Leonard Zwelling

On the website of The New York Times on April 1, veteran Supreme Court and Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Linda Greenhouse makes the case for why the latest Supreme Court hearings were such a disgrace.

The Republican minority led by Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn and Josh Hawley made complete fools of themselves by focusing on Judge Jackson’s middle of the road record in child pornography cases and what the judge’s definition of a “woman” is instead of trying to assess her qualifications for the job, which are unquestionable. This is far more than I can say about current Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh.

Today, the North Carolina Tar Heels did what they did to Coach K in an early game against him at the start of his career at Duke. They beat the Duke Blue Devils.

In an amazingly close back and forth battle (18 lead changes) in New Orleans, UNC prevailed 81-77 by hitting a key three-point shot at the end of regulation while Duke missed some equally critical free throws down the stretch.

A couple of important notes first.

Coach Mike Krzyzewski is the winningest coach in the history of college basketball. He’s won more NCAA tournament games than anyone else. He’s won five national championships and been to 13 Final Fours. He’s also won three Olympic gold medals as a coach.

Finally.

President Biden actually said what no one else would say. Vladimir Putin cannot stay as the head of Russia if he insists on butchering a neighbor in Ukraine. Not only that, Biden wouldn’t walk it back at a press conference on March 28 when the rest of NATO is a little skittish at Biden’s call for regime change. Good for Biden. It’s about time someone manned up.

  It should come as no surprise that The New York Times calls for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign while The Wall Street Journal makes little of the texts from Justice Thomas’ wife Ginni to Mark Meadows, then President Trump’s chief of staff, about how Mr. Meadows must make sure that Mr. Trump does not concede defeat after the November 2020 elections. This becomes a bit important because Justice Thomas was the only dissenting vote on the Supreme Court when it determined that the Trump White House could not block the release of records concerning January 6. The issue addressed by both editorials is whether or not Justice Thomas is in an irreconcilable conflict of interest because of his wife’s highly partisan political activities. Should Justice Thomas recuse himself from all matters concerning January 6 and the Trump White House? Should he, in fact, resign because of the undue influence of his very partisan wife?

      This is a tough one and one that I had to struggle with myself once.

If I understand President Putin’s argument for all this invading he is doing it is to reconstitute the true Russia. We in the west call that the Soviet Union plus the Warsaw Pact countries, but Putin may have different notions of what “Russia” ought to look like. The problem is that those other countries like Ukraine, no longer want to be part of Russia, if they ever did. They see themselves as independent, sovereign entities with no wish at all to be realigned with Putin’s Russia. In other words, Putin looks at all of this land mass, that in the current Russia and that in what used to be the Soviet Union, as one Russia. He views this one Russia as the bulwark against western aggression, but these independent countries want to be part of NATO and the European Union, and more importantly the populations of the countries want that, too. They want freedom, autonomy and self-determination. Putin wants them to heel to his desires and cow to his weapons. The Ukrainians have basically said no to that and look like they will fight to the death to prevent there from becoming one greater Russia again.

In this op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on February 23 by Harvard senior Julie Hartman, she complains that most of her classmates have followed the Covid restrictions imposed by Harvard like obedient sheep whether or not those rules made sense. She bemoans the behavior of her classmates and attributes it to their life long striving to get ahead by being good boys and girls, padding their resumes, and striving for the next credential to make the next step up the ladder. In high school, it was to get to Harvard. At Harvard it was to get into the best graduate school or best Wall Street firm.

Most of us in academic medicine live lives like that—going from gold star to gold star, from grades to SATs, to the best universities and the best academic job where we compete for grants, papers, lab space and glory. I should know. That was me.

Imagine if you will a not unlikely scenario. Due to multiple American mistakes, Iran has built or acquired a nuclear weapon and is threatening to use it against Israel unless all sanctions against Iran are lifted and the United States pays Iran billions. The Israelis take this ransom scenario seriously and are ready to bomb all Iranian military targets pre-emptively. Would the Israelis say this is their plan? Of course not. Might they do it? They might. Then again they might not. That’s deterrence. The likely Israeli ambiguity plus the fact that Israel has its own nuclear weapons, but never has acknowledged the fact, might make Iran hesitate before launching a nuclear attack on Jerusalem.

It is sometimes hard to know when something really starts. That’s not true of a horse race or even a mile run by humans. When they’re off, they’re off. But, as Bret Stephens outlines in the attached op-ed from The New York Times on March 16, the same cannot be said for world wars. He uses the Second World War to make his case.

In this very disturbing short op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on March 11, Matthew Hennessey reports on a recent survey done by Quinnipiac University in which 52% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans said that they would leave the United States if an invasion occurred here as is occurring in Ukraine now. That’s right over half of Democrats and a quarter of Republicans would not fight for their country. This is repulsive.

The attached article from The New York Times website of February 28 describes a truly horrifying course of events. Apparently, at least three fertility doctors in the Rochester, New York area used their own sperm to impregnate their patients, when different anonymous donors were supposed to have been used. As shocking as this is, it was the basis of a widely-viewed Law and Order episode called “Seed” from 1995. This current fertility fraud was discovered by one of the off-spring through DNA testing when he found his biological father was not who he thought he was and in fact he had over 10 half siblings all of whose mothers had the same fertility doctor.

If you want to know why the public does not trust doctors and why I was always so skeptical as a vice president overseeing clinical research of what I was being told, this is it.