Correlation, not Coincidence

        I have, from time to time, written opinion pieces in which I found that one set of characteristics seemed to coincide with a set of actions to a higher degree than simple random chance would suggest possible. Generally, I have met with no criticism in such cases, as the congruence of the two separate characteristics, beliefs, what have you, was relatively obvious.

        Having said that, I have on a few occasions found such syllogisms riposted with a statement that I have noticed recently seems to be the new “Oh yeah?”  This is a statement, true in the absolute but, too frequently applied whenever one person’s assertion simply conflicts with the other’s personal narrative, that “Correlation does not imply causation.”  There is little doubt that the statement can be relevant in the abstract, but….

        Like Schrodinger’s cat there are examples where it may be true and others where it is not. Here for the sake of illustration are two examples both accepted as factual at the time, one true, one not.  Once upon a time in America there were two pronouncements related to highway fatalities which were proffered at the national level as factual. The first: Teenage drinking led to increased incidence of highway deaths. The second: “speed kills”. Both were supported at the time by that most impartial of juries – Insurance actuaries.

       Consequently, the Federal Government used leverage in the form of threatening to withhold Federal highway monies to states which failed to comply with two “strong suggestions.”  The first was to raise the legal drinking age in the state to 21, in those instances where it was 18.  The second, to lower speed limits to 55, even, initially on Interstates. No brainers, right?

        As it turns out, the number of U.S. teenagers involved in fatal drunk-driving accidents has declined because of laws that raised the legal drinking age to 21. Researchers found that two “core” drinking-age laws which made it illegal for anyone younger than 21 to buy or possess alcohol (passed in all U.S. states in the 1980s) were responsible for an 11 percent decrease in the number of drunk teenage drivers involved in fatal crashes.  Correlation and causation? So it would seem.

       The second “obvious solution turns out to be diametrically disproved. Reams of traffic studies related to speed limit reduction distill down to “Accidents at 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits (statistics, remember?) for this estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 11 percent to an increase of 26 percent.  Causation/correlation? Not so much, in fact not at all.

        Why am I telling you all this? Simply to show that even with the best of intentions and analytical thinking, assertions which seem logical/rational may be incorrect, in fact, proof of such attempts at causation/correlation usually is provided by evidence of counter causation.

        One more example: Opponents of  HPV vaccination for young  girls as a lifetime protection against cervical cancer initially did so (and some still do) on an assumed, coincidence, that being that protection against cervical cancer would somehow lead to increased teen promiscuity and teen pregnancy. A Canadian study, involving more than a quarter of a million early teens, half of which were vaccinated, half of which were not, yielded this:  “strong statistical and anecdotal evidence that HPV vaccination does not have any significant effect on clinical indicators of sexual behavior among adolescent girls. The results suggest that concerns over increased promiscuity following HPV vaccination are unwarranted and should not deter from vaccinating at a young age.”

        So, what have we learned so far? First, that causality and coincidence may or may not corroborate (or debunk) statements. Second, that tightly held beliefs are not valid indicators of factual result or conditions.

         Now the matter at hand. I see a marked deterioration in US race relations and especially race related violence which coincides with the Trump Presidency. Some will play the “causality and coincidence card” in attempts to distance their worship of All Things Trump from the reality of the current situation as it is playing out in Minneapolis and elsewhere.

        I would posit also, that Trump’s generally vocal use of race baiting language and encouragement of those like him have contributed markedly to this current mess. I would also make the claim that as Congresswoman Val Demings said in yesterday’s WaPo op-ed, there are serious gaps in what is and what should be in Police training.  Finally, I would assert that there are some in positions of power and with the opportunity to use deadly force, who are emotionally and psychologically unfit for such positions.  

        Taking the last statement first: That some personality types should never be in positions to use deadly force (or the correlating observation, that their peers should feel empowered to call attention to any instance where this mental deterioration is apparent, without braking some mythical “code of honor” (the Blue Wall?) which allows such rogues to continue bad actions.

        It isn’t just police I’m referring to. The Military trains men and women in the use of deadly force, I myself did with Submarine topside watch standers. Sadly, the more proficient and senior an individual gets, the more leeway they seem to have to continue bad actions. Individuals who glory in killing are a detriment to any force or service in which they serve.

        Such a one was Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher. Senior Chief Gallagher had been charged in September 2018 with ten offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice over accusations that he had stabbed to death an injured, sedated 17-year-old ISIS prisoner, photographing himself holding the head of the corpse by the hair and sending the photo to friends. He was also accused by fellow Navy SEAL snipers of randomly shooting two Iraqi civilians: a girl walking with her friends on a riverbank; and an unarmed elderly man.

         As we all know, Donald Trump lauded this assassin as a hero, and interceded with the Navy to mitigate the punishment Gallagher deserved. Gallagher was protected by Presidential intervention, while policemen who act similarly have the protection of legal precedent which presupposes the ludicrous position that police are all honorable and therefore any action they deem appropriate is “OK.”

