Obsidian Wings

Marcus Welby, meet Siri

by liberal japonicus

Was interested in this NPR article, which had this:

Millennial physicians like Ho are taking over hospital wards and doctors' offices, and they're bringing new ideas about life-work balance and new technologies.

One time, a patient asked Ho if it was OK if he recorded her performing a minor surgical procedure.

"He Instagram-videoed the entire procedure," she says. "It's not that a senior physician couldn't do it — I think that they might not have the comfort level."

She means comfort with technology. Millennial doctors want offices that are high-tech. Many have never worked with paper charts and they don't read dusty medical journals — they look at them online.

"We absolutely consult Wikipedia, not the library to find the most up-to-date medical research," she explains.

As you might imagine, that last line became one of those typical arguments about Wikipedia as the font of all human knowledge versus Wikipedia as Satan's ape. But I'm sure that the folks here are going to bring a lot more nuance to this. So prove me wrong...

Your Thanksgiving Recipes Open Thread

by Doctor Science

Brett asked for "a Thanksgiving recipe thread in time for pre-Thanksgiving grocery shopping", and it sounded good to me. Also, I'd like to have my traditional Thanksgiving (or other turkey-based holiday) recipes up somewhere that the family can find them in an emergency.

My traditional turkey dinner includes: Herb-Brined Turkey, Chestnut-Rice-Rye Stuffing, Roasted-Garlic Gravy, and Two-Cranberry Sauce with Grand Marnier. The herb brining comes from this Epicurious recipe, the herb butter from this one, the stuffing was invented by my mother (who finds traditional bread stuffing too gluey and greasy), the gravy and cranberry sauce are basically my own inventions -- insofar as anything in a traditional meal counts as any one person's invention.

My recipes are under the cut; talk about your own, trade tips, strategize your meal. And discuss the eternal Thanksgiving question: what wine?

The peculiar institution of American violence

by Doctor Science

I hadn't really understood, on a gut level, how unusual American violence is until after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, MO. As people started talking about what happens in other wealthy, "civilized" countries, I realized that Americans experience -- and expect -- an extreme level of violence from both police and their fellow citizens.

As I've thought about it, I've come to the conclusion that the most important ingredient in American violence is slavery. The past isn't dead, it isn't even past.

Don't know much about philosophy (NPhL Chinese, Curry and Caliphate division) open thread

by liberal japonicus
Those crazy folks over at Superscholar heard your complaints about the Eurocentric nature of the last chart and have come up with this. The title is a reference that I hope is obscure enough to keep the likes of y'all guessing, though whenever I think that, someone usually gets in within the first 3 comments.

Words I never heard in the Bible

One of them is "abuse".

Warning: this post and the comments will be about abuse of all kinds. Know your triggers & limits.

New Yorker reporter Rachel Aviv wrote about how exposing child abuse in the Brooklyn Hasidic community has made Sam Kellner an outcast. The article covers what I have to call "the usual": yet another tight-knit, conservative religious community that would rather toss abuse victims and their families aside than recognize what powerful men have been getting away with.

I'm just going to talk about one aspect. After Kellner's son told him he'd been molested, Kellner

didn’t know if his anger was justified. Molestation was rarely discussed in the community, and it didn’t seem to Kellner that any of the prohibitions in the Ten Commandments explicitly related to it. The most relevant sins—adultery and coveting a neighbor’s belongings—didn’t capture the depth of the violation.

The more you rely on the Bible (Jewish or Christian) as a moral guide, the more I think you ought to ponder why the Commandments include "Honor your father and your mother", but nothing about how to treat your children.

My thoughts about this first crystallized several years ago, reading this story from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:

Years later, when I was in college--Holy Cross College, as a matter of fact--I asked my father why the monsignor wouldn't let me go to a Red Sox game with Fr. Callaghan. "Because Fr. Callaghan did bad things to little boys," my father told me, "and we didn't want that to happen to you."

"But it was okay if it happened to other kids?" I said.

All my father could do was shrug.

That *shrug* is what some defensive bishops have meant by "we didn't think it was that bad" or "it was a different culture." They're not phrasing it very coherently, but they're right. It truly was a different culture. I'm not talking about the wild 1960s or the free-wheeling 1970s, I'm talking about all of human history, including my youth (you whippersnappers).

It's like the difference (for non-vegetarians) between cruelty to livestock -- which is *bad*, admittedly -- and deliberate cannibalism -- which is viscerally horrible.

