p_c_neary@hotmail.com

Everything You Know is Wrong (IX): The Spanish Inquisition

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? I thought you’d be surprised! You know, how it demonstrated the horror of imposing one’s religious beliefs on others, not to mention the danger inherent in believing one knows exactly what God intends, which can lead to all manner of extremism. It’s a popular view, almost a trope, partly based on that well-established English bias about history that North Americans imbibe, and partly based on, well:

but you KNEW this was coming

The Good News (pun intended) is that the Catholic Church, being the world’s longest-running, most successful bureaucracy (among other things) has excellent data on the Spanish Inquisition. Not only that, the data are reliable, because the inquisidores really believed they were doing God’s work (however bizarre that may seem to modern sensibilities), and lying about their work would have undermined the “good” they thought they were doing. And the Vatican released the data in the late 1990s.

If you asked an average person what they knew about the Spanish Inquisition, the key points would boil down to: (1) many innocent people were tortured to confess, (2 ) they were burned at the stake, (3) all to force people to accept the Catholic faith. So let’s get past Monty Python’s “comfy pillow” sketch and look at the facts!

How many people died at the hands of the Spanish Inquisition? None. Well, that’s a quibble. See the Office of the Holy Inquisition had no authority to execute anyone; only a King did. So the Inquisition passed off the condemned to the King’s executioners. Setting aside the quibble, early estimates ranged upward of millions of victims killed. But there are those pesky records, and modern historians have pored over them and determined the total to be at most 5,000 people (during the period 1478-1834, about 350 years), or a little more than one a month. There were periods of more and fewer executions, and long periods with none, as no trials were held. Hardly an enormity in the true sense of the word, or even a blip in the mortality statistics of the day!

Why the quibble about the role of the King in all this? It may be hard to understand in modern-day terms, but back then the government and religion were one-and-the-same: it was called Christendom for a reason. Denying the true faith demanded penitence, but refusing to admit the sin was a challenge to the sovereign, who was after all God’s chosen leader (the Divine Right of Kings), and thus was a capital offense. That’s what cost the accused their life. There was a continuing disagreement between Spanish royalty and Rome, with the former seeking harsh punishment (for the challenge to the throne) and the latter granting mercy as long as those charged repented at any point.

What about torture? Yes, the Inquisition practiced torture. They literally wrote books about it: when to do it, for how long, under what circumstances, etc. These tracts would be very familiar to anyone who read the Department of Justice memos regarding “enhanced interrogation techniques” under the Bush administration. Where do you think “waterboarding” came from originally? Here’s the rub: all countries, and all legal systems, allowed torture at that time. The Roman legal system practiced it, and bequeathed it everywhere Romans went. Islam developed its own version. Charging the Inquisition with torture is “like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.”

Napalm - Imgflip — actually Kurtz said it

For the Inquisition, torture could only be employed after guilt was established, to elicit a full confession and further information about co-conspirators, heretics, etc. (again, sound familiar?). There were limits on how long, what types, how painful, the need for a doctor present; it’s eerie reading. And none of these rules applied in the regular government legal system. There, torture was practiced freely without restraints and often used early in the investigation to get a confession and complete the case. How bad was “justice” at the time? The records show criminal or civil defendants requesting to be transferred to the Inquisition for trial! So guilty as charged on torture, with a huge asterisk as that was nothing unusual at the time.

What about forcing others to become Catholic? See, here’s the problem with that odd charge: anyone could avoid the Inquisition by simply stating they were not Catholic. The Inquisition had no authority over Jews, Muslims, or pagans. The Church had long accepted the notion that one could not be forced to accept a different religion; thus the Inquisition was adopted to weed out heretics and false believers. Spain was in the process of the Reconquista, the expulsion of the remaining Muslim forces on the Iberian peninsula. As Catholic Spanish forces gradually occupied the lands, they had the problem of ruling these lands. Their solution was to allow freedom of religion, but to place limits on land ownership, positions of authority, and to impose heavy taxes, thus encouraging–but not mandating–conversion. Incidentally, these were the same rules Islamic leaders developed when they ruled Al Andalus, rules which some historians called even-handed and far-sighted!