        In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Amadou Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. At about 12:40 a.m., four police officers all in street clothes, passed by in a Ford Taurus. One later testified that Diallo matched the general description of a serial rapist who had struck a year earlier, or that he might have been a "lookout."

        The officers also allege that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers, but a witness, testified categorically that they started shooting without warning. The officers claimed that, "Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and 'show his hands'. (remember these are 4 guys in street clothes with guns!) The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the man holding a small square object, the officers opened fire, claiming that they believed Diallo was holding a gun. During the shooting, the lead officer tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot." No objective evidence was presented in support of these allegations. Only the testimony of the defendants. The four officers fired 41 shots with semi-automatic weapons, more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times.

       While all four were eventually charged, after a flood of negative public response to their initially being cleared by supervisors, they were eventually found not guilty and found to have been “operating within departmental policy.”

       Ten years earlier when the Central Park Five were being railroaded, future President Trump spent $85,000 on newspaper ads saying: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY AND BRING BACK OUR POLICE.”   He was, apparently less concerned later, by the actual killing of an unarmed black man, remaining mute on the issue. Meanwhile, after being cleared, one of the shooters remained on the force and was actually promoted.

       In 2009 Oscar Grant was shot dead by Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer Johannes Mehserle in 2009 in Oakland, California. Mehserle and other police officers had been responding to reports of a fight and arrested and handcuffed Grant and several others in a subway station. Grant was cuffed, unarmed and lying on the ground when Mehserle pulled out his gun and shot him in the back. In court Mehserle claimed he thought his gun was his Taser. He was sentenced to two years in jail and let out on parole in June 2011.

        Robert Davis, a retired schoolteacher, was beaten and arrested by four police in New Orleans. He was 64 at the time of the assault in 2005. The beating was captured by passing Associated Press journalists, one of whom was also beaten by police. He was accused of public drunkenness. One officer was fired over the incident, one was suspended, and another was acquitted of all charges. None were prosecuted! Davis said he was teetotaler and had not had a drink for at least 25 years.

        A 2018 study by Boston University School of Medicine, cites  socioeconomic factors such as poverty, unemployment, education, and segregation which create disparities and connections to police who commit serious crimes almost exclusively  in minority communities where the police shootings of unarmed African-American/Black males continue to increase.

       About 70% of the victims of police brutality in the United States who are African American/Black were suspected of a non-violent crime and were unarmed as reported in 2017. Newsweek reported in 2018 that African Americans/Blacks are three times more likely to be a victim of police shootings than those of other races. Currently, according to the Washington Post, an average of two fatal police shootings take place in the U.S. every day.

        I could go on, but you either get the picture or don’t want to. The reasons this bad behavior are severalfold, most social, one critical one, however, is legal.

        Obviously, racial bias is a huge factor, with officer training and the Blue Wall of silent support a close second. A friend and former student of mine is a law enforcement officer like both his parents before him.  He uses the term “badge heavy” to describe those cops who see in the badge and the authority it confers, the opportunity to be what (and wouldn’t you like to see an academic  study on this?) they were in their younger days – bullies. I would posit that much of what we see today is the result of persons like this becoming bad actors in the military, as cops, or in some cases as mercenaries. One of these persons placed in a training position can pollute much of an individual department. Former Orlando Chief Val Demings, a black women,  says it thus:  “As a nation, we must conduct a serious review of hiring standards and practices, diversity, training, use-of-force policies, pay and benefits (remember, you get what you pay for), early warning programs, and recruit training programs. Remember, officers who train police recruits are setting the standard for what is acceptable and unacceptable on the street.”

        Hiring standards and practices is critical, but so is the continued scrutiny and “self-policing” which ensures the willingness to call a bad apple what it is, vice close ranks. Bad cops (and bad SEALS) disgrace themselves, the uniform and the force. Protecting them is, in my estimation in and of itself, criminal in nature.

        I’ll skip to the legal issue and return with one last social commentary which is really the focus of this entire exercise.

        That legal issue is the concept of  Qualified Immunity – “The  legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights.”  For police officers, qualified immunity is designed to protect all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when their actions do not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right. 

        As objection to the almost unfailing application of this  “shield,” justified or not, increases in the wake of more recent bad behaviors, an increasingly broad coalition says the doctrine has become “a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights”. In recent years this doctrine has been upheld by high court decisions which seem to be no-brainers, but consistently seem to protect all cops who err, guilty or not of incompetence or far worse. The Supreme Court has more recently indicated it is aware of the mounting criticism of its treatment of qualified immunity.

        Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the court’s most liberal members, and, (surprisingly to me) Justice Clarence Thomas, its most conservative, have in recent opinions sharply criticized qualified immunity and the court’s role in expanding it. In a dissent to a 2018 ruling, Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, wrote that the majority’s decision favoring the cops tells police that “they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”

       In 2017, Justice Sotomayor in another dissent called out her fellow justices for a “disturbing trend” of favoring police, writing:  “We have not hesitated to summarily reverse courts for wrongly denying officers the protection of qualified immunity, but we rarely intervene where courts wrongly afford officers the benefit of qualified immunity.”   In this case, she was referring to a majority’s decision not to hear an appeal brought by Ricardo Salazar-Limon, who was unarmed when a Houston police officer shot him in the back, leaving him paralyzed. A lower court had granted the officer immunity.

