Measles and the Unvaccinated

Unvaccinated children are being sent home from school. Their parents are being excoriated in the press for putting everyone else at risk. Implicit in this is the suspicion that the vaccines don't really work all that well. Actually no one claims they always work, just most of the time. CDC says the current measles outbreak in the United States is occurring mostly among the unvaccinated. I'm sure they know what the numbers are but they aren't saying, odd from an agency that loves to cite their numbers. My grandson is thirteen now and has autism, not Alzheimer's, autism. I don't know what caused it and it should come as no surprise that I follow the news on the subject. The medical community has no credible answer. I suspect the vaccines. A lot of other people do too, especially well educated mothers with the resources to do their own research and a predisposition to challenge authorities who dismiss their concerns out of hand. We are told that study after study has rejected any connection but no one can point to solid research that supports that rejection. The CDC, all over the Ebola outbreak, refuses to even look at a comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. They say it would be unethical, that no suitable population exists. But that doesn't really wash and serves to heightens the suspicion. It's a simple question. Are unvaccinated children less likely to have autism? Why don't they want to answer? Are they hiding something? If they want to know why more and more mothers are rejecting vaccines, or the compressed recommended schedule, or multiple simultaneous vaccinations, or flu shots containing mercury, they have to look no further. No wonder people are suspicious. News reports on the measles outbreak regularly reference a "now discredited' 1998 paper published in Lancet claiming autism was caused by the combined Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine. I read the paper. It made no such claim. A team of scientists did find that twelve children with Pervasive Development Disorder also had the measles virus in their guts and recommended further research. Correlation does not equal causation but at a press conference announcing the results the principle author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, commented that if it were his child, until more is known he would get the measles, mumps, and rubella shots separately, an option available at the time in the UK where the research was done. Dr. Wakefield was subsequently accused of fraud, conflict of interest, and unethical clinical practice in conducting the research, and hounded out of medicine. His real crime was suggesting MMR might be implicated. Lancet eventually retracted the paper. No subsequent research has replicated the findings. Few researchers who value their medical licenses would. Dr. Wakefield continues to defend his work and the paper. Mothers who look seriously into this smell a hatchet job. The separate shot option was withdrawn in the UK soon after the Lancet paper was published and now is apparently unavailable anywhere. It is MMR or nothing. More and more mothers are choosing nothing. That isn't likely to change until authorities come up with a convincing explanation for the exploding incidence of autism. Explaining it away as genetic or better diagnosis isn't going to work. Neither will another bogus study claiming we don't know what causes it but it isn't vaccines. If it isn't vaccines then what is it? If it is vaccines come clean. Let's start talking about how to make them safer and more efficacious. Until then I will remain suspicious. So will a lot of like minded people. And if measles has returned to the United States I don't blame the parents of unvaccinated children. I blame the medical community,

Islamaphobia

I empathize with Muslims who don't like the term "radical Islam." The few Muslims I have spoken to about it contend the extremists wreaking so much havoc in the name of Islam don't represent their faith and shouldn't be called Islamic. I believe they are sincere and that they speak for by far the majority of Muslims. But they have lost that argument. The problem is that there are too many of the radicals. Even a small percentage of 1.2 billion Muslims is a great many extremists and the number appears to be growing. The violence is certainly growing. Were it not for that most of us would know next to nothing about Islam. I wouldn't. In the years following 911 I did a lot of reading, mostly in an effort to understand what the Arabs were so mad about, and what on earth it had to do with us. I read histories, biographies, commentaries, I even read the Koran. I learned a lot, just ask me about Sykes-Picot. But there is a limit to textual knowledge. I only knew what I had read and I really didn't know much about Islam. I began to wonder if the faith is even compatible with modern civilization, a question a lot of people have asked and answered in the negative. But that didn't seem right. I know enough Christian history to know we have a lot of brutality in our past too, all conducted in the service of God. St. Louis was a man of deep and abiding faith who believed the only proper way to talk to a Muslim or Jew was at the point of a sword. We don't have to go back that far. Most generals on both sides in the Civil War sincerely believed they were doing God's work. Jews don't get off the hook either. Just read up on Joshua's campaigns. So I began to take opportunities to speak with Muslims. I attended a series of classes at our local mosque. I went to several seminars. Lynne and I participated in a small interfaith discussion group with five Muslims and five Catholics. I concluded that Muslim scholars can spend a lifetime studying their holy scriptures and come away with entirely different interpretations of what it all means. I also concluded that Islam is not necessarily an inherently violent religion, and that most Muslims don't think so either. But enough of their co-religionists believe God has issued a call to bloody arms that any effort to avoid associating them with Islam is doomed to fail. Like it or not Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the assassins at Charlie Hebdo are the face of Islam to much of the world. As long as they dominate the headlines with their brutal escapades no amount of public outreach from my Muslim friends will change that. President Obama's refusal to use the term radical Islam just makes him look silly. The Army's failure to recognize Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan's obvious radicalism for what it was may we'll have allowed his bloody rampage at Ft. Hood to happen. Insistence on calling it workplace violence isn't reassuring. Many people I know are wary of Muslims, maybe most. It is unfortunate but entirely understandable. Even liberal commentator Juan Williams admitted on Fox News that boarding a plane with other passengers in Muslim dress made him nervous. He lost his job at NPR over it. Some of my friends won't go with me to a meeting with Muslims. That may be unfair profiling but it is what it is. As I said, I understand the broader Muslim community's dislike of references to Islam in discussing terrorism, but it is hard to conduct a meaningful discussion without it.