Some Muslims and Jews became conversos, but a very small number only did so for the financial and political advantages it held. These false conversions became a target for the Inquisition, often based on secret tips from faithful Muslims and Jews who were annoyed by the success of their one-time fellow adherents. Add in ethnic rivalries, the ability of the Crown and local leaders to profit from seized property, and petty jealousies and you get a deadly mix of accusations. One redeeming quality: the inquisidores were intrepid detectives, and most charges brought to court were dropped. One set of records shows about one percent of the 125,000 heresy cases brought to trial under the Spanish Inquisition resulted in executions.

What about the procedures involved with the Spanish Inquisition? The Inquisition was all about process: there were hundreds of pages of rules and policies and procedures, all of which were lacking in European justice systems at the time. That is why many ordinary people and local leaders welcomed the Inquisition. All throughout the process there were opportunities for those charged to confess and seek forgiveness through some act of penitence. The arrival of an inquisidor started a thirty day Grace Period (literally) where anyone could simply admit guilt, be given a penance, and be forgiven. Then began a period of accusations and investigation, a trial and verdict, then sentencing or release. The final act was the auto da fé, which has come to mean “burning at the stake” in English, but actually means act of faith. This was a religious ceremony–including a mass and a procession–where the inquisidor and local prelates related the results of the trial to a public. At the end of the process, the accused, having been given another opportunity to repent publicly, was handed over to the civil authorities for punishment.

Why is there such a dark cloud of misinformation hovering over the Spanish Inquisition? Partially it is so foreign to our ideals today, but mostly it is a hangover from the “Black Legend.” In the 16th century, Spain was the wealthiest, most powerful Catholic nation in the emergent struggle over the Protestant Reformation. Thus it was the target of propaganda, the most effective of which was a campaign known as the “Black Legend” which depicted Spain in the harshest terms as a land full of violence, corruption, sexual excess and worse: sort of like California today (I kid, I kid). Many of the stories involved the Spanish Inquisition, and England was the chief source (in its ongoing rivalry with Spain). And those legends got past along with English history.

None of which is to say the Spanish Inquisition was good. Saint Pope John Paul II apologized for the violence it enacted. Moreover, while heresy was a continuous problem in those days, the threat posed by conversos was greatly exaggerated and never merited an inquisition, as demonstrated by the numbers of trials, exonerations, and executions.

George Santayana said “those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” I would add that those who don’t know the truth about history are condemned to repeating falsehoods.

Dunkirk Revisited

In late May and early June of 1940, the German army blitzed across France. The speed and violence of the panzers and stukas left a beleaguered British Expeditionary Force and some remnants of the once-proud French army surrounded along the coast at the tiny port of Dunkirk. Over the period of eight days, the British navy, merchant marines, and thousands of individual ship owners conducted an improvised, hasty withdrawal-under-fire. They rescued over 330,000 soldiers, albeit with nothing more than the soaking wet uniforms on their backs. It was a humiliating defeat, but one tinged with a tiniest glimmer of hope, which was sorely needed by the British people at that point. Prime Minister Churchill reminded his nation that “we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.”

The American experience in Kabul these days has me thinking of Dunkirk.

First off, the President continues to defend his decision to end the “war in Afghanistan.” This statement demonstrates his fundamental lack of understanding. Afghanistan was a theater of war: just one of many. While it is possible to surrender a theater in order to win a larger war, one must always remember that there is a larger war on. We did not start this war. Radical Islamic terrorists declared war on the US back in the 1990’s. We ignored them at the time, like a much-older brother ignores the taunts of a much-younger sibling. But like that sibling, the terrorist movement grew-up, and when they knocked down the towers, the game was on.

The US could not have cared less about Afghanistan or the Taliban but for their harboring Al Qaeda (AQ). When the Taliban refused to turn AQ over to us, they became another campaign in the war. And as I continue to remind, we can not declare that war over: only the loser can. So we can end the war tomorrow by admitting our evil, renouncing our ways, and publicly proclaiming the Shahada (“I bear witness that none deserves worship except Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.”). It really is that simple.