       An independent analysis by Reuters researchers supports Sotomayor’s criticisms of the biased application of justice in such cases. Over the past 15 years, The Supremes heard 12 appeals of qualified immunity decisions from police, but only three from plaintiffs, even though plaintiffs had petitioned the court to review nearly as many cases as police did. The court’s acceptance rate for police appeals seeking immunity was three times its average acceptance rate for all appeals. In the cases it accepts, the court nearly always decides in favor of police. The high court has also “put its thumb on the scale” in several ways.  It has allowed police to request immunity before all evidence has been presented. And if police are denied immunity, they can appeal immediately – unlike most other litigants, who generally must wait until after a final judgment to appeal.  University of Chicago law professor William Baude, expresses it thusly: “You get the impression that the officers are always supposed to win, and the plaintiffs are supposed to lose.”

       Of course, with a biased court featuring two “new” Justices nominated by the current administration, we probably shouldn’t be surprised.

        Now here’s the graphic which stimulated this rather long op-ed.

        The above shows that from 2005-2007 courts hearing excessive force complaints typically granted relief to complainants by a 12% margin during that span, A Republican administration. While George W. Bush was several things I didn’t care for, I would never place “bigot” among them. Barack Obama was in the unique position, as a Black man, of being affected and concerned by police excessive force and vocal about the need to confront the issue. He also, however, was measured in response and attended one slain officer’s funeral in Texas, where a camera caught Mr. Bush holding Mrs. Obama’s hand.

       Enter 2016 and the campaign waged by committed white supremacist, Steve Bannon and passively acceded to by candidate Donald Trump. Since the election we have been treated to “good people” carrying swastikas and confederate flags while watching their confreres run down counter-protesting pedestrians in Charlottesville, predominately black nations characterized as “Shitholes”, and the list goes on featuring discriminatory acts and verbiage against persons of color, including some in Congress. As the graphic clearly indicates, over the 2-year period 2017-2019, the courts have shifted to favoring Police 14% more than plaintiffs. Coincidence?

         Trump racism is hardly surprising, and undoubtedly learned at home, as Trump and Trump senior, had expensively settled out of court some years ago on a federal lawsuit regarding their racial profiling of rental applicants. It would seem to me that the tacit (and not so tacit) approbation from Trump has led those in law enforcement who already have biases and personality issues which should have made them un-hirable or at least “fireable” have felt comfortable letting their demons out, no matter the cost.   

        FBI data shows that since Trump’s election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001.  

       Based on data collected by the Anti-Defamation League, counties that hosted a Trump campaign rally in 2016 saw hate crime rates more than double compared to similar counties that did not host a rally.

       Most recently and tragically, we see armed men with masks (again, “good people”) attempting to intimidate a state governor while police stand idly by, making no effort to disperse this armed mob. Meanwhile the President himself, unable to refrain from fanning flames in Minneapolis described protestors, using a favorite racist descriptor, as “thugs”. I will bet you Donald Trump has never called a White person a thug.  He probably thinks that the cop who knelt  on George Floyd’s neck until he died was a “good person,” too.   

       Most of what discussed above has centered on correlations; they are suggestive of a link between Trump and racist attitudes and behavior, but do not actually demonstrate that one leads to the other. However, there is also causal evidence to point to.

        In one survey, researchers randomly exposed some respondents to racist comments by the president, such as:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

        Other respondents were exposed to a statement by Hillary Clinton condemning prejudiced Trump supporters. Later, all respondents were asked their opinion of various groups, including Mexican people, black people, and young people.

       Those who had read Trump’s words were more likely to write derogatory things not only about Mexican people, but also about other groups as well.  By contrast, those who were exposed to Clinton’s words were less likely to express offensive views towards Muslims. Words do matter, and data proves it.

        I would not propose that the Trump years have actually made Americans more racist numerically, since many people I know have actually become are more polarized in opposition to that point of view. What I will state, and believe data proves, is that  that those who might have kept bigoted racist, social, and xenophobic attitudes “under wraps” have become emboldened by the thug in the White House, while those  mentally ill  among us (and yes, I consider racial / sexual/gender preference, etc.  bigotry a mental illness) who were already hateful, and showing it, have felt empowered by the malevolent coach who tweets his encouragement from the sideline.

Words of Wisdom from One Who Knows

"My fellow brothers and sisters in blue, what the hell are you doing?"  Op-ed by Representative Val Demings. 

Representative Val Demings 

 I’m reposting this verbatim from today’s WaPo so all can read it. 

 Val Demings, now a member of Congress, was a highly respected Orlando City Chief of Police before that. She served OPD 27 years, the last four as Chief.  She was credited with reducing violent crime rates in Orlando, with a 43.6 percent drop in violent crime from 2007 to 2011, according to FBI reports. She would be my personal choice for Vice President on the Democratic ticket. She is wise and experienced. I would consider it extremely unlikely that any member of Congress has a closer, more personal perspective on the issue. What she says here is simply fact.) 

