Hearing friends recently discuss vaccine skeptics’ lack of critical thinking set me thinking.

Yes, science apparently had the better argument, that vaccines and masks were helping fight COVID-19. This seemed pretty clear fairly soon. But believing in the science doesn’t automatically mean I thought critically. Maybe I listened just as vacuously as someone else, but to different speakers.

Yes, it got bound up in politics; yes, Mr. Trump misinformed anyone who listened to him; but consider the context of vaccine skepticism.

Historically, science needed centuries to supplant religion and folklore as humanity’s most trusted guide. (From Galileo to Locato Sí?) Scientific method deserves its status, although only an idiot assumes it’s infallible. (See thalidomide, asbestos flowerpots, shock treatment.)

But many tributaries flowed into the powerful river of anti-vaccine sentiment.

First, like that dam that burst recently in Ukraine, weakened by months of sustained shelling, science suffered some cynical but long and strong artillery attacks: as we finally began to take seriously the health dangers of cigarettes (referred to casually as “cancer sticks” even in 1905), the tobacco industry fought like cornered rats. They denied science, attacked the scientific method, and hired greedy scientists to spout untruths in scientific wording. And hired politicians. Oil companies borrowed that playbook to deny that our climate was changing largely because of human (mis)conduct. They convinced many and dangerously delayed or prevented meaningful action.

Not only did these cynical bombardments of science weaken science’s strong position in some minds, but watching apparently serious scientists delivering scripted lines as earnestly as movie actors taught us all that scientists can be bought. If that’s so, unless you give the subject a sustained study, why should a non-scientist accept the authority of peer-reviewed journals? Maybe all the peers got bought!

Science also suffers from self-imposed wounds by its practitioners. Scientists have praised some useless medicines. Drug companies have deep-sixed bad test results while exaggerating the significance of others. There’s been a revolving door through which young industry employees take jobs with the FDA, do “regulatory” work than sometimes falls short of “neutral and unbiased,” then return to industry in higher-paid positions.

Most in the FDA want the process to work. But we litigated one case for a small company that developed an extremely promising and affordable drug to combat a deadly disease, and contracted with a company in the U.S. to shepherd the drug through tests and FDA approval. A larger company was charging folks $50,000 per year for a drug that merely weakened symptoms. Our client’s drug could have stopped that gravy train. The big company cleverly bought the shepherd company, paused work on our drug, and announced the drug was dangerous and ineffective. Yeah, years later we prevailed in court, with a jury ordering the bad guys to pay almost $600 million dollars, but too late to help the patients our client’s drug might have helped. At trial, both sides had scientific “expert witnesses” – some sincere, and others with long records of saying what the got paid to say. That stuff makes scientists and drug companies look even less trustworthy than used-car salespersons.

Yeah, it’s startling to kids who lined up to get polio shots, seeing all this skepticism; and devious folks foment that, for profit or politics.

But fighting those folks, and repairing Science’s reputation, might require an enhanced understanding of where skeptics are coming from – including a realistic look at industry misconduct.

                             – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 25 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week both on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and on KRWG Radio. ]

[Our community radio station, KTAL, re-aired an interview of Bernie Digman by Randy Harris. Listening to part of it sparked the reflections above. I’m not sure there’s anything new there, but the vaccine skeptics possible defenses seemed worth articulating, partly because whenever we are in any majority, we tend to give short shrift to minority opinions; but meaningful and persuasive responses depend upon hearing and perhaps understanding some of what’s resonating with the minority. Having so often been articulating a minority opinion in my native country probably enhances my commitment to that.]

[Maybe the column goes too easy on folks like Robert Kennedy, Jr., who’s trying to build a political career on false statements about vaccines. He derserves obscurity. But it makes less sense to criticize him than it does to do my little bit to make the ground less fertile for the seeds of misinformation he’s scattering.]

 

 

Trump's Well-Deserved Indictment

 

A factual chronology shows Trump’s indictment is legally solid.

On May 6, 2021, National Archives and Records lawyers ask Trump’s lawyers for help recovering key missing documents. After Trump says he’ll return his correspondence with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, but doesn’t, NARA tells Trump to comply with the Presidential Records Act or NARA will alert the DOJ or Congress. Trump personally goes through documents. In January, 2022, NARA retrieves 15 boxes containing “national defense information.” (700 hundred pages are classified. Many deal with foreign intelligence surveillance.)