Poverty and its Causes

Pope Francis caused another stir over his recent comment that Catholics needn't breed like rabbits. I suspect he wishes he had phrased it differently. I don't want to get into the ethics of artificial birth control, there can't be many people left on the planet who don't hold firm opinions on that, but I would like to offer a few reflections on the relationship of poverty to economic systems, government, and large families. I am a fan of Pope Francis. There is a lot to like, but he is only partly correct when he says "... an economic system that creates 'a culture of disposal, where men, women and children are excluded' is the main reason for poverty, not large families." My maternal grandparents were well to do by the standards of their day. They both came from families who were relatively well off, were well educated, and who had over several generations steadily improved their lot through hard work and determination. Most of them were large families. My paternal grandparents in contrast came from more modest circumstances. My grandfather had only an eighth grade education, eight more years of formal schooling than his father had. Those eight years made him literate and numerate enough to master the lumber business and become wealthy. He too had a large family, and saw to it his ten children were better educated than he was. So Francis is right that large families do not necessarily cause poverty, though I would argue that too many children can be a major obstacle in escaping poverty. Look at Mexico. Mexico is transforming itself into a middle class country, still a far cry from the U.S. but a long way from the grinding poverty that produced the massive waves of illegal immigration that still color our policy debates. Net immigration from Mexico today is negative. Sociologists who study these things usually credit several factors. One is NAFTA. Another is that Mexican families are having fewer children. Both of these make it easier for women to work outside the home, produce higher family incomes, and allow children to stay in school longer, 2015 is the fifteenth and final year of the UN's Millennial Development Goals, eight goals aimed at reduced poverty, hunger, child mortality, and gender inequality, improved health, education, and environmental stability, and creating a global partnership for development. Substantial progress has been made toward all eight, the most dramatic being a 50% drop in extreme poverty, defined as subsisting on less than a $1.25 per day. That goal was achieved five years early, by 2010, and more progress has been made since despite a serious global economic downturn. But that wasn't primarily because of anything the UN did, or for that matter the church though both had a role. It was driven largely by China's decision in the 1980's, and later India's, to embrace capitalism, private property rights, and the very global economic system the Pope criticizes, the system my grandparents prospered in a century ago and Mexicans are prospering in today. Melinda Gates thinks we will see more progress in the next fifteen years than we did in the last. I think she is right and to be sure the Gates Foundation and other charitable agencies like Catholic Relief Services have much to contribute, particularly in helping the poor in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa with things like health care, agricultural technologies, and access to clean water. But as it has in the past the major impetus will come from improved governance. There is much to be done and much to be gained from reduced corruption, lower structural barriers to trade, improved infrastructure, and education. Government has a critical role in them all. Wherever large pockets of poverty or hunger are found in the world today we can expect to find poor governance. We would do well to think about that as we address continuing poverty here at home.