“As a former woman in blue, let me begin with my brothers and sisters in blue: What in the hell are you doing?

“I joined the Orlando Police Department when I was 26 years old — a young black woman, fresh out of an early career in social work. I am sure you can imagine the mental and physical stress of the police academy. Not only exams and physical training, but the daily thoughts of, “What am I doing here?” as I looked around and did not see many people who looked like me.

“But I made it. I was elected class president and received the Board of Trustees’ Award for overall excellence. I proudly took an oath to the Constitution and to protect and serve. I was on my way to fulfill my dream of “saving the world.” Of course, I went straight to the midnight shift, but I loved the job. I truly felt like I was serving my community, responding to calls from people in distress.



“When citizens were in trouble (if they had to call the police, they weren’t having a good day), they called really believing that when we arrived, things would get better. That they would be safe. But we are painfully reminded that all too often, things do not get better. As a matter of fact, they can get much worse — with deadly results.

“When an officer engages in stupid, heartless and reckless behavior, their actions can either take a life or change a life forever. Bad decisions can bring irrevocable harm to the profession and tear down the relationships and trust between the police and the communities they serve. Remember, law enforcement needs that trust just as the public does. Think before you act! Remember, your most powerful weapon is the brain the good Lord gave you. Use it!

“We all know that the level of force must meet the level of resistance. We all can see that there was absolutely zero resistance from George Floyd. He posed no threat to anyone, especially law enforcement.

“Why do bad things happen? Bad minds, bad hearts or bad policy? The painful cries of Eric Garner will be with us forever. Now, George Floyd’s pleas for help will, too. I cannot begin to understand how any officer could ignore the painful pleas we heard from Floyd — or from anyone suffering.

“My heart goes out to the families of those who have lost loved ones. But we must also offer justice through full and swift accountability — not just for their loved one, but for the future.

“In Minnesota, we have no choice but to hold the officers accountable through the criminal-justice system. But we cannot only be reactive. We must be proactive. We must work with law enforcement agencies to identify problems before they happen.

“As a nation, we must conduct a serious review of hiring standards and practices, diversity, training, use-of-force policies, pay and benefits (remember, you get what you pay for), early warning programs, and recruit training programs. Remember, officers who train police recruits are setting the standard for what is acceptable and unacceptable on the street.

“Law enforcement officers are granted remarkable power and authority. They are often placed in complicated and dangerous situations. They respond to calls from people with their own biases and motives. In New York, we’ve recently seen the past pains of the Central Park Five dredged up in a new attempt to misuse law enforcement against an African American man. When you see people differently, you treat them differently. And when power is in the mix, tragedy can result.

“As law enforcement officers, we took an oath to protect and serve. Those who forgot — or who never understood that oath in the first place — must go. That includes those who would stand by as they witness misconduct by a fellow officer.

“Everyone wants to live in safer communities and to support law enforcement and the tough job they do every day. But this can’t go on. The senseless deaths of America’s sons and daughters — particularly African American men — is a stain on our country. Let’s work to remove it.”
Me again:

As a testimony to the regard in which this lady was, and is, held in Orlando, although she is a Democrat, some staunchly Republican friends of mine in law enforcement held a fund raiser for her. She first ran for Congress in a gerrymandered Republican district, losing narrowly against an incumbent good old boy. After the courts decided that district was too gerrymandered, even for Florida, and ordered redistricting, she ran again, garnering 65% of the vote. Her second term election was a walk over, as she was unopposed! 

Orlando Police Chief Val Demings 2007-2011

Val Demings is the epitome of a self-made person who has risen through her own merit. Her husband, Jerry, has a similar story, having also served the community first as Orange County Sheriff and now as Orange County mayor. This op-ed is not the usual personal opinion of someone looking from the sidelines, but the observations of someone who has been here, done that, and done it superbly. We should listen.

Extortion on Our Own Dime

TAXPAYERS PAID TO DEVELOP REMDESIVIR BUT WILL HAVE NO SAY WHEN GILEAD SETS THE PRICE

(WaPo today, 5/27/2020)

        The three paragraphs that follow are excerpted and simplified for brevity from the referenced article:

       A Gilead scientist, Robert Jordan, convinced the company seven years ago to let him assemble a library of 1,000 castoff molecules in a search for medicines to treat emerging viruses. Many viral illnesses threaten human health but don’t attract commercial interest because they lack potential for huge drug sales.

        To make progress, Gilead needed help from U.S. taxpayers. Lots of help. Three federal health agencies were deeply involved in Remdesivir’s development every step of the way, providing tens of millions of dollars of government research support. Now that big government role has set up a political showdown over pricing and access.

       Despite the heavy subsidies, federal agencies have not asserted patent rights to Gilead’s drug, potentially a blockbuster therapy worth billions of dollars. That means Gilead will have few constraints other than political pressure when it sets a price in coming weeks. Critics are urging the Trump administration to take a more aggressive approach.