Secondly, I hear much soul-searching about ‘where we went wrong’ in Afghanistan. A few misguided souls says we should never have gone in; I won’t dignify that view with a critique. For the record, I was in favor of going in to Afghanistan to expel the Taliban and root our AQ. BUT, I was also in favor of a cold-hearted, realpolitik approach. Turn the “nation” of Afghanistan over to various regional warlords with this simple admonition: those who fight the Taliban and kill AQ will receive our funds, those who don’t will receive our bombs. Let them fight it out and install whatever puppet-regime the Afghan people could stand in Kabul. Yes, this would have made for atrocities and corruption and human rights violations, but thus was it ever in the Hindu Kush. At least we would be at a distance, and not directly involved in a place where our only interest was the absence of AQ.

When President Bush decided to expand the mission in Afghanistan to nation-building, I thought it was ill-advised but not impossible. I do not understand the logic of those who say “the US can’t do nation-building.” History will long remember our excellent examples in nation-building: Germany and Japan. We took two of the most militaristic cultures of the twentieth century and turned them into committed pacifists barely able to staff military forces (or in Japan’s case, even call them an “army.”) We took nations literally burned to the ground and rebuilt them into economic powerhouses which eventually rivaled us. This took decades to accomplish, even though we had fought a savage war against each.

Bu the best comparative examples for US nation-building are Vietnam and Korea. In the first case, we quit, with predictable results for South East Asia. In the latter case, we stayed. Now somewhere I hear a reader crying “Pat, you can’t be comparing Afghanistan with today’s South Korea!” and to that reader, I say “You’re right; I’m not.” But Afghanistan at year twenty IS comparable to South Korea in 1971. Let me refresh your memory: the Asia Times described South Korea in 1971 as a “Lost Land, . . . a gritty, poverty-racked, unsophisticated nation that was one decade into an industrialization program that would lead to riches.” It varied between democratic leaders, oligarchs, and an occasional military coup. During the previous twenty years, North Korean forces attacked the US and South Korea, killing our soldiers and marines. They continued doing so for the next twenty years.

Now I am not saying Afghanistan was on the path to similar success. But anyone who says we can’t do nation-building is wrong, and anyone who says Afghanistan would never have made it has to explain why South Korea did. Impoverished nation? Check. No democratic culture or history? Check. Pervasive external threat? Check. Persistent US military casualties? Check.

Thirdly (yes, I’m still counting), the President and other senior leaders have said “the Intelligence Community (IC) did not predict such a sudden collapse.” Without having been in the room, I know this is true. It is also a red herring: the IC does not predict anything. Prediction is the realm of prophets and seers, not intelligence professionals. I guarantee you that the IC did consider the possibility of such a scenario and included it as a worst-case one. How do I know that? Because if they didn’t, the President and others would have said as much and fired those responsible. He didn’t (fire them), so they did (cover it).

Likewise, my fourth point is a question. Given that the President has warned for days of a terrorist attack (meaning the IC had good info that an attack was imminent), and given that we remain at war with the Islamic State, and given that the Islamic State is the sworn enemy of the Taliban: why did we wait? Why didn’t we attack the Islamic State in Afghanistan before they attacked us, in order to perhaps disrupt their planning? We didn’t suddenly determine they are our enemy. Nor did we suddenly figure out where ISIS is in Afghanistan. Did we think the Taliban cared? Why the delay? Inquiring minds want to know.

On a tangentially-related, fifth point, who is advising the President on his messaging? Having him stare into the camera and intone “we will not forgive; we will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay” is not intimidating. He shuffles on and off stage. He squints at the teleprompter, which is not atop the camera, so it looks at times like he is not speaking to the audience. Either dim the klieg lights, enlarge the size of the font, or get him contacts/glasses. His speech is halting, and no, this is not his well-understood stutter. Joe Biden has been a public figure for well-nigh fifty years. He never was this forgetful, or confused, or halting. Assuming he is still in command of his faculties (and God help us if he isn’t), why are his handlers insisting on putting him in such a bad light?

When the Drawing Gets Tough—Squint! | The Scribbles Institute — This is intimidating . . .

