…there would be no geography

The volcano called el Popo (short for Popocatépetl) is on the verge of erupting, and the government is issuing warnings to keep folks from wandering too close. No doubt it will erupt soon, a not uncommon event here in Mexico, which has about 3,000 inactive and 14 active volcanoes. (FYI, we are 654 road kilometers from el Popo.)

I especially like the camera shaking at the beginning

Whenever a natural disaster–or a tragic crime–strikes Mexico, it is completely natural for friends and family to wonder if we’re alright. Many Americans have only a cursory understanding of the size and diversity of their southern neighbor; worse still, most only have experience visiting a few, very similar tourist destinations. I was certainly in that boat before becoming an expat and living here year-round.

Since most Americans visit the tourist resorts on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, they know Mexico to be a tropical climate with sandy beaches and warm (Carib Sea or Sea of Cortes) or cool (Pacific) water. Go a few meters inland and you hit tropical jungle or steep mountains. Which is all true. Yet Mexico is also the thirteenth largest (by size) state in the world (2,000,000 sq kms) and the eleventh by population (over 130 million). It’s the largest Spanish-speaking state in the world (gotcha! Brazil, though larger, speaks Portuguese, and Spain has only 46 million people).

Mexico has vast deserts, temperate midlands and plains (where did you think all those vegetables come from?), large canyons (Barranca del Cobre compares favorably with the Grand Canyon), major mountain ranges, high sierra, and of course those aforementioned tropical jungles and beaches. It is roughly shaped like a parallelogram that is hottest and driest in the uppermost, left-hand corner, traversing to hot and wet in the lowermost right-hand corner. Except for the Sierra Madre mountain ranges which run like a spine down the middle, accounting for micro-climates throughout the country.

Culturally, Mexico is literally a mixed bag. It is a blend of Spanish Catholic culture, indigenous ways, and a heavy dose of imported Americana. Today we tried to order papas ralladas with breakfast. Our waitress informed us they call them “papas hash browns.” Whatever. Mexico has gone through enormous changes in the past twenty-five years, much of it related to the NAFTA agreement. Like China, Mexico industrialized in a single generation. It is now the fifteenth largest state in Gross Domestic Product, ranked eleventh considering Purchasing Power Parity, and economists label it a “upper middle income” country. It was once a classic Third World nation; now it has a large manufacturing base and a middle class, alongside pre-existing elite wealth and poverty.

Many of the aspects which immediately come to mind when an American thinks of Mexican culture are in reality the cultural heritage of just one of Mexico’s thirty-two states: Jalisco. Mariachi bands: check. Tequila: check. Caballos Bailadores (dancing horses): check. Sombreros (some debate on this one). Vaqueros or cowboys (a lot of debate on this one). All claimed by Jalisco. In fact, the state government seizes on these associations with a tourist slogan that says “Jalisco ES Mexico,” literally Jalisco IS Mexico. Which is OK, since the rest of Mexico has adopted these customs, and you are not safe from a Mariachi band ANYWHERE in Mexico.

The best word to describe Mexico is diverse. The people include fair-skinned descendants of Spain and dark-skinned indigenous. Spanish is everywhere, except where one of the three hundred and sixty-four indigenous languages reign. There is no single Mexican cuisine: Oaxaca’s differs from Jalisco’s, which is different from Sonora, and none of them are Tex-Mex. The land has all the varied looks one recalls NOB, but with the addition of real tropical jungles. While it occasionally exceeds its fellow North American neighbor, it routinely rivals it in many ways. Not that one would notice that sipping margaritas on the way to the all-inclusive resort. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

Working Together

Even a banner!

This past Monday was the official birthday (and a federal holiday) for former Presidente Benito Juárez. Much like President’s Day in the States, Mexico moves some holidays to Monday to create long weekends. We had a unique opportunity to put the free day to good use.

