearly 400 such bills have been filed this year across the US, in 14 states.Biden has already blasted such measures, for instance calling laws in Georgia “Jim Crow in the 21st century”, a reference to the system of racist segregation which remained in place for 100 years after the civil war.As in other states, major corporations have warned Texas that SB7 could harm democracy and the economy. Republicans have shrugged off such objections and in some cases ripped business leaders for speaking out.The two Republicans who put SB7 together, Texas senator Bryan Hughes and representative Briscoe Cain, called the bill “one of the most comprehensive and sensible election reform bills” in state history.In a joint statement, they said: “Even as the national media minimises the importance of election integrity, the Texas legislature has not bent to headlines or corporate virtue signalling.”Biden countered: “Today, Texas legislators put forth a bill that joins Georgia and Florida in advancing a state law that attacks the sacred right to vote. It’s part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year –and often disproportionately targeting Black and brown Americans.“It’s wrong and un-American. In the 21st century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote.”Republicans have acted to tighten voting laws as the man Biden beat in the presidential election, Donald Trump, continues to dominate GOP politics and to claim his defeat was the result of mass electoral fraud, a lie repeatedly thrown out of court.On Saturday, Biden said Congress should pass two federal measures, the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Both face failure in a Senate split 50-50 and where key Democrats have said they will not support moves to abolish the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold by which the minority can block legislation.Trump’s lies about the election fuelled the deadly attack on the US Capitol by his supporters on 6 January. On Friday, Senate Republicans used the filibuster to block the formation of a 9/11-style commission to investigate that riot.Regarding the Texas bill, Biden said he “continue[d] to call on all Americans, of every party in persuasion, to stand up for our democracy and protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections”.Prominent Texas Democrats were equally quick to register their dismay.Julián Castro, a former US housing secretary and candidate for the presidential nomination, said: “The final draft of Texas Republicans’ voter suppression bill is as bad as you can get.”SB7, he said, “restricts registration, absentee, weekend voting and polling hours … ends curb-side voting and discourages rides to polls” and includes a “disability check” for mailed ballots.“We must defeat SB7,” Castro said.The former congressman and Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke, who also ran for the presidential nomination and like Castro is seen as a potential candidate for governor, thanked Biden for supporting voting rights in the state.“As you said, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote,” he wrote. “The only way to do that now is by passing the For the People Act.”Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, has said he will force a vote on that measure in June.The Texas Democratic party called SB7 a “Frankenstein’s monster”. In an emailed statement, Rose Clouston, the party’s voter protection director, said: “A bedrock principle of our democracy is that voters pick their leaders. However, right now, Texas Republicans are trying to hand pick their voters.”Sarah Labowitz, policy and advocacy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, told the New York Times SB7 was “a ruthless piece of legislation”, as “it targets voters of colour and voters with disabilities, in a state that’s already the most difficult place to vote in the country.” More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Tyranny’: Idaho governor repeals lieutenant’s mask mandate ban

      by

      The Republican governor of Idaho has repealed an executive order prohibiting mask mandates that was issued by his lieutenant governor while he was out of the state.Brad Little called Janice McGeachin’s action “an irresponsible, self-serving political stunt” and an example of the government “tyranny” she claimed to oppose.McGeachin, a Republican like Little, is a prominent pro-Trump figure in a state roiled by opposition to public health measures meant to contain the coronavirus. In March, she was present when protesters burned masks at the state capitol in Boise.Little has never issued a statewide mask mandate but he has worn a mask and encouraged others to do so. As across the US, case numbers are dropping as more Idahoans are vaccinated.McGeachin announced her own run for governor last week.Seizing her chance when Little was in Tennessee for a meeting of Republican governors on Thursday, she said her order banning mask mandates in schools and public buildings would “protect the rights and liberties of individuals and businesses”. In conflict with almost all public and scientific advice, the text of the order said masks were “ineffective mitigation measures”.In a statement on Friday, Little said he opposed mask mandates because government should not tell people what to do.“But as your governor, when it came to masks I also didn’t undermine separately elected officials who, under Idaho law, are given authorities to take measures they believe will protect the health and safety of the people they serve.“… The action that took place while I was traveling this week is not gubernatorial. The action that took place was an irresponsible, self-serving political stunt.”On Friday, McGeachin was using the nullified order in fundraising efforts.Little continued: “Taking the earliest opportunity to act solitarily on a highly politicised, polarising issue without conferring with local jurisdictions, legislators and the sitting governor is, simply put, an abuse of power.“This kind of over-the-top executive action amounts to tyranny – something we all oppose. How ironic that the action comes from a person who has groused about tyranny, executive overreach, and balance of power for months.”Adding that under McGeachin’s order there would have been no safety requirements for social workers visiting homes of at-risk individuals, at the state testing lab, or at prisons that could have been hit with coronavirus outbreaks, Little said the order conflicted with existing laws.