Eric The Blue

AMA says, "First, do no harm"

I suppose, from a certain perspective, that of a right-wing ideologue, the source of opposition to Trumpcare is "the usual suspects."  All the Democrats in the House and Senate.  The biased, liberal media.  The authors of articles in The New England Journal of Medicine.  The plurality of American voters who cast ballots for Trump's opponent and gave her more than a 2.8 million popular vote victory.  Weepy Hollywood elites like Jimmy Kimmel.  Et cetera.

There are also, however, the amicus briefs submitted to the court of public opinion by various health-care "stakeholders."  These would include, for example, the associations formed by an array of interest groups, including especially those representing  professionals working in the health-care industry.  Many of these groups seem comparatively immune to the usual smears--not the NAACP, perhaps, which opposes the Senate bill that will be voted on when senators reconvene in July, but how about the following roster of opponents: the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP),  the American Hospital Association, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Association, and the American Medical Association (AMA)?

All these foam-flecked liberals!  It's hard to get them into the same corral with the usual suspects.

The opposition of the AMA seems to me particularly difficult to dismiss.  It's membership--doctors--is made of people with high incomes who would be the beneficiaries of the tax cuts that Trumpcare seeks to bankroll.  More pointed, however, are the particular terms in which the Association criticizes the bill.  Here is the first paragraph of the letter sent to Senator McConnell by James Madara, the Executive Vice President and CEO of the AMA:

I am writing to express our opposition to the discussion draft of the "Better Care Reconciliation Act" released on June 22, 2017.  Medicine has long operated under the precept of Primum non nocere, or "first, do no harm."  The draft legislation violates that standard on many levels.

"First, do no harm"--it is, or ought to be, a conservative principle.  But in our country the "conservative" political party may more aptly be described as reckless and irresponsible.  They've been shouting and waving their arms about Obamacare for so long that they now have to do something.  It's possible they may harm millions of Americans in order not to lose face.

Books of the Bible: Philippians

The "general reader" of Paul's letter to the Philippians will be greeted with familiar problems, the solution of which requires the assistance of scholars unburdened by fundamentalist dogma.  It's possible to piece together a candidate for the letter's occasion--it's Paul's version of a thank-you note to the church at Philippi for having sent to him, by the hand of one Epaphroditus, a gift of money.  The passages from which such a conclusion might be formed are found at 2:25-30 and 4:10-20.  In that case, however, why does it take Paul so long--almost two full chapters--to mention the ostensible reason for having taken up his pen?  Moreover, why are the thank-you passages separated by a block of material in a wholly different tone, that of a Pauline screed against the Judaizing proponents of circumcision?  Lest you think I'm exaggerating how abruptly the tone shifts, consider:

So receive [Epaphroditus] in the Lord with all joy; and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete your service to me. 

Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord.  To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and is safe for you.

Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.  For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.

This is 2:29 through 3:3, a continuous stretch of words made of the conclusion to the first thank-you passage and the opening of the screed.  It's quite a bewildering transition, more of a jump than a transition, and, as with 2 Corinthians, the best explanation for the jumpiness is that the text of the "letter" is not a unity but rather a collection of fragments--three, perhaps, with endpoints at 3:1 and 4:9, though there is a range of scholarly opinion on details and degree of complexity.  Keeping it simple, however, one might usefully think of the "letter" to the Philippians as consisting of:

1. a fragment of a letter of thanks (4:10-20);
2. a fragment of a follow-up letter in which Paul describes his own difficult circumstances before reiterating his thanks and insisting on the rectitude of Epaphroditus, whose tardy return after delivering the gift seems to have been the cause of some suspicion in Philippi (1:1-3:1); and
3. a fragment of a polemic, or screed, against the Judaizing circumcisers (3:2-4:9)

I take it on faith that to adopt such a view you have to reject the notion that every word of Scripture is the inspired and inerrant word of God, but I could be under estimating the ingenuity of the fightin' fundies.  Maybe it could be argued that it was the hand of God that caused portions of certain letters to be preserved, so that they could later be pasted together in a confusing pastiche that would nevertheless be normative for faith and practice, while allowing fragments of comparative chaff to be lost forever.  Though it seems odd that we should have a wispy hint about, for example, the troubles of this Epaphroditus fellow.  The chaff must have been of very little import indeed. 

On the subject of hints, Philippians provides a few about the character of its author, and it's interesting to note that they are pretty much in line with what can be gleaned from Paul's other extant compositions.  He is not warm or in any way effusive, unless you count anger when some theological tenet or question of personal authority is at stake.  Here he is "thanking" the Philippians for their gift to him:

I rejoice in the Lord greatly that at length you have revived your concern for me; you were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.  Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content.  I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want.  I can do all things in him who strengthens me.  Yet it was kind of you to share my trouble. 