Biden: Collapse of Afghanistan's government shows U.S. withdrawal 'was the right decision' - MarketWatch — This is not.

Sixth and finally (I know, you’re relieved!), the President most recently said he is following the advice of his senior military commanders. This is always re-assuring to hear. The problem is no competent military officer would ever suggest that we conduct a noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) of unknown size, from a toe-hold perimeter around a civilian airport in an urban area. Someone made a decision to pull the military forces out first. Someone made a decision to evacuate the US Bagram airbase first. Someone made the decision not to accelerate the visa application process. There are reasons why such decisions might have been made: they are not blatantly stupid decisions. But someone made them. Those persons must be identified and given the opportunity to explain themselves, or suffer the consequences if their explanations do not suffice. Blanket admissions of where the buck stops are irrelevant. Who made the decisions?

Dunkirk is an interesting footnote in the history of World War II. It was not decisive in a military sense. The British could afford to equip and field another army. It was the channel, the Royal Navy, and the brave few pilots of the Royal Air Force whose “finest hour” thwarted any ambitions Hitler had of parading past Buckingham Palace as he had down the Champs-Élysées. But it was the snatching-of-a-small-victory-from-the-jaws-of-defeat that helped stiffen the English spine for the dark days ahead. During this brief period, Churchill gave a series of impassioned speeches in the House of Commons which are long remembered: “their finest hour” “blood, toils, tears, and sweat” and finally “we shall fight on the beaches, . . . .” Such is the stuff of legendary leadership.

We are still in a generational war against radical Islamic terrorism. We’ve had a Dunkirk moment, one of our own making. President Biden explained his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan by asking how many more casualties should we endure? He is now responsible for more casualties in one day than the US experienced in the prior two years. I am still waiting for what is his strategy for the larger war. And for when he will stiffen our spines for the fight.

Money . . . Get Back!

A challenge for expats anywhere is how to access your funds. This is especially true in most of Mexico, where credit cards may not be accepted or come with a handy processing fee (the same fee usually paid by the vendor elsewhere) tacked on. Luckily for expats, Mexico does have many cajeros automaticos, or as you know them: ATMs.

Expats become accustomed to knowing (and sharing) advice about banks and their ATM machines: for example, which ones have both ingles and espanol options, which banks charge what as a transaction fee, what the various per day and per transaction limits are, which machines “swallow” your card whole versus holding it where you can retrieve it manually (important where power might suddenly fail).

Lately, expats have had to master the bank-managed “service fee” scam called dynamic currency conversion. This is where the bank machine “offers” you to convert your peso request to dollars at the point of conversion (how helpful) but gives you an incredibly poor exchange rate. The trick is the “offer” seems to be like the transactions fee, in that it says you can accept or decline, but most people assume that if they decline they won’t be able to get their pesos (like the transaction fee, which if you decline, the machine ends your transaction). Untrue! If you decline, you still receive your pesos, but the bank or financial institution you use at home does the conversion, usually at a much better rate. This service has been a standard rip-off among restaurants and retailers in Europe for years, but it has recently migrated to ATMs worldwide: avoid it! I would note that if your domestic bank has a really bad reputation for its currency conversion rates, you might be better off using the ATM conversion rate. But you probably would be best off changing banks!

Some expats go the extra step by getting a Mexican bank account and credit cards, allowing them to transfer money from their previous home to here. Mexican banks are, shall we say, picky. Sometimes just opening an account can involve some of that famous Mexican bureaucracy, such as “no, that’s a color copy, we don’t accept it” or “(today) we’re not opening accounts for gringos.” Oh, and writing checks? Every item must be letter perfect, including your full name and day/month/year (not month/day/year) and the spelled-out sum in español, por favor. Oh, and most importantly, such accounts are not federally insured, so there is always the possibility your money could just disappear.

Not all of this is Mexican banks’ fault: Americans should know that the US government applies its own rules to foreign banks, making them responsible for various reporting requirements! Some banks and brokerages–even American ones–now shun American expat accounts as not worth the trouble. If you’re an American expat, you must report foreign financial accounts if (1) you have signature authority on the account and (2) if the aggregate value of all your foreign accounts exceeds $10,000 USD at any time during the year (there are exceptions). The important document to file is called a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) on FinCEN Form 114. It is only a report: it is not used to check whether you owe taxes, which of course you must pay on any income received via these accounts. And don’t try to get cute by intentionally hedging just below the $10,000 USD limit; one recent court case found such activity to also be against the law! You can see why some American expats never bother with foreign accounts.