        Lest anyone think that this is anomalous, this isn’t even unique to Gilead Pharma, but they’re really good at it. This is the same bunch of opportunist rip-off artists who bought the patent for Harvoni, also developed by someone else (a researcher at Emory University) and then marketed it at an original $84,000 per course of treatment for Hepatitis C. By the way, Gilead sells the generic version of Harvoni in India, (not at a loss) for $127! Indians get a life-saving drug at a bearable cost; US Medicare patients, on the other hand, pay Gilead a 6000% + profit. Like Remdesivir and the majority of “new” drugs marketed in the US over the past ten years, the primary research was funded by the National Institute of Health grants on our (as in taxpayers) dime. It’s a shitload of dimes, by the way.  

        This, while Pharma, in general, still fond of citing R & D expenditures, omits the fact that many new drugs are actually developed by university researchers with NIH grants (yep, our money!)  In many cases, not by any means only Gilead, the Pharma company buys the patent from the school or the researcher depending on various criteria, and then simply markets it after secondary testing and FDA approval.

        While, once upon a time, research and development did constitute the bulk of individual drug manufacturers’ operational cost, and they used it to justify high retail pricing, reality is that advertising cost is now the leading balance sheet expenditure for every single major drug company marketing in the USA!  For several, lobbying is actually second, with R &D third. By the way. Only the US and New Zealand in the entire world, allow direct to consumer (DTC) public media drug advertising.

       Big Pharma is fleecing the nation twice. Initially by profiting on drugs whose development was publicly funded then again  because due to the same legislation which created Medicare Part D, (thanks to massive lobbying efforts),  Medicare is required to pay the ludicrous retail price cited by the manufacturer. In plain speak, if you are an American who must use a specialty drug, “bend over”.  You’ll pay either a whole lot more than the drug is worth, or even if your insurer negotiates a better (not “fairer”) price, you’ll have a co-pay plus cost of insurance.

        If that’s not enough, remember that the drug was almost certainly developed with taxpayer bucks! We (the US Government) should own the patent and franchise them to pharma…at a cost. When Pharma’s top ten corporations make 30% NET profit annually, it’s really sexy, and we all know who’s getting screwed.

Sit Down and Shut Up.

        We, of the Facebook community, have recently and in fact, often, from time to time been bombarded with a meme featuring a Biblical quote which states conclusively, that women are of secondary status, especially in “church.”  This snippet and others like it come from one and only one source – the “apostle” Paul, who never married, but whose misogynistic scribbling  has been used ever since by far too many, far too often, to justify the male abuse of the rights of women.

       What follows is based on the assumption, which I doubt, in truth, that much if any of what is written about Jesus is factual. I say that because we have “quotations” in the four Gospels from alleged incidents (Gethsemane, temptation in the desert, etc.) when no one was there to hear, and many more when no one literate was available to take notes. We also have parables, (Prodigal Son and others) attributed to Jesus, which derive from Buddhist dharma (teachings) of more than 500 years earlier. These are uncomfortable and unanswered facts which remain that way 2000 years later.   

        That established, it strikes me as odd, that in view of the  absence of gender driven discrimination anywhere else in the Bible (other than the occasional “selling your daughter into slavery” discussion) that the modern Church, or at least affair number of them, have essentially shit canned many precepts elsewhere in the NT in favor of the closeted epileptic, Saul/Paul.

         By the working definition that “If you talk to God, that’s prayer, but if God talks to you that’s insanity” Paul was a bit different. As famous Psychiatrist Thomas Szasz also said, “If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic”.  Add to that, the caution that “If you believe God knocked you off our horse and blinded you and then his dead kid spoke to you,” then you probably should refrain from the mushrooms.”

       In any case, largely due to his redirected fanaticism but even more due to his good education, ergo literacy, Saul reinvented both himself, and, by any rational analysis, much of what would become the Christian church. By the year 200 AD a single bishop in charge of a metropolitan area became a universal norm without much controversy. This of course, leveraging male dominance from Paul’s (and Paul’s alone in “scripture”) misogynistic scribbling. By 300 years AD, Rome claimed primacy because the Apostle Peter was allegedly crucified in Rome.  Not only was Peter now deemed the first “Bishop of Rome”, but by his death there, the claim strengthened that Rome was the seat of ultimate authority in the Church. Yeah, I know, “why?” 

       That is not to say that the transition went smoothly. What is now considered as the New Testament had yet to be formally assembled as a defined set of Gospels.  More to the point, some of the extant scriptural writings in circulation (in Greek, primarily) simply didn’t fit the “Paulician,” male centric, narrative.

        Additionally, when (Roman emperor) Constantine converted to Christianity in 312, he wanted to use it as a way of unifying his fragmented Empire. A sort of standard propaganda if you will! As a Roman, he also was steeped in the “Paterfamilias” concept and tradition, as the Greeks had been centuries before. The paterfamilias was the oldest living male in a household and exercised autocratic authority over his entire extended family. This concept was a natural for the Roman Church to adopt, since a: It was consistent with existing societal tradition, and b: The letters of Paul just “fit right in,” providing what Christians now regarded as divinely inspired guidance regarding institutionalized subordinate status of women.