One commentator, Ernst Lohmeyer, has glossed this passage as "thankless thanks":  that is, "Thanks, but I didn't actually need it."  The brief for the defense would assert that Paul's peevish manner must here be attributed to ambivalence about accepting money from a church he had established, which might leave him open to the kinds of attacks on his apostolic authority that he particularly detested.  That he's badly conflicted on this question is suggested further by the way in which the passage wherein he thanks his benefactors is also a memorable statement of Christian stoicism, the source of which is a disdain for the things of the world.  He liked the gift.  He should not have liked it.  As he wrote in Romans, he could will what was right but he could not do it.

This theme of what I'm calling Christian stoicism runs through Philippians.  The most thoroughgoing expression had occurred in the first chapter, where Paul debates with himself, apparently for the edification of the Philippians, whether it would be better for him to die now or later:

For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain . . . .  I am hard pressed between the two.  My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.  But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

So he'd die now, in order to "be with Christ," but that would deprive the Philippians of his instruction.  He didn't continuously conceive of himself as "a wretched man"!  And remember how, in the fourth chapter of 1 Thessalonians, Paul writes about how those "now asleep" will receive their reward at the Second Coming?  In Philippians, he seems to think he anyway won't have to wait.  Many of the most devout Christians seem cocksure about what they will experience "on the other side" but, judging from his writings, Paul is not among them. 

The Twins, so far

When a couple weeks ago I asked another Twins fan if he thought the team might finish the season with a winning record, he asked whether I knew what rhymed with June.  This past weekend, however, was more like a face plant than a swoon:  four games against the (formerly) second-place Indians, four losses, the aggregate score of 28-8 computing neatly into a 7-2 average outcome.  In other words, allowing a lot of runs while not scoring very many.  Even before these last four sorry games, the Twins had on the season allowed 24 more runs than they'd scored, an oddity for a team in first place.  It shows they'd been doing well in close games, but they haven't been playing any of those lately.

Another oddity concerns the team's home-road splits.  In the American League, only the Houston Astros have a better record in road games (24-8) than the Twins (20-9).  But in their home games the Twins have posted a woeful 14-24 mark.  Possibly the Metrodome, being such a goofy place for baseball games, afforded the home team more of an advantage than does Target Field--like the way "local knowledge" is more helpful on a golf course featuring a million blind shots and hidden hazards. 

But the best explanation for these oddities is probably that they're just statistical quirks arising from less than half a season of games having been played.  In that case, "the real Twins" will start revealing themselves in tonight's game against the White Sox.  Santana is pitching, Sano presumably will be in the 3-hole, and, though a "realist" might expect their overall record to slide toward their year-to-date run differential (-44, third worst in the American League), it's still undeniably June, the Twins are within a couple games of first place, and it looks like it'll be a nice evening for a ball game. 

 

Good guys with guns

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  So all the self-appointed good guys arm themselves.  Then, when they meet up with each other, on "a routine traffic stop," or in the street outside the bar at half past two in the morning, or wherever, they very plausibly "fear for their lives" and so shoot first so that they don't get shot themselves.  Guys are shot dead all the time, but nothing is wrong, no crime, just good guys with guns fearing for their lives in tight spots and doing what needs to be done.  Carry on.

Notes on Comey's testimony

James Comey's Thursday testimony hasn't been under-analyzed, but for me it will be fun, even therapeutic, to round up some bits I agree with and to note a few others that I think haven't received the attention they deserve.

1. Although some have complained that Twitter has the effect of stunting thought, it's also possible that on occasion the discipline imposed by the character limitation elicits from Tweeters an admirable concision.  Such was the case with the following tweeted summation from Rep. Adam Schiff, Democrat of California and the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence:

Comey: He dangled my job.  Demanded loyalty.  Wanted Flynn case dropped.  Wanted Russia cloud lifted.  Fired me.  Trump: I'm totally vindicated!

Perhaps it was the character limitation that prevented Schiff from observing that the Administration's initial reason for firing Comey involved a bunch of trumped up nonsense that was plainly laughable.  Then in a nationally televised interview Trump basically admitted to NBC's Lester Holt that Comey was fired on account of the Russia investigation. Later, he told some visiting Russian officials that by firing that "nut job" Comey he had relieved the "pressure" of the Russia investigation.

2.  If down in the forest there is the stench of corruption and obstruction of justice, the view from above the trees is possibly worse.  The context for all this is Russia's interference in our election.  Has the Trump Administration so far even acknowledged that it occurred?  In none of Comey's interactions with Trump does he report the President exhibiting even a wee bit of interest in the details of this shocking fact.  Why not?

One plausible answer is that his Administration is in some way, yet unknown, implicated in the meddling.  In the alternative, he just doesn't care.

3.  Let's keep talking about Trump's claim to be "100% willing" to answer questions, under oath, concerning his interactions with Comey.  Let's do it even though it'll make us hoarse, since it's not going to happen until the day after his tax return is no longer under audit and the Mexicans have paid for the built wall.