“This is why you do your homework, lieutenant governor,” he said.Asked by a state Democrat to deliver an opinion, the office of the Idaho attorney general said McGeachin had the authority to issue the order, but it appeared to be counter to the Idaho constitution.Little and McGeachin have clashed constantly. Late last year, as Covid cases surged across the US, McGeachin appeared, holding a gun and a Bible, in a video released by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a rightwing thinktank which opposed restrictions related to a pandemic it said “may or may not be happening”.“We recognize that all of us are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights,” she said. “Among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property and pursuing happiness and securing safety.”According to Johns Hopkins University, Idaho has recorded more than 192,000 cases of Covid-19 and 2,090 deaths. The national caseload is 33.1m, the death toll close to 590,000. More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Everyone is now serious about UFOs. But they reveal more about earthling politics | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      The truth probably isn’t out there, but something is. Next month, the Pentagon will deliver to Congress a long-awaited report on its research into what the military calls unidentified aerial phenomena but the rest of the world calls UFOs. Ever since the New York Times reported the existence of a $22m Pentagon program dedicated to studying reported sightings of UFOs by military personnel – along with startling videos of the phenomenon – a steady stream of leaks have followed. Senators from Harry Reid to Marco Rubio have weighed in, demanding the issue be taken seriously. Now even Barack Obama has said that for years the government has been seeing flying objects that “we can’t explain”.A society’s reaction to things it can’t explain always tell us more about the society than about the thing itself. And so far, the reaction has been remarkably muted. Perhaps the simplest explanation for the relative shrug with which these latest revelations have been met is that many Americans already believe the most radical explanation for them. According to one poll, two-thirds of Americans believe there is intelligent life on other planets, 56% believe that we have already made contact with them or will within 100 years, and over half believe UFOs might be alien spacecraft. Polls have shown similar results – albeit with high sensitivity to how the question is phrased – for decades.Despite the enormous metaphysical and spiritual consequences which would flow from them, few people organize their lives around these beliefs. Those dedicated “ufologists” who do so are widely mocked. As America’s response to the coronavirus has shown, many people have trouble reckoning with the moral implications of the existence of other human beings, much less other sentient species. The topics which absorb the country’s political and media elites are much more immediate and visceral. If the shapes in the sky have a position on abortion, gun rights or Mitch McConnell, they haven’t yet made them known. Until they do, their relevance to the news cycle will remain limited.Some commentators, though, have already dared to go where (almost) no commentator has gone before, and in doing so they are revealing of our political moment. The liberal writer Ezra Klein, for instance, has hoped for a unifying moment, the kind which happens in science fiction when first contact with an alien species is followed by humanity putting aside its differences. But, like American society, science fiction has been changing in ways which show how stifling and artificial such moments can be.Science fiction has always been a sort of magical mirror in which we see what we want our own species to be, or conversely fear that it will become. A genre which used to consist largely of strong white men standing united against alien hordes is also home to authors such as Becky Chambers, Ann Leckie and Octavia Butler, whose fiction highlights the variety of human identity and relationships – sexual, gendered, class-based and racial. These different perspectives reveal how politically and culturally divisive a real first contact would be. Observers would rifle through the evidence (What is the alien’s family and economic structure? Do they believe in God?) to find validation for their own values, and as a cudgel to use against those of others. The fracturing of modern identity and the understanding that consensus often hides oppression makes unifying moments hard to imagine in even the most extreme of circumstances, liberal hopes notwithstanding.On the right, Christian writers and thinkers have made a subtle claim for the superiority of their own worldview in interpreting the phenomenon. Some Christians argue that nothing in their faith precludes the existence of alien beings, and that Christianity may even welcome such beings on to the path to redemption. But more revealing of views on the right is Tucker Carlson’s recent intervention in the debate, in which he blasted the Pentagon for taking diversity issues more seriously than the threat of UFOs. This reminds us that sections of American Christianity – especially white evangelical Protestantism – are often as much about identitarian nationalism as they are about religious faith. Groups who were the most supportive of a crackdown on refugees and other humans they consider “aliens” might feel differently about actual aliens. But is it likely?Indeed, most of society seems ready to view UFOs as primarily a security threat to which a response by the military is required. This not only says something about the human psyche, but it comes at a cost for understanding the phenomenon. It stifles the free flow of information. It also means that those at the heart of the investigation are predisposed towards certain kinds of questions. The narrow matter of whether UFOs represent a national security risk is worth investigating, but it hardly exhausts what we need to know. A world in which most curiosity is snickered or shrugged at while the military monopolizes serious research is one with its priorities out of balance.We shouldn’t expect the Pentagon report to provide proof of life on other worlds. But that doesn’t mean it is useless, or that it should be ignored by even the most ardent of skeptics. After welcoming it and casting our eyes briefly to the stars, we should use it as an opportunity to remember the other truths which UFOs can reveal – the ones that aren’t out there, but buried deep within ourselves. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Zero Fail review: US Secret Service as presidential protectors – and drunken frat boys