       There was then a concerted effort to standardize Christian doctrine and to promote an agreed canon, or official version of New Testament scriptures. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382 issued a biblical canon essentially identical to the currently accepted compilation. It should be noted that the classically accepted 27 “books” are dominated by 14 separate writings of Paul! On a “per book” basis, Paul’s writings make up just over half of the New Testament.

          Unfortunately for those favoring a standardized canon, there were other “gospels” circulating in both Greek and Coptic which didn’t precisely follow the party line.  Some of these “apocryphal” writings were side-lined, or even suppressed. The reasons are varied, from “local interest only", to "minor prophet", to “heretical.”   It is noteworthy that, historically, almost any religious philosophy which differs from mainline Christian teaching has evoked the “H” word.

        One of the earliest of these offshoots of thought, Gnosticism,  accepted the “teachings of Jesus” related to human interaction and moral imperatives , but…Gnostics also believed that the story of creation found in the Bible was a lie and that God wasn't actually the one responsible for the creation of our world, at least not directly. They claim the evidence of this comes from the imperfection, tragedy, and evil in our world. A good God could never have created it. Wow. No Adam? No serpent or apple?

         Three specific important (and banned) Christian Gnostic texts are the Gospel of Mary, the Apocryphon of John, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. The texts themselves date to the second century and were originally authored in Greek.

        Here from the Apochryphon of John is just a sample of why the male dominated Church disdained it: “The father’s thought became a reality, and she who appeared in the presence of the father in shining light came forth. She is the first power who preceded everything and came forth from the father’s mind as the forethought of all. Her light shines like the father’s light; she, the perfect power, is the image of the perfect and invisible virgin spirit.

She, the first power, the glory of Barbelo, the perfect glory among the realms, the glory of revelation, she glorified and praised the virgin spirit, for because of the spirit she had come forth.  (bolding is mine)

She is the first thought, the image of the spirit. She became the universal womb, for she precedes everything, the mother-father, the first human, the holy spirit, the triple male, the triple power, the androgynous one with three names, the eternal realm among the invisible beings, the first to come forth.  Need I elaborate?

        Another Gnostic gospel, The Gospel of Mary, was well distributed in early Christian times and existed in both an original Greek and a Coptic language translation. The Savior concludes this teaching with a warning against those who would delude the disciples into following some heroic leader or a set of rules and laws. Instead they are to “Seek the child of true Humanity within yourselves and gain inward peace”. After commissioning them to go forth and preach the gospel, the Savior departs.  In this gnostic gospel, Mary Magdalene appears as a disciple, singled out by Jesus for special teachings. In this excerpt, the other disciples are discouraged and grieving Jesus' death. Mary stands up and attempts to comfort them, reminding them that Jesus' presence remains with them.

       Excerpts from the remaining pages include: 1 And Peter grew bold and asked, “Lord, tell us concerning the Father. Who is he? And why did he send you?” 2 And Jesus answered, “Simon, you are blessed, for you do not suppose you know that which must be a mystery to all flesh. 3 For my Father is not the maker of the world of matter which you see around you, a world that is filled with death and despair, (Wow, there goes Genesis) This is consistent with the Gnostic concept of a spiritual growth which seems much more Buddhist than Christian)…and…

“Peter said to Mary, “Sister, we are aware of how the Savior loved you more than any other woman. 2 Tell us the things the Savior said that you remember, the things you know but that we do not, that we have never heard.” 3 Mary answered them, saying, “What is hidden from you, I will surely disclose to you.” Rather inconsistent with Paul’s “shut up and sit down” abjurations, huh? 

Later, After Peter questions why Jesus told Mary all these things instead of him…

“Levi answered, saying to Peter, “Peter, you have always been a hot head. Now I am watching you fight against the women as if they were our enemies. 8 But if the Savior himself made her worthy, [Thomas 114] who are you, really, to dismiss her? 9 Surely the Savior knows her quite well. After all, he loved her more than us!   Obviously not fit material for Rome, (or traditional Judaism) huh?
 
        These claims of male power and control would soon align with Europe’s temporal rulers, also at the time solely male. Salic law, formalized by Clovis ca 500 AD, essentially stripped any ruling power from females in the realm of the Franks. This continued in continental Europe through the 16^th century but was not accepted as valid in Scandinavia and Britain. This explains why Pope Pius V issued a bull, which said in part,  "We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey [Queen Elizabeth I's] orders, mandates and laws." It also, by implication, decreed it a holy act to assassinate her.