4.  The above is one of a thousand instances of Trump "crowding out the truth," to use Ezra Klein's phrase.  By making some pronouncement, he puts off the reckoning, and provides his supporters with a hook for their hats.  But there is no prospect of his following through.  Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe captures the gambit in a tweet on a related red herring, Trump's tease about tapes of his conversations with Comey:

Tapes?  Did I mention tapes?  Did you take me literally?  What if I was just fuc*king with Comey?  You say that wd've been witness intimidation?

This is for Trump standard operating procedure.  It was only around a year ago that, attempting to prop up the lie that Obama isn't an American, he said in a television interview that he had dispatched investigators to Hawaii and they were discovering "absolutely unbelievable" things about the then-president's nativity.  He's never divulged what "absolutely unbelievable" things were discovered.

5.  On the topic of red herrings, what about Comey's "leak"?  One observation would be that it is not in any way improper for a private citizen to share with a journalist his recollection of conversations containing no classified information.  Another would be that dropping into an argument a word with bad connotations is just a way of giving a false color to that argument.  Was Deep Throat a "leaker"?  Isn't the question really, "What's true?"  Deep Throat's information was true.  It's not very hard to understand why Trump would rather talk about leaks than whether or not the substance of Comey's information is true.

6.  He'd prefer talking about leaks because Comey is telling the truth.  According to Trump, Comey's speech acts are of two kinds: the true ones that exonerate him, and then all the lies.  So it's true that he (Trump) was not a subject of the investigation; the conversation in which he said he hoped that Comey could let Flynn go, however, "never happened."  It's too transparently and absurdly self-serving even to be funny.  His supporters have been busy composing essays on the distinction between "pressure" and an "order," "inappropriate" versus "illegal," because it's so useless to insist that Comey is lying--and then Trump spoils it by saying Comey's lying. 

Trump lies so much, you think he'd be better at it. 

7.  I love "the Ryan defense":  The president is new at this.  There's a lot he doesn't understand.  Yes, but he understands enough to clear the room before indulging himself in a little obstruction of justice. 

8. The law professor Seth Abramson has some high-minded proposed questions for Jeff Sessions, but I'm a big enough man to admit that I prefer the snark of his Twitter followers.  When he tweeted Trump's inadequate response to a question from a Romanian journalist at a recent presser--

BREAKING: Trump is asked on national television, by a Romanian reporter, to speak on the Russian threat in Eastern Europe and he *refuses*.

--he received the following tweeted replies:

SCOTT: Does Trump know where Romania is?

JOANNE: Can he point to anything in Europe?

ELENA: Can he point to Europe?

DON: Does he know what a map is?

AIME: The ones that show his "victory," yes.

An election meme

 

Here is a right-wing "meme" about the 2016 election that has circulated on FB and other media:

Our Founders in their infinite wisdom created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation?

The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet and it should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.

Trump won 3,084 of them.

Clinton won 57.

There are 62 counties in New York State.

Trump won 46 of them.

Clinton won 16.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

There's a lot that's interesting about this, also a lot that's wrong with it, and I suppose the intersection of the two raises the question: why do so many people believe things that are such utter hogwash?  Did the batteries for their bullshit detectors corrode and ruin them from the inside?  Or do they maybe just believe things because it gives them pleasure to believe them?

The leading claims are transparently false.  They are practically refuted internally, since, in one breath, the assertion is that Clinton won 57 counties in the whole country and, in the next, that she carried 16 counties in New York State.  It would follow that in the other 49 states she won 41 counties, less than one per state.  She carried 19 of those states.  California is one of them.  To believe this meme, your ignorance would have to encompass not only the actual election result but also basic geography, arithmetic, and logic.

An article at FactCheck.org notes that Clinton won 27 counties in Texas and 31 in Georgia, which makes 58.  So in just those two red states she won more counties than the meme says she won in the whole country. 

In an odd way, the meme's surface falsity tends to obscure what's really wrong with it, which is the blithe assumption that for some reason it matters who won more counties.  I mean, if Clinton wins Brooklyn County in New York, and Trump wins Koochiching County in Minnesota, the "score" isn't in any meaningful way tied, right?  For the score to be tied, the weight of a ballot would have to depend on where it is cast.  It happens that, thanks to the Electoral College, the weight of a ballot does depend on where it's cast.  That goes against all democratic principles.  Trumpers, however, are eager to believe anything that tends to prop up that superannuated relic of the 18th-century that carried their hulking ignoramus across the finish line, and they aren't going to be deterred by the merits of the case.  (The merits of the case are for the detested "elites.") I don't know how else to account for people believing such crazy stuff. 

The map at the top shows, by county, the result of the 2016 presidential election--blue if Clinton won the county, red if Trump did.  The cartogram below adjusts the hue of red or blue, depending upon the winner's percentage margin of victory, and adjusts the size of the county polygons according to their population.