What about the need for larger sums that would never be available via ATM, like to buy a car, furniture, or a down payment on a house? There are a growing number of options. Our American bank allows us to do a direct wire transfer to foreign recipients for around $50 USD ($25 for any wire transfer, an additional $25 for international recipients). If the transfer is not going to a financial institution–for example to a private individual–the bank sends us several warnings letting us know it can’t verify the recipient and it is not responsible once the money goes out, which just means we have to make sure we have the account info correct on our end.

We’ve also used Xoom (pronounced the same way as the videoconferencing service), a division of PayPal which facilitates international financial transfers. We’ve used Xoom to pay for some services like home repair or contracting. Most often we have not been charged a transaction fee, and the exchange rates have generally been good. There is a transaction fee if you’re using a credit card, not a bank account as the source. It takes a little time (and info) to add a new recipient, but once “in the system” the transactions are immediate (hours, not days). One extra (and very nice) feature is Xoom allows you to request confirmations (text or otherwise) for both the sender and recipient, so you get a running series of money sent/received notices. Also, if the transfer fails for any reason, Xoom will notify you of that, too. I know there are other international transfer services with similar features, but Xoom is one for which we can personally vouch.

Some brokerage accounts (like Charles Schwab) also allow international transfers without extra charges, so that is another way to have money secure in one place but still be able to move it where you need it. There are exceptions, so make sure you read the fine print!

Finally, a related issue with financial transfers (of any sort) could be the need for notarization. I knew of expat friends who were forced to fly back to the States to get notarization of financial documents. We recently had a similar situation, and discovered online notaries who could meet all our requirements for about $30 USD and ten minutes of online consultation!

Some expats get all wrapped up in exchange rates and trying to game when they transfer larger sums to gain an advantage. Sometimes this is because they are on a budget and a few pesos matter; sometimes it’s just the thrill of getting a deal. In any event, there are myriad ways to move money internationally these days, and more coming along every day. While having money is a key factor in being an expat, getting your money shouldn’t be.

This didn’t have to happen

Within days, we’ll witness a string of atrocities across Afghanistan, as the Taliban consolidates power, takes revenge on those who opposed it, and reimposes its sordid, misogynistic rule. The US went into Afghanistan to evict the Taliban not because they were, and are, evil; we went there because they refused to turn over Al Qaeda to stand justice. For this reason, the US deployed the force necessary to evict the Taliban in a truly amazing display of military power.

In the twenty years since that happened, various American Presidents tried and failed to extricate the nation from the war. It was clear to all that the end of an active US military presence in the Hindu Kush (the ancient term for the area we know as the “nation” of Afghanistan) would mean a return of the Taliban. America tried increasing its presence and operations to destroy the Taliban, tried increasing its civil involvement (building schools, writing laws, fostering businesses), tried reducing its military footprint to reduce frictions, and finally tried negotiating directly with the hated Taliban.

In the last five years, the US engaged in a strategy of delay and stalemate. We provided the Afghan government with all the means to succeed while realizing it never could: in effect we propped it up. We built up the Afghan military so it could resist the Taliban, but only if it retained the continued training, air support, and logistics from the US Army. This strategy succeeded by not losing.

Some decried this strategy as defeatist. While the American way of war emphasizes victory, the American public (and its elected officials) no longer have the stomach for the carnage (both to our soldiers and the enemy) that entails. Waiting the Taliban out was always a long-shot, but it had worked so far. Why did we abandon it?

Some said that Afghanistan was America’s longest war. They are either wrong or simply lying. We have been at war with the People’s Democratic Republic of (North) Korea for seventy-plus years. The fact we currently have an armistice that makes people (even South Koreans) think the war is over is testament to how a strategy of waiting the enemy out can succeed. In the meantime, South Korea evolved into a vibrant economy, a manufacturing powerhouse, and even a nascent democracy.