Rape was traditionally -- as, for instance, in the Hebrew Bible -- considered first a crime against property. The crime was not thought of as "doing a horrible thing to another human being", but as "taking without authorization, reducing the value of another man's property". That's why one of the "punishments" for rape in the Bible is to force the rapist to marry the victim -- because the raped woman was not thought of as the victim, any more than a stolen horse is the victim of a horse-thief.

We now think of rape and child abuse as a horrible crime committed by one human against another, like cannibalism. Until very recently in human history, people tended to think of it as variably bad or nasty, but more like wretched butchery or abuse of livestock. These things happen, you see -- and you're disappointed, but you shrug. *That's* where the shrug comes from.

And as Aviv writes in her article,

In a community where non-procreative sex is considered shameful, molestation tends to be regarded in roughly the same light as having an affair.

In other words, what's important is the worth or otherwise of the molester; the effect on the victim is not really the issue.

I'm trying to remember, and I honestly don't know if there was an idea of "abuse", in a general emotional/physical/sexual way, in common parlance before the early(/mid?) 70s. Adults hitting or tormenting children, husbands doing similar to wives -- it might be *bad*, but I don't recall understanding that it was considered a *violation*, an intrinsic wrong. As I said above, it was more like hurting animals than like cannibalism: bad, but not horrific or revolting. Not more than you'd expect.

My grandmother grew up in a convent/orphanage in Ireland, after her mother died. I don't think she was sexually abused, but from her voice when she talked about the place I think we'd now say it was "a physically and emotionally abusive environment". But her experiences weren't considered -- by her or anyone else -- to be shocking, or worse than could be expected in an Irish orphanage. Actually, they may have been a little better -- it was pretty upscale, by the standards of Irish orphanages.

So, when it seems as though cases of abuse are surging and that it's due to those damn hippies with their 'anything goes' morality, we're really seeing the effects of a profound change in moral values the other way: that abuse, at last, was understood as something *serious*, not just a normal, excusable human failing.

But that understanding did not come from the Bible. I don't know if it started in any religious tradition. Was it feminism? Psychiatry? Or something else?

by Doctor Science

Eugène-François de Block, Teacher with elementary-school class (1866). From a time when the idea of hitting first-graders with a stick to make them learn better was heart-warming and even hilarious.

The ACA, Statutory Construction, and SCOTUS

by Ugh

Some comments on the midterm post have delved into the ACA and what's going on at SCOTUS and the state itself.  I was going to write a post on this but haven't had time.  So, take any angle you want on the ACA, no need to respond to the below.

Proponents of the view that the ACA permits tax credits for those who purchase insurance on the federally run exchanges - despite statutory language arguably to the contrary - are quick to point out that more than 4 million people have obtained health insurance through the federal exchange and a decision denying the credits puts those policies at risk and thus people's lives.  I'm wondering whether this should matter to SCOTUS.

Let's try a different hypothetical, suppose PharmaCo develops a life saving treatment and patents it.   Six months after granting the patent the PTO reverses course and revokes the patent because the subject matter is not patentable under PTO regulations.  PharmaCo sues and loses in the district and circuit courts under deference to PTO regulations interpreting (in their view) an ambiguous state, and sappeals to SCOTUS.  During this time, the treatment has become widely and cheaply available and is currently credited with saving 100,000 lives.  Further, the treatment must be administered on a monthly basis and those who stop have perished.  

PharmaCo's argument at SCOTUS is that the PTO regulations are inconsistent with the statute and its treatment is patentable subject matter.  Further, PharmaCo has announced its intention (that we all believe will be carried through), should it win at SCOTUS, to raise the price of the treatment by 10,000%, such that only 1,000 of the 100,000 people can afford to continue treatment, putting 99,000 people at risk of death.  Should SCOTUS care about that when determining whether the statute is ambiguous?  

I'd say it should.  We're not talking about constitutional principles here, such that there may be some great issue at stake, we're talking about what the statute says/means/etc.  Further, we have the view of the agency charged with administering and enforcing (at least part of) the statute with relevant expertise.  So, why not take the impact into account when deciding the case?  Or if you don't like that approach, concur in the result only?

My view is that SCOTUS upholds the credits 5-4, with Roberts again pissing off the right.  Heck, you might even see a 7-2.  Or at least I hope.

So this is the future

Doctor Science

So when I got to the computer late this morning, I discovered that the European Space Agency spacecraft Rosetta had reached its target, the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (which really needs a snappier name, people), and had sent out its lander, Philae.

Which is the general kind of thing that people have been doing most of my life, so no longer really future-y. What makes me really feel like Yes, This Is the Future:

1. The Rosetta Mission has a livestream. And a twitter account.

2. Their second tweet after Philae's successful landing:

Fortunately for all, Philae does not wear a shirt.