The Rotary clubs of Lincoln and Novato, California, had a 15 person delegation visiting our Chapala Sunrise Rotary club this week. We arranged for the group to head to Ojo de Agua, the small town we have been working with the past several years. Since the men of the town had the day off, they agreed to join us fixing up the town plaza, and several of the women made a feast. The Presidente (mayor) of the municipal seat, Poncitlán, even showed up with his spouse!

My job: give a brief tour and describe our work providing water. The tank made a great stage.

The Rotary clubs provided paint, brushes, and ladders, while the townsfolk quickly dove in. We also bought terracotta tiles to repair the gazebo, installed some benches, and sent a mixed team of Rotarians and locals to take a census of the houses to identify which areas have fresh- and waste-water pipes inside their homes.

The Presidente flanked by Rotarians (and note the large, purple wall in the background)

The plaza was a pretty dull affair originally: mostly gray or dirty white walls, with some old advertisements painted on them and a gazebo with a broken down roof (see this “before” pic). The local children had a blast running wild with the brushes and left over paint: they painted themselves, individual bricks on the “town building,” and the lower reaches of several walls outside the plaza. The event was a classic case of doing good while doing well. Everybody had a great time. And we got a delicious bowl of homemade pozolé to boot!

Pozolé fresh from the stock pot (again, note the fine paint job in the background!)

Es México

Sometimes my wife and I run into a situation that can only happen in Mexico. When that happens, we simply turn to each other and repeat “¡Es México!”, and smile and continue on. Like:

The local government just passed some new traffic laws. One of them was a prohibition on reserving parking spaces. This was a common aspect of daily life in Mexico: much like folks NOB reserve a parking space when they shoveled the snow out of it, people here put traffic cones, or buckets, or folding chairs to reserve a space. No more: the law states the traffic police may remove the offending object wherever they find it. They could fine the responsible party, but no one would ever be stupid enough to label their objects.

Bucket? Whose bucket?

There are good reasons to reserve a space in Mexico: for handicapped residents, for business’s loading/unloading, or just for access to a garage on a narrow street! But this requires an application, and a fee, and some curb work. Easier to place a bucket. But now you could lose your bucket, and no one wants to lose a bucket. One simply can’t go through the administrative hassle, and there is no guarantee of success, so what’s an innovative Mexican to do?

The right way…who does that?

Dirt. Piles of it.

Works especially well if you just don’t want ANYBODY parking there. It’s anonymous. It’s not easy for the police to remove. And if they take it, well, you can just get more. ¡Es México!

Some economists estimate 25% of the Mexican gross domestic product is in the informal sector, meaning small businesses without licenses that do not collect the VAT (i.e., they are off the government’s books). These things pop-up everywhere, and offer convenience. If you have ever driven across the US-Mexico border, you have no doubt been approached by people selling trinkets, newspapers, CDs/DVDs, food, drinks, car washes, vacation rentals, insurance, anything! Some of this is pirated junk, but much is legitimate, if not legal, merchandise. Mexicans learn to spot the good and bad tiendas and readily shop at the former.

Shops appear in regular spots roadside, and often disappear each night. Some are only there on weekends. Some last for years, or until they grow too profitable and someone steps in to take a cut or ask for their paperwork. I saw a New York Times piece on the phenomenon of pop-up stores in the States…Mexico has always done this. “¡Es México!”

Looks like I am turning in here…

One final example is: the “viene-viene.” These are waiters who double as human advertisements for their establishments. There’s a restaurant row just down the road: it includes a series of all-you-can-eat seafood places alongside the lake. Some have a theme-park quality to them; most have bands on weekends, and are especially favored by tapatíos who want to get away from the city with the family for the weekend. But which to choose? Every place has several employees out front waving flags, rags, and menus, whistling and gesturing wildly at the cars as they slow to cross the inevitable topés. They seem intimidating at first, but are harmless, if a little aggressive. When you enter or leave the restaurant, they will halt all traffic and assist you on your way. Once you become accustomed to them, a simple smile and a wave as you pass is all that is required. After all “¡Es México!”