Some lower official would already have been booked in jail.

Analysis indicate Trump has held some back.

Trump asks Alex Cannon to tell NARA all requested materials have been returned. Other Trump lawyers warn him not to rely on Trump’s truthfulness to say that.

NARA refers this to the DOJ in February, 2022. A grand jury is impaneled to investigate. Trump insists to his advisors he’s turned over everything.

June 3, a Trump attorney signs a sworn statement that to the best of her knowledge all classified documents have been returned. (She relies on information from the Trump lawyer whose notes and testimony prosecutors have now obtained through the “crime/fraud exception” to the attorney-client privilege.) Subpoenaed Mar-a-Lago security footage confirms that once when DOJ had reached out to Trump, people moved documents from their storage room.

On August 5, a judge, finding probable cause Trump is still withholding documents, approves a search warrant . The search finds more than 100 additional classified documents. Several involve a foreign nation’s nuclear secrets! (U.S. knowledge of a country’s nuclear capabilities would obviously be valuable to that country, or its enemies, and could endanger the U.S.’s information source.) In September more classified documents are found in a Trump storage place. Trump knowingly left classified documents on a ballroom stage and in a bathroom. Trump later claims he declassified the documents in his mind.

There’s abundant evidence Trump lied and suborned perjury to retain documents on some country’s nuclear secrets. That’s not in our national interest, whether his ego or a plan to sell them motivated him.

It’s mortifying to indict an ex-President. It sounds like harassment. But Trump, as his former Attorney-General, William Barr said, forced this to happen. He could have returned the documents. The government, Barr adds, acted with delicacy. Clearly, Merrick Garland didn’t wish to put our democracy through this strain. But what choice had he?

I’m betting these charges survive motions. Most will reach trial.

I’d not bet on conviction. Just one ardent Trumpist sneaking onto the jury could save Trump from conviction. Can the jury-selection process prevent that, while remaining fair to conservatives? Particularly if Trump fan Judge Aileen Cannon stays on the case?

What’s scary is how little difference any of this makes to Trump’s “base.” As Trump said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and they’d still love him.

Consider jury security, with Trumpists calling for killings to punish the U.S. for indicting Trump. Someone might lie to get on that “neutral” jury? Surely some will threaten to harm jurors’ families if Trump’s convicted. Trump’s associates have intimidated Congressional witnesses. Trump has plenty of money for bribes, and no visible scruples.

Cannon already made such a ridiculous pro-Trump ruling that a conservative appellate panel tossed it contemptuously. She can mess up voir dire, wrongly exclude evidence, ignore valid prosecution objections, and even direct the jury to acquit.

                                                           --30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week both on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and on KRWG Radio. ]

[There’s so much more to say about all this, from the silliness of Trump’s “defenses” to the examples of lower officials quickly jailed for much less, and from the extreme nature of Cannon’s previous pro-Trump rulings to the interesting split between Republicans who face the facts and those too timid (or stupid) not to make some effort to defend Trump.]

[Ironically, we got further news on Jack Texeira, the National Guardsman who posted classified stuff on the Internet. He likely thought his motives were honorable and good. The following statement reminded me of Trump:

“The unauthorized removal, retention and transmission of classified information jeopardizes our nation’s security,” Joshua S. Levy, the acting U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, said in a statement. “Individuals granted access to classified materials have a fundamental duty to safeguard the information for the safety of the United States, our active service members, its citizens and its allies.”

[Republican columnist Peggy Noonan asks, “What were Mr. Trump’s motives? Why would he refuse to give the documents back, move them around Mar-a-Lago, mislead his own lawyers about their status and content?”

She muses:

Because everything’s his. He is by nature covetous. “My papers” he called them.

Because of vanity: Look at this handwritten letter. Kim Jong Un loves Trump. See who I was? Look at this invasion plan.

Because he wished to have, at hand, cherry-picked documentation he could deploy to undercut assertions by those who worked with him that he ordered them to do wild and reckless things.

My fear is that Mar-a-Lago is a nest of spies. Membership in the private club isn’t fully or deeply vetted; anyone can join who has the money (Mr. Trump reportedly charges a $200,000 initiation fee).