We Don't Need No Punctuation

by Doctor Science

In my earlier post about I Corinthians 11, I said I was convinced by Evangelical translator William Welty's reading, that Paul was telling the Corinthians head-coverings (for men or women) don't really *matter* all that much theologically, but that in any case women should make their own decisions according to their own consciences.

I like Welty's reading not just because it makes Paul non-misogynist, but because it reads smoothly, Paul's argument hangs together and makes sense. But the trouble is that it's untraditional: for at least 1700 years, these passages have been read to prove that women *ought* to cover their hair in church, and to adopt an attitude of general subservience to their patriarchal masters.

How good a writer can Paul be, really, if he was being consistently misread for so long? -- and misread not merely by the naive, but by the most intelligent and educated minds in Christendom, for *centuries*. It makes Paul look like a poor writer, and/or makes all the smartest people in Christendom look like poor readers.

2014 Midterms Thread

by Ugh

A thread to discuss the elections today specifically and our glorious experiment in representative democracy generally.  I guess things won't heat up until the polls start closing tonight, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate!  I know, not a traditional use of the internets, but let's try and break new ground.

This, of course, is a nice lead up to the 2016 POTUS party.  We might learn - should the GOP get a majority in the Senate - whether the Republicans are responsible enough to govern the country.  And by govern I don't mean "adopt my preferred policy positions," but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.  Or think that FEMA is a good place to park super unqualified hacks - after 9/11 no less.

Beyond those specific examples, I guess I also mean a general recognition that government is currently set up to do certain things and, even if you think the government shouldn't be doing those things, a lot of people are relying on the government continuing to do them competently and so purposely wrecking from the inside shouldn't be an option - as opposed to coming up with a plan to wind things down publicly and responsibly.

Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we're far more likely to get the opposite.  But it will, uh, be interesting nonetheless.

What say you?

The Angels of Her Nature

by Doctor Science

A few weeks ago, Slacktivist called my attention to some current discussion about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:10:

"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

I invite you to read this verse in context at BibleGateway, switching around translations to see if they make sense. Spoilers: they won't.

But it turns out that there's a translation and analysis of these passages that *does* make sense, and which makes Paul sound both more coherent and much more feminist than the traditional readings. Yet it comes from William Welty, a mainstream (i.e. conservative) Evangelical Protestant, and is based on century-old work by Katherine Bushnell, an Evangelical pioneer of feminist theology.

In the current discussion, theologian Reta Halteman Finger said, of her work on 1 Corinthians with co-author George McClain:

we concluded that this is the most confusing passage in all of Paul's letters.

As Slacktivist said,

Did that make sense to the Christians in Corinth? Did they read that and think, "Ah, yes, of course. Because of the angels. It's all so clear now ..."?

If so, what did they seem to know about angels and headgear that none of us knows now? What did it mean to them?

I'm sure it meant ... something. But now it just seems absurdly impenetrable — a biblical madlib in which any other noun could be substituted for "angels" with no loss or addition of meaning as far as we're concerned. "A woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the otters." Just as clear.

Mark M. Mattison argues that Paul is referring back to a point he made earlier in his letter (1 Cor. 6: 3), that in the world to come Christians will sit in judgment over the angels themselves.

Having mentioned that argument in 1 Corinthians 6:3, a shorthand reference to the same argument in 1 Corinthians 11:10 is at least plausible. Paul's point would then be, if women are destined to judge angels in the age to come, aren't they able to judge for themselves what to do with their own heads?

James F. McGrath contributes a useful image:

and argues

in the first half [of the passage], Paul is at times quoting the Corinthians, much as he does elsewhere in the letter, perhaps also quoting them quoting his own words, as well as quoting what they said. And as in other such passages, Paul offers some initial agreement, only to then challenge their application of his words or other shared principles.

By the end of the passage, Paul says that women should have authority over their heads.

In my youthful Catholic education, I was taught that 1 Cor 11:10 meant that women should wear head-coverings in church lest the angels be tempted by their beauty. This argument comes from Tertullian, who was misogynist even by the standards of Early Church Fathers. It made no sense to my youthful mind, because one of the high points of dressing for Mass in those pre-Vatican II days was choosing which pretty veil I would wear.

Role model: Jackie Kennedy going to Mass in Palm Beach, 1963. This is what we were trying to look like, in those pre-Vatican-II days. Cropped from an image in the JFK Library.

It wasn't just about women, either. Verse 14 says:

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?