Giving UP

A neighbor asked if we were going to any of the Carnaval parades, especially the one yesterday. I said we were more “Ash Wednesday” people than “Mardi Gras” people. So welcome to Lent!

Carnaval is a big deal all over Latin America. Gringos are most familiar with Mardi Gras, French for Fat Tuesday (called “Shrove Tuesday” in English) which is the last day before the Christian season of fasting and penitence known as Lent. Here in Mexico there are a series of sponsored parades and fiestas throughout the Carnaval season, including people dressed up as Sayacos (spirits or crazy people) who throw confetti or flour on the unsuspecting parade watchers. The entire concept of Carnaval and the term itself comes from Latin, literally meaning a “farewell to meat.”

You’ll see some histories that trace Carnival traditions back to pagan Rome or even earlier, but these are fictions. Yes, pagan societies held grand festivals in springtime, near an equinox or around a solstice. They even sometimes fasted for periods. Yet these are common human activities, and there is no other direct relationship between those activities and the Christian season of Lent. It would be like suggesting the Chicago Bears football games are actually based on the dinosaurs, because long ago the dinosaurs engaged in mortal combat on the part of Pangea which is now Chicago. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

All ashed up, and no place to go

Even when a majority of Americans were practicing Christians, Lent was something that stuck out. I can recall showing up for work in the morning and having the guard at the entrance say “Sir, there’s something on your face!” to which I’d rely “Yes, yes there is, and thanks for noticing.” Wearing ashes on your forehead, abstaining from meat, fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday were things that set Catholics (and Anglicans) apart. Now many Protestant groups are reclaiming their Lenten traditions. Meanwhile, Catholics relaxed the requirement* to abstain from meat, which used to be a year-round practice, so now it’s only a Lenten one. Few people know that the McDonald’s Fillet-o-Fish sandwich was created by a franchise in Cincinnati that suffered lagging hamburger sales every Friday!

Many people ask “what’s the point?” of giving up meat or wearing ashes. Some quote Jesus saying “when you fast…(do) not appear to be fasting…” (Matthew 6:16), which we read today in the Gospel. Giving something up just to give it up IS pointless. We give things up because we follow Jesus’ example, who fasted in the desert. We also give things up as a sign of obedience and trustworthiness, doing what we said we would do. A higher form of this practice is to take what you save (time, money) in your self-denial and give it away to those in need. These actions ennoble an otherwise pointless exercise in self-denial. Likewise, committing to doing something positive (in place of giving something up) is laudable. I recall a nun explaining it as “giving UP” with the emphasis on the direction of the intention (up as to God) as opposed to the notion of just denial; I like that way of thinking.

We wear ashes as a symbol. If it were a symbol which gained us respect, it would be something to do in private. If it marks us as someone to be ridiculed, we should wear it in public. “Blessed are you when they revile you…for my sake” says the Lord (Matthew 5:11). I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether being marked as a practicing Christian gains you respect today!

So we begin another Lent, a season of denial and mindfulness, but also a season of taking stock. If you believe we are all here for a purpose (I do), are we accomplishing it or avoiding it? If we are on the way to another world, what path are we on? When a cross falls from the sky directly in front of us, do we pick it up and embrace it, or look away and skirt it? Lent is a chance for a mid-(faith)-life crisis: who am I, and where am I going? Everyone answers that question in one way or another, regardless of beliefs. Embrace Lent: don’t give up, give UP.

*When the Roman Catholic Church changed, it made abstaining from meat every Friday optional, to be replaced with another penitential act at each believer’s choice. As is often the case, the practice was entirely forgotten. If you ever want to play “stump the Catholic”, ask them what voluntary penance they do in place of meatless Fridays, and you’ll get a blank stare. For our part, we gave up (see what I did there?) and returned to meatless Fridays year-round.

Everything you know is wrong (V)

Today we take on the Electoral College, one of the most misunderstood pieces of our government. It is much in the news recently, as an initiative is afoot to undo it without amending the Constitution. The idea is to get enough states to commit their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the votes in a particular state go. So, for example in the last election, if the people of Colorado voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump (they didn’t), the electors from Colorado would still have cast their votes for President for Hillary Clinton, based on the fact she received more votes in the national vote totals. If enough states pass similar rules, the electoral college becomes irrelevant, and the winner of the national popular vote becomes President.* Simple, yes?