        By this time Continental Kings were hand in glove with Roman Popes in cementing male control of society at the highest echelons, with the Holy Roman Emperor title, conferred on Charlemagne in 800 AD, now passed along through European kings. Of course, claiming divine supernatural authority for doing so just made it easier to shove down the female throat. During the 14th and 15th centuries, attempts were frequently made to provide juridical grounds for the exclusion of women from the royal succession. The main reason adduced in each case was custom, though Roman law and the priestly character of kingship were also used as justifications. (While “juridical: today would be used in the same sense as “legal,” the law in question at the time was Church, or Canon, law)    

        The Holy Roman Empire, along with the title, was finally dissolved by Francis II, after a devastating defeat to Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. Until that time the Emperor was still widely perceived to rule by divine right, and the concept was also prevalent among most non-HRE monarchs. Of course, the Reformation had weakened the absolutist patriarchal hold by Bishops and the Pope since the late 16^th century.

        Again. I am not using scripture to justify a personal opinion. I use logic and moral reasoning for that. I wrote all this simply to point out the flaws in current fundamentalist justification of their subrogation of women as somehow divinely ordained. It’s a lot simpler than that. Some persons just disdain a level playing field, be it gender, race, sexual identity, taste in socks or whatever.  It does seem, however that those who most loudly proclaim their muscular faith and actions based on those personal choices comprise the great bulk of bigots as well

Credit Card Safeguards

        While we were having a nice, socially distanced, meal with friends last night, at around 7 pm, somebody ran what I assume was a “trial” of one of our credit cards purchasing (or trying to purchase) some baby clothes online. Since we signed up for alerts in cases where a charge is made or attempted with the card not present, which was definitely the case since both were in our respective wallets, we got an e-mail from card services telling us about it. They refused the charge and we filed a fraud claim this morning. Since it was fraud, the card company also waived the overnight shipping fee for the replacement cards.

        There are several takeaways here. First, neither of the cards has been used in several weeks in any situation where a skimmer was likely to have been used. That said, more modern skimmers are hard to detect visually, but one way to insure you aren’t being “had” is to grasp the portion where the card is inserted and pull. If it comes off in your hand, or fells loose, report it to the merchant, gas station, bank, whatever. Skimmers are now so high tech that a drive through user can simply place the skimmer over the existing card portal. It will store card numbers and the thief can drive through later and retrieve it. If the card reader moves or jiggles at all, there is probably a skimmer attached. ATMs are very sturdily constructed, and none of their parts should budge. Skimmers, however, are often attached with tape, glue, or other unstable methods.

        The second point is potentially more troubling. Last year when Emily’s wallet “went walkabout” somewhere between Orlando and Paris (via JFK, the shittiest airport ever in a major US city) we, of course, had to cancel all the cards in her wallet with the potential to cost us money.

        First item: there were a series of very small charges on one of the cards, obviously a “test” of the card. Of more importance was that we discovered that, of the cards we both carry, one had identical numbers for both of us. That meant that cancelling her card meant cancelling mine as well. We carry three separate major cards. By sheer luck, when I called another card company prior to our setting off to Europe last year, to tell them not to be alarmed if they saw charges from Europe since  we were travelling, the young lady had inquired if I wished to put a pin number on the account. This was another card provider with another bank and while the card numbers were different, they were both for the same account. I did put a pin on the account, which turned put to be critical since Emily’s debit card, which we planned to use for cash withdrawals, was gone with the wallet and mine was back at home since it was cracked and I hadn’t replaced it yet. The pin on the card was our sole source of cash for ten days.

        Since all the other cards had same account/different individual card number status, all my cards were safe, except for the one with matching card numbers to Emily’s stolen card. Having put the pin on one of those turned out to be a lifesaver.      

        What we learned was:

        It is wise to insure loss and cancellation of one partner’s card doesn’t invalidate the entire account. The card with matching numbers is an AAA Mastercard, which  we use, and will continue using a lot, since when the “cash back” total reaches $500, AAA will send us a $700 gift card which can be used to pay for any AAA travel. (That’s 40% interest in less than a year for us). However, it isn’t the only card we have, and the others have discrete, and different numbers for the same account. Had we carried only the AAA card last summer, we’d have been stranded with no way to get cash or pay for anything. This card was the subject of last night’s fraudulent charge, but since card numbers are identical, it’s impossible to even try to figure whose card was compromised.  

        As important, always take advantage of the card services offer to be notified by e-mail any time a “card not present” transaction takes place. At least four times over the past 15 years, this has been invaluable to us, as about 3 years ago we had two cards compromised within a month. Neither and been out of sight or out of hand, but usage of one number was attempted at a Miami truck stop to purchase diesel fuel and the other at a phone center in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  Both card services alerted us, no charge, new cards sent. Still, there are devious bastards out there and skimmers in unexpected places, so read your bill, sign up for alerts, and carry at least one card (as a couple) with separate numbers for the same account.        

More Indications of Trump's Mental Deterioration

More Things Which Highlight Trump’s Mental Deficiency

        Asked on May 5^th, how USA Covid testing compared to other nations on a per capita basis, he said this: “You know, when you say “per capita” there’s many per capitas. It’s, like per capita relative to what? But you can look at just about any category and we’re really at the top, meaning positive on a per capita basis too.”