      by

      At times, the US Secret Service has resembled a bunch of pistol-toting frat boys on a taxpayer-funded spring break. In the words of a drunken supervisor speaking to his men in the run-up to a 2012 summit in Cartagena, Colombia: “You don’t know how lucky you are … You are going to fuck your way across the globe.”Disturbingly, the debacle in Colombia was not a one-off, as Carol Leonnig makes clear. Rather, it was the most glaring episode in an accumulation of horribles. Six agents were dismissed, another six disciplined.Leonnig knows of what she writes. She won a Pulitzer for her reporting on security lapses at the Secret Service, including the “Vegas bachelor party” in South America, and was part of the Washington Post team that scored a Pulitzer for its work on Edward Snowden’s war on the National Security Agency.She also worked with Philip Rucker on A Very Stable Genius, one of the better and more informative books on Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Now she delivers her first solo work, Zero Fail. It paints an alarming portrait of those dedicated to protecting the president and offers a comprehensive look at an agency that has seen better days.In 2009, Michaele and Tareq Salahi slipped through White House security, attended a state dinner and met Barack Obama. In 2015, a pair of soused senior agents crashed an official car into the White House complex.There are incidents of shots being fired into the White House, an intruder making it into the building and an agent on Mike Pence’s detail hooking up with a hooker.The Secret Service’s motto? “Worthy of Trust and Confidence.”Leonnig tells of agents taking selfies with Donald Trump’s sleeping grandson. Trump asked their supervisor, “These guys weren’t being pervs, right?”The response: “They were just being idiots.”Zero Fail convincingly argues that the men and women who guard the president, the vice-president and their families are overworked. Leonnig also contends the Secret Service is a victim of mission creep, a buddy system saddled with out-of-date technology, a culture wedded to doing things because that is how they have always been done.When one young agent brought a pair of fresh eyes to the situation, he was dropped. His critique is now the stuff of in-house legend.Once part of the US Treasury, the Secret Service is presently housed within the Department of Homeland Security – a change that ultimately made little difference. Being swallowed by a bureaucratic Frankenstein did not help morale. The Secret Service became another body-part stitched to a cabinet ministry cobbled together in the aftermath of 9/11.A boost to the budget was not sustained. Trump’s persistent travels to Mar-a-Lago left the Secret Service operating on a shoestring.“Trump has set back this agency 10 years,” one former agent who departed during Trump’s tenure confides to Leonnig. “The overall culture and way of doing things took a big step back.”Time has dulled the images of selflessness displayed in Dallas in November 1963 and outside the Capitol Hilton in 1981. Clint Hill threw himself on to President Kennedy’s limousine. Rufus Youngblood Jr used his body to shield Lyndon Johnson. Tim McCarthy took a bullet meant for Ronald Reagan. Jerry Parr bundled the president away.Unwelcome occurrences are not always gamed out. As former agent Jonathan Wackrow puts it: “The policies and procedures of the Secret Service are born out of blood.”When the planes slammed into the World Trade Center, agents removed Dick Cheney from his office but were delayed in delivering the vice-president to a secure location. Chains of command stymied his immediate entry into a designated shelter. That and the lack of a key.In chronicling the heroics, failures and foibles of the Secret Service, Leonnig also opens a window on the families the agents served. Not surprisingly, some fare better than others. The Clintons and Carters trail the Bushes and Reagans.The agents respected and admired George and Barbara Bush. The feeling was mutual. The Bushes “treated the Secret Service agents who protected them and their large brood like part of the extended family – not like ‘the help’.” At Christmas, the Bushes delayed their celebration so agents could be home with their families. The former head of the Bush detail told Leonnig: “That’s why people would do anything for the President and Mrs Bush.”The Clintons stood on the other end of the spectrum. Bill’s priapic adventures were a headache and Hillary came to be loathed. As for Chelsea, Leonnig tells of her cutting short a telephone conversation with a friend as agents arrived.“I’ve got to go,” the youngest Clinton is remembered saying. “The pigs are here.”Reminded that the agents’ job was to “stand between you, your family and a bullet”, Chelsea reportedly responded: “Well, that’s what my mother and father call you.”The story spread. Suffice to say, Hillary’s “foul mouth” didn’t help her standing with those who protected her. Nor for that matter did the Secret Service’s personnel and culture, which leaned conservative and Republican. Bill and Hillary were children of the 60s. Military service and baking cookies were not for them.Whether and how the Secret Service rebounds remains to be seen. In the aftermath of the insurrection of 6 January, “one Secret Service officer called the armed protesters ‘patriots’ seeking to undo an illegitimate election”, according to Zero Fail. The agent also “falsely claimed to her friends that disguised antifa members had started the violence”, a view still held by the former president’s minions. Members of the Trump detail have been reassigned.To rejuvenate the Secret Service, work needs to be done. At a minimum, Leonnig’s book will get people talking and thinking. More