Everyone who grew up in the 60s heard this quoted a *lot*, by people who truly believed it was shameful for men to have long hair. It doesn't take much thinking, though, to see that the argument is patently bogus. If "nature" teaches anything, it's that human beings (especially men) have varying amounts of hair, which naturally grows to varying lengths.

Nonetheless, the traditional Christian interpretation is that long hair in a man is bad, while for a woman it is a "glory" -- though a glory that should be covered in Church. I myself always thought that this passage reflects Paul's messed-up-ness about sex: long hair is intrinsically (one might even say "naturally") sexy, and for a man to deliberately try to look sexy is bad, while for a woman it is good.

But a few years ago I stumbled upon a discussion of 1 Cor 11 which cited a novel interpretation. Evangelical scholar William Welty, following the turn-of-the-previous-century work of Katharine Bushnell, has done a word-by-word analysis of the "hair" passages and argues that Paul's intended meaning is almost the opposite of the traditional interpretation.

So in Welty's translation v. 10 becomes:

The woman ought to have authority over her own head because of her [guardian] angels

-- that is, the woman's own conscience should be her guide.

This is a pretty feminist conclusion, especially given that Welty doesn't seem to call himself a feminist, and he's certainly no leftist. But he is part of the non-fundamentalist Evangelical tradition, and I am not surprised to see that he got his M.Div. at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, also the alma mater of Mark Noll, perhaps the leading intellectual among American Evangelicals right now.

Welty reads verses 13-15 as statements, not rhetorical questions:

13 It is proper for a woman to pray to God without head coverings.
14 Nature in no way teaches on the one hand that if a man has hair it puts him to shame
15 nor does it teach on the other that a woman's hair is her glory. All of this is true because hair is given as a substitute for man-made coverings.

The people at bibletexts.com asked linguist Alexander Lehrman for his opinion of Welty's translation, and he says:

As far as I can tell, Welty is quite correct in treating verse 13 as an assertion, not a question (although that is not at all necessary: it may well be a rhetorical question). He is absolutely correct in interpreting verse 14 to mean "Nature itself does not teach you...," etc. The Greek verb komao does not mean "to have LONG hair," it means merely "to have hair (on one's head)." So the King James version represents a great distortion of the original, as does Waltke's interpretation. Most importantly, Welty's (i.e., Bushnell's) interpretation of verse 10 as something like "woman must have authority over her (own) head" is perfectly correct.

Welty argues that verses 5-6, normally translated:

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.

really mean something like:

• custom holds it a public disgrace to the "head" (pun intended) of her family for a woman to go around with her head uncovered, it's considered admission of adultery or prostitution
• shaving of the woman's head is the customary punishment for these sexual dishonors
• if this is the custom where you are, then women can cover their heads to avoid this kind of public shame

Welty further argues that in verses 7-13 Paul is saying:

• Christian men should have uncovered heads (in church), because they share God's glory -- in contrast to Jewish men, who must always have their heads covered for worship, to show humility
• As the head of a woman's household has an uncovered head, so it is appropriate for her physical head be uncovered in church
• But the decision is really up to each woman, depending on what she thinks is right
• In conclusion: stop bugging me about this stuff, sheesh. (verse 16)

Although Welty is one of the translators of the International Standard Version of the New Testament, the ISV translation of these passages still doesn't make the intended meaning completely clear. This may be because Welty was part of a committee and didn't always get his way, or it may be that they were trying to be as concise as the original, but without the context.

Either way, I've been convinced by Welty's (and Bushnell's) reading of the text, because it lets Paul make *sense* in a way that more traditional, sexist readings don't. The fact that Paul's attitude -- that women ought to be spiritually self-determining -- is closer to Jesus' attitude than he's usually painted is a heartening bonus. Even more heartening, for our real life in America, is to see devout Evangelical scholars doing good intellectual work, reading the Bible with respect for its subtlety and complexity. The Evangelical mind doesn't *have* to be a scandal.

I've got more to say about this, but not tonight. Among other things, I'll be getting up at 4:15 AM to work the polls all day. Vote if you know what's good for you! -- I did it weeks ago, of course.

It's not just in the 20th century that Christian women have used veils more to accentuate the hair than to conceal it. This is Goya's portrait of the Duchess of Alba dressed for mourning -- and it's hard to conceive of anything less retiring, humble, or shamed.

---

As an aside, while looking for the Goya painting I came across this:

Goya's Portrait of Count Fernand Núnez VII. What the actual frak is he *wearing* -- or not? If those are breeches, they are by far the tightest I've seen for the period, and no seam is visible. This painting is dated 1803, which would make Núnez one of the earliest and most extreme followers of Beau Brummell in Spain.