          You really can’t make this shit up. Per capita has one and only one definition: “per unit of population: by or for each person”. Period. In the case of Covid testing, the data is aggregated by a larger grouping of tests (per 1000 persons), since no nation has tested all their people. This is still a “per capita” ratio, multiplied by a thousand.  Since this quote is from May 5^th, the numbers of US tested per 1000 population was far lower than yesterday (May 23) when I looked up the actual numbers. By May 22 numbers Trump is still off the rails. We have tested a lot of people, but we have lots to test. Reducing this to a “reductio ad absurdum” example: Iceland has tested 17.6% of its entire population, but we're "better" although we've tested about 3.7% of our population? Yes, we have tested more, but not on a per capita basis. As of May 22, numerous European nations have tested more individuals per capita than the USA.   South Korea, which Trump cites as doing a lot, has tested less than half, per capita that of the USA!

        As a self-proclaimed genius who graduated from Wharton, this moron categorically does not know the definition of “per capita.” Of course, since he spoke, he lied about his educational prowess too. Donald Trump was not even an “honors” grad. The graduation program lists all scholars who distinguished themselves by maintaining a B average or better (Cum Laude or Magna cum Laude). Trump is not on the list, he was nowhere near the top of his class, as he has falsely proclaimed. 

       Fortunately for the truth seekers, when he had his lawyer threaten Penn, Wharton and the College Board with lawsuits if ever they revealed any academic transcripts or SAT score, he forgot about the graduation ceremony program

       Next case: as a series of generally ludicrous assertions we have:

        The Oval Office conference claim that U.S. officials and scientists are working as quickly as possible to produce a coronavirus vaccine, and Trump asserted that he’s in charge of its development in “Operation Warp Speed.”    In charge? Really. Where is his lab?

        This is the same moron who did an “on mike” speculation that inhaling a disinfectant might work. Same guy different day, a statement which made it evident that, at least in the moment, he wasn’t sure about the difference between a “palliative treatment” (antiviral remdesivir), an anti-malarial “preventive “oral  medication, since debunked as ineffective, (hydroxychloroquine),  and a vaccine, as yet to be developed, which is a preventive, not a treatment.  Of course, Trump, always the “American exceptionalism” trumpeter, failed to mention the promising British vaccine, developed at Oxford, already in human trials.   

        Perhaps the most bizarre recent example of Trumpian devolution can be found in his own words, as entered by his own thumbs: On Thursday, May 21, the grand Cheetoh tweeted this:   

“Many will disagree, but @FoxNews is doing nothing to help Republicans, and me, get re-elected on November 3rd. Sure, there are some truly GREAT people on Fox, but you also have some real ‘garbage’ littered all over the network, people like Dummy Juan Williams, Schumerite Chris Hahn, Richard Goodstein, Donna Brazile, Niel Cavuto, and many others. They repeat the worst of the Democrat speaking points and lies. All of the good is totally nullified, and more. Net Result = BAD! CNN & MSDNC are all in for the Do Nothing Democrats! Fox WAS Great!”

       Having never watched Fox News for more than 15 seconds due to a sensitive gag reflex, I don’t know precisely what triggered this, but I love it. If Fox is injecting even a scintilla of truthful reportage into their news programming that means some of the die-hard MAGA folks may at least be exposed to some reality. It’s a start.  

        And finally, for today:

        Trump’s continued firing of Inspectors General of the various government agencies is causing the bodies to pile up. It should bother any true believer in Constitutional  government and its implicit “checks and balances”,  that the White House simply paves the way to more abuses of power by “canning” those who might point them out as their mandate requires. Loyalty of these folks is pledged to the Constitution, not any individual.

         Trump definitely sees it otherwise. The latest casualty is (now former) State Department Inspector General Steve Linick.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that he asked President Donald Trump to remove Linick because the independent watchdog was "undermining" the department and wasn't performing in a way that the top US diplomat wanted him to. I guess there’s “independent” and then there’s the Trump administration’s ass covering obfuscation. So why did Linick have to go?

       A Democratic aide on Capitol Hill elaborated that the inspector general's office "was looking into the secretary's misuse of a political appointee at the Department to perform personal tasks for himself and Mrs. Pompeo."  (You know, such as having an individual paid to do the public’s job, go walk the Pompeo family dog?) Linick had been on the job since 2013 and had recently issued reports criticizing some Trump appointees of retaliating against career public servants. And there we have it. criticize any aspect of Trump behavior and hit the bricks!

        In recent weeks, the president also removed Michael Atkinson as inspector general of the intelligence community, as well as Glenn Fine, who had been named to oversee the federal government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Not everyone remained silent on the issue:

        Senator Chris Murphy, (D-Ct) “tweeted” “if Inspector General Linick was fired because he was conducting an investigation of conduct by Secretary Pompeo, the Senate cannot let this stand.”

        Two Republican Senators, Mitt Romney of Utah and Charles Grassley of Iowa. also pushed back on Saturday. “The firings of multiple IGs without good cause chills the independence essential to their purpose,” Romney said on Twitter, calling it a “threat to accountable democracy.”  Grassley said in a statement that “a general lack of confidence” in an IG “simply is not sufficient to satisfy Congress.”

        November approaches. Don’t miss the opportunity to end the bleeding!