Horror in Paris

Reacting to today's horrific murder at a satirical magazine office in Paris, Andrew McCarthy has an article at National Review Online making the case that this sort of violence is not extreme in Islam, it is mainstream. To illustrate his point he quotes excerpts from the Koran and a manual on sharia that most of us, and most Muslims, would find medieval and cruel. Well, the texts are medieval and parts of them if taken literally, cruel. But most modern Muslims don't necessarily take isolated excerpts from the Koran literally and as near as I can tell those who would willingly go back to a medieval version of sharia are a distinct minority. The Muslims I know would be deeply offended at any satirical depiction of their faith or their prophet, but they are uniformly horrified at the sort of atrocities on display today in Paris. To be sure modern Muslims have more than their share of extremists and their number has been growing in recent decades. I'm not going to opine about why that is. I would like to hear a knowledgable Muslim address it but Andrew McCarthy is wrong. They are not mainstream. I would however like to address this issue of interpreting scripture. Last spring I completed a four year program of bible study at the University of Dallas. I will offend some when I say this but more than one of the Catholic scholars I studied said flatly that literal interpretation of scripture is a form of intellectual suicide. It is easy to see why. Some of it is myth (the creation story), some of it poetry (the Psalms), some of it apocalyptic symbolism (Revelation). There are many contradictions. None of this is to say that it isn't true. It is the inspired Word of God and absolutely true, just not necessarily factual. Vatican II issued the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Verbum Dei) which, for Catholics is the authoritative guide to understanding God's Word. It is a lengthy document that describes a serious process of putting things in context. Who wrote it? When? For whom? Why? What did it mean to the people of the day? What different meaning might it have in the context of our own day? And not least what does church tradition have to say? It is a complex undertaking not to be approached lightly. I think something like that is true of Muslim understanding of the Koran and the Hadith, the teachings, deeds, and sayings of Muhammad and his companions. I know that scholarship is highly prized. The Islamic Association of Collin County has a resident scholar with national stature on staff at the mosque in Plano. You can't just pick a passage from the Koran, point to it and say, see. I certainly can't. For one thing I don't know Arabic and for a Muslim, if it isn't Arabic it isn't scripture, I don't mean to suggest that pundits like Andrew McCarthy and others who share their view shouldn't criticize Islam. They have their opinions and if they don't express them we will not have the public dialog that we need to have if we aren't going to end up afraid of our neighbors. But I mostly see only one side of this, and mostly only on the Internet. I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow's Dallas Morning News fails to mention that the Paris assassins were Muslims. We need a serious discussion about this and we won't get anywhere ignoring it. Andrew McCarthy should have his say. I would like to hear what the resident scholar at IACC has to say in response.

Debtors Prison in Texas

Huffington Post has an article out on people being thrown in jail in Texas for failing to repay predatory loans. It doesn't happen a lot but that it happens at all is a sad commentary on our judicial system. Here is how it works. You have a past due utility bill and the power company is threatening to shut off your electricity. You go to a store front lender and take out a three hundred dollar loan for two weeks. You write a post dated check to cover the fee, principle, and interest. Two weeks go by and you don't have the money. You roll the loan over for another fee. You continue this process for a few months and find yourself several thousand dollars in debt. The fees are exorbitant and this happens a lot. Finally the lender tries to cash the check. The money isn't in your account so now it's a hot check. The lender files a complaint with the local constable and you find yourself in court. People are losing their homes over this and if you don't think that happens a lot ask the people at Samaritan Inn. They turn people away in droves for lack of space. Many are single mothers living with their children in their cars, if they still have a car. There is often a predatory loan in the story. OK, it was a bad idea to get started down this road but desperate people do desperate things. Some practices in this business are abusive and should be illegal but aren't under Texas law, starting with the fees. Effective interest rates often exceed 500%. They avoid usury laws because technically the fee isn't interest, it is a charge for arranging the loan. Also the loan agreements commonly don't allow partial payments, the entire loan must be repaid when due. Often the only way the borrower can do that is to roll the loan over. That's how they snowball so quickly. Dallas, Garland, and a number of other Texas cities have passed a model ordinance regulating these lenders. Richardson has a specific use permit requirement that has kept them from proliferating. But they operate freely in much of the metroplex. There are dozens of them in Plano. It is really a state wide issue. Regulate them here, they just move over there. Every odd numbered year a bill is filed in the Texas Legislature to curb some of the worst of the practices and the incoming legislature will be no exception. Lynne and I will be in Austin in March with a group from our church for Catholic Advocacy Day. We will break up into small groups, put on tee shirts, and call on legislators to ask for support on this and several other bills. It's an uphill battle though. These lenders are making a lot of money and they are a powerful lobby. Several charities, including United Way, Dallas Catholic Charities, and some local St. Vincent DePaul Conferences, have also begun advocating for alternative lending sources. It's difficult because these are small loans with high transaction costs to people who don't have very good credit. They are making progress and a few reputable lenders have set aside funds for this purpose. Some employers will make payroll advances at no interest. Most charities that deal with this require financial counseling. One reason people fall into these traps is they don't realize what's happening and don't know how to avoid the danger. As for jailing people for failing to repay these loans, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. This isn't the England of Charles Dickens' day. We did away with debtors prison a long time ago, or did we?