A spy—not a good one, just your basic idiot spy—would know of the documents scattered throughout the property, and of many other things. All our international friends and foes would know. ]

Any Trump claim that he owns the documents runs afoul of the clear language of the Presidential Records Act: “The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records.” ]

[Noonan’s point about how, practically, anyone could have gained access to these documents is significant. Mar-a-Lago is a country club, golf course, and restaurant, as well as Trump’s present home. People can join. Trump is known to respond to flattery. If you offered to bet me whether I could get close enough to Trump (or bribe a Mar-a-Lago employee for keys) to gain easy access to those documents, I’d take the bet with fair confidence. What of some better con man (or woman) with business or conservative credentials?

Noonan doesn’t get into speculation that Trump himself might sell off some documents. I see no reason to take that for granted, given his record. On balance, all things considered, I guess I come out on the side of thinking he probably wouldn’t do such a thing, largely out of fear. But it’s not laughable, even though ego and garnering backup for pissing contests sound far more likely.

Fortunately, the DOJ need not prove motive. Trump’s apparent conduct here was so very bad, it’s inherently criminal, whatever his motive. (Note that I neither say “his alleged conduct,” which is legally more precise, not “his conduct,” which remains to proven to jurors’ satisfaction at trial, but “his apparent conduct” because some of the evidence is so public that we already know it’s strong, even though we give Trump’s lawyer’s a chance to rebut or undermine it.]

Our City Council Discusses Cannabis

Last week, the City Council considered rescinding the 300 ft. buffer zone between cannabis businesses and residences.

Citizens, mostly older but including one 16-year-old, stated that marijuana causes brain damage, leads to addiction, and is a federally controlled substance. Many comments, as one young man said later, sounded straight out of the old film, Reefer Madness.

However, one woman criticized lumping cannabis and booze together, saying marijuana is a wonderful medicine, a natural herb that helps many. Few would say that of whiskey.

I was glad one councilor mentioned the history of the cannabis prohibition. She correctly noted that prohibiting marijuana had a lot to do with controlling ethnic minorities. (Similarly, while the national alcohol prohibition was advocated by many well-meaning progressives, their southern allies wanted it mostly to control Blacks; and many “progressives” saw the problem in terms of workers – suddenly including many eastern Europeans -- drinking all the milk money, then beating their wives.)

I lived part of that history. In youth, I drank and smoked, sometimes to excess. Only one of the current city councilors was even alive when I first enjoyed marijuana. I often did so in integrated company, which was still somewhat frowned on in this country. We knew well that local police, incensed by our advocacy of integration and peace, hoped to use minor drug charges to silence us.

Science seems to have borne out my belief that alcohol did more damage than grass. Brain damage? I have many friends who’ve consumed grass for half a century. They’re doing just fine for their ages. On the other hand, cannabis seems both purer and more powerful than during my youth.

One young man favoring the change said, “Marijuana is always good medicine, doesn’t matter whether I use it medically or just with my friends after this meeting.” Maybe, kid; but my friends who thought that way about psychedelics died young. While, marijuana is relatively benign, any substance that messes with our minds and emotions should be treated with respect.

So I saw this issue from a more pragmatic standpoint. Since moving into town, I’ve had a few nights when insanely loud music from a nearby bar made me wish I could go to some city official’s quiet neighborhood and blast my car radio to the max. At 2 am. People going somewhere to get high and have fun will play music or otherwise make noise, or behave less carefully than usual.

So I was glad they voted 4-3 to keep the buffers. (Yes, it’s unfair that multifamily residences in mixed zoning areas don’t get buffers. So remedy that.)

But my main takeaway was enhanced respect for the councilors. They started at 1 pm. They listened to scores of passionate people shouting ‘Yea!’ or ‘Nay’ at them, and even saying they cared nothing about kids. Some spoke then left immediately. Most of us split after the lengthy cannabis discussion. At 6:30 pm I was watching on video. After six hours of hearing sometimes complex issues people cared about, councilors were still making decisions. At 7:04 a city official started a lengthy lecture on changes in his department. They listened patiently, and asked sensible questions.

At 8:30, after declining to offer “councilor comments,” they wearily voted to adjourn. Councilor Flores got in a great last line: “No! I want to stay longer.”

Yeah, they should implement citizens’ police oversight soon; but they deserve our gratitude.