Now if you were shocked (everyone was) and appalled (some were, some weren’t) by the results of the November 2016 election, it is entirely understandable why you might blame the Electoral College. But should we change it on that basis, and why do we even have this (very unique) institution? You be the judge!

Seven electors got a little crazy and voted for…whomever!

A quick review of the Electoral College: you don’t vote for President. You vote for a name associated with a slate of state electors who then convene and award the electoral votes from your state to a candidate. Sounds redundant, and it is. Each state determines how its electoral votes are awarded. The most common method is “winner-take-all,” although Maine and Nebraska use more elaborate methods which apportion their votes by congressional districts. The number of state electors is equal to the number of the state’s federal representation (House & Senate) meaning every state gets at least three (two senators and one representative), and more populous states then get more.

One reason the founders created the college was to balance against the tyranny of very large states. At the time, the founders feared Virginia and New York, the two largest states, might get together and trade votes between each other, ensuring the President always came from one or the other. While this threat seems quaint now, it is paralleled in the notion today that absent the Electoral College, a candidate might only campaign in New York city, Los Angeles, and Chicago (for example) in hopes of running up such a large vote advantage in metropolitan areas they could ignore large portions of the country.

Critics say this already happens: they charge that Democratic party voters are disenfranchised in red states as their votes don’t count, and it makes no sense to campaign in such states. First I would note that of course all the votes count, just some people voted for a winner and others voted for the loser. Second, Virginia was once one of those wasted-vote states until enough Democratic party voters moved there, turning it purple and now (perhaps) blue. So electoral reality changes, as it should. Finally, the difference between not needing to campaign (i.e., being able to ignore a state) and not wanting to campaign (because it is a lost cause) is an important one. No system which intentionally ignores large sections of the country can long endure.

Which leads to the chief criticism of the Electoral College: it is anti-democratic. This is 100% correct. As I noted before, the founders were very suspicious of the simple voting majority, and one of the reasons for creating the concept of electors was to have a group of reasoned, thoughtful citizens second-guess the popular vote: you can’t get much more anti-democratic than that! Doesn’t this ignore the wishes of “large sections of the country,” the claim I just described as unsustainable? No. Even in the last election, the country was evenly divided, and the electoral college less so. The national popular vote majority collected by Senator Clinton (three million votes) was dwarfed by the majorities she achieved in California and New York (six million votes). Stated another way, absent those states, candidate Trump “won” a majority of the popular vote in the other forty-eight!

So is the Electoral College just an unnecessary anachronism which gets in the way of our democratic process? We won’t know how necessary it is until we change it, which is always a hard way to learn (see constitutional amendments 17, 18, and 21). It is no more an anachronism than our constitution is: both are old, both still work. Does the electoral college get in the way of our democratic process: Yes, just as the founders intended.

There have been critics of the college from the very beginning. They surge in number and volume after any election when the winning candidate did not win the popular vote, which has happened five times out of fifty-eight elections. Consider the following question: is the drive to eliminate the college a principled effort to fix a longstanding problem, or an emotional reaction to a shocking election result?

Recall that prior to the 2016 election, it was then-candidate Trump who opined he might lose due to the “rigged system.” And it was then-candidate Clinton (and then-President Obama, among others) who rightly criticized him for attacking the system simply because he didn’t like the probable outcome. That debate was not specifically about the electoral college, but the principle holds: we don’t make drastic, summary changes to a system which has worked so well for so long, simply because we don’t win.

*Eagle-eyed observers may note that the movement to circumvent the electoral college has not been ruled on in the courts. If someone from a state adopting the approach sues for relief, the Supreme Court would have to rule whether the entire concept is an unconstitutional route to amending the existing constitutional system. ¡Ay Caramba!