                                                – 30 --

 

 [The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 June, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website. A related radio commentary will air during the week both on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and on KRWG Radio. ]

Reflections on Bridge -- as Belton Initiates Free Lessons for Beginners Saturday!

[I posted this Sunday column days early because it contains news on free bridge-playing lessons for beginners starting Saturday morning (3June), 10 - 11:30, at Belton Bridge Center.  See below for details.  If you're reading this later, and play bridge or want to learn, contact Belton.]

Ever played bridge?

It’s fun! And whether we’re young folks developing sharp minds or older folks hoping to retain what we can, bridge is a pleasant and effective tool.

A friend called it “pickleball for the brain.” Although he sits at the bridge table often, and rarely tries moving around the pickleball court, he’s kind of right. Both the sport and the card game entertain while giving us healthy exercise and a reasonable mix of competition and collegiality. Pickleball is a bit more social and less cutthroat than squash, or pickup basketball, without being too easy. Bridge is more complex than Rummy but more accessible and somewhat less dependent on memory than chess.

Four people play, two partners sitting opposite each other against a second pair. All 52 cards are dealt, 13 to each player.

It’s a trick-taking game, like Hearts or Spades, but there is usually a trump suit. (If Spades are trump, and someone leads a suit in which you have no more cards, you may “trump” with a spade, and even the spade deuce beats the Ace of the suit led.) Before the play, unlike Hearts or Spades, the players review their hands and may “bid” in an auction. Each bid is a prediction. Bidding “One spade” means, “If Spades are trump, partner and I can win seven of the 13 tricks (six plus the one).” Players can also bid No-Trump. Bidding continues until three consecutive bidders pass. Then the last-named suit serves as trump for that hand.

Partners may not communicate with each other except through bidding and play. Some bids have specialized meanings that are made known to everyone. The game rewards good judgment, keen observation, resourcefulness, logic, and sometimes taking risks. Luck plays a role, but doesn’t dominate.

People can enjoy bridge for lifetimes without ever learning complex bidding systems or playing tournaments. My parents played, as did my maternal grandparents. (Playing bridge together likely helped my grandparents adjust to the fact that their daughter, in Maine’s far North (“Down East”), was marrying a Jewish guy from New York.) I learned young. Played only at home. At 23, when I arrived in New Mexico I found that most afternoons in Corbett Center’s lunchroom, there were several tables of bridge, mostly students and some professors or visitors playing, sometimes for money. I started playing seriously, and learned there were subtleties to the bidding that my parents had never contemplated. Sometimes four of us would play all night, for smallish stakes. I even started playing “duplicate” out at the country club, now recently demolished.

Although for decades I hardly played, except visiting my parents, I always read newspapers’ Bridge columns. In 2019, a friend got me playing again.

General Dwight Eisenhower, later President Eisenhower during my childhood, was one of our more famous bridge addicts. Addiction to bridge was reportedly the reason Deng Xiao-ping (before being “rehabilitated” and leading China) was pushed from power during China’s Cultural Revolution. Actor Omar Sharif got so proficient he took over one of the most famous bridge columns.

You can play at home or on on-line. “Duplicate” bridge allows several pairs to bid and play identical hands, then compare how they did, enhancing the fun.

Belton Bridge Center, at 1214 East Madrid, hosts local games, and will hold Beginners’ Lessons Saturdays at 10-11:30 a.m,, starting Saturday, June 3.

Call (575) 524 – 3031 for more information, or email LeanBridgeLasCruces@gmail.com to register.

                                               – 30 –

 

[I’m posting here the above column, which is scheduled to appear Sunday in the Las Cruces Sun-News, now, because it mentions the start of free beginning bridge lessons Saturday, 3 June, at the Belton Bridge Center at 1214 Madrid. As noted just above, those will continue on Saturdays, 10 -11:30 am, and are open to everyone. A lot of folks have expressed interest to me in learning the game, and others who’ve never thought of it would definitely enjoy it. So I urge you to check it out by seeing if the first lesson appeals to you.]

Deng Xiaoping playing bridge

“Bridge is like music. It is a world language. It should become a bridge for mutual understanding, communication, and friendship between people in China and the rest of the world.”

– Deng Xiaoping

Deng with an admirer

Ike playing bridge in the White House

Actor Omar Sharif Playing Bridge