That long “not peace” was not always as peaceful as it is today. At times after the 1951 armistice, the sides exchanged fire and postured. North Korea infiltrated forces across the DMZ to attack targets in the South, and even master-minded an attack on the Blue House and the terrorist bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987. The US and the Republic of Korea forces suffered casualties, but full-scale combat was avoided. This was a long-term, successful strategy by any measure.

Could this strategy have worked in Afghanistan? It was. Over the past five years, the US drew-down forces and reduced its footprint and operational tempo. We gradually let the Afghan Army take the lead, but were always close at hand in case “things went south” (as we used to say in the Army).

But what of the casualties? I want to be crystal clear here. I was a soldier once; many of my classmates served in Afghanistan, and some died there. No soldier wants to die, and soldiers deserve to know they’re not being sacrificed for no reason. But they do know, from day one in basic training, that they may be sacrificed. Especially in an all-volunteer, professional military, this is a well-understood proposition. Our casualties during the last five years in Afghanistan ran under ten deaths per year. We lose a thousand service-members annually to training accidents. There was no countless-deaths-in-vain reason to withdraw.

From the Federation of American Scientists. OCO is war-on-terror combat, non-OCO is training

But what of the cost? Even with the monumental (and well-documented) corruption, Afghanistan represented a minimal financial burden to the US. In the last few years, we were spending around $50 billion US dollars annually on all activities in Afghanistan; that’s what the entire US government spends in two days. The people who say the cost was too high are the exact same people who said we couldn’t just destroy Al Qaeda and leave the Taliban in charge, we had to create a democracy and build Afghanistan’s civil infrastructure. We tried; it didn’t take, or at least it didn’t take well-enough that Afghani soldiers felt compelled to fight and die to defend it. Maybe it just needed more time, but the clock ran out.

President Trump was wrong to direct a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Like most of his decisions, it went against his own hand-picked advisors, and seemed to be based on his gut instincts or his dislike for the Bush family. He thought he was being decisive in “ending an endless war,” when he simply misunderstood that in combat, only the loser can end a war. He has that decision on his record forever.

Even more execrable is President Biden’s decision to not only withdraw, but to accelerate the timetable. President Biden has seen fit to completely rescind almost every policy President Trump put into place, but here he doubled-down on it. I recall the quote of the Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said Mr. Biden had the unique position of being ‘the only person wrong on every major foreign policy issue in the past forty years.’ Looks like the string remains unbroken. His administration set arbitrary (and inane) deadlines, like withdrawing by September 11th. Then they advanced them further, apparently realizing all hell was breaking loose but not that such a move would be reminiscent of Saigon, 1975.

The Last Helicopter: Evacuating Saigon — Nothing to see here, move along!

Proving that this was a policy decision not fully coordinated with the military, the administration conveniently ignored the fact that thousands of Afghanis (and their families) who worked with the US military had to be evacuated or they would be massacred; the haphazard evacuation continues today. Administration spokesmen blithely bat away the helicopters-on-the-rooftops comparison, while the President orders three-thousand US Marines back into Kabul to evacuate the US Embassy. Guess we’ll use Humvees this time.

Yes, this war dragged on. Yes, the US engaged in mission creep, and was never willing to destroy the Taliban. Yes, the US military was going to keep sending soldiers home draped in coffins as long as this war continued. No, there was no compelling need for President Trump’s rash decision, nor President Biden’s inexcusable continuation of it. No, we were not bleeding ourselves dry outside Kandahar, nor were we bankrupting the nation’s treasure bankrolling corrupt Afghan officials. No, this loss was not inevitable. It was a choice.

As I said before–and as it has always been–the losers determine when a war ends. There is no dignity in this withdrawal, whether or not we see people clinging to helicopter skids. Our military did exactly what it was asked to do. This “L” is on our Leaders, who lost hope, lacked fortitude, and thought they could finesse it. There will be no finesse in Kabul soon, only peace, the peace that comes with the grave.

Our leaders always knew, from Day One, what would happen if the Taliban returned. They now share this legacy.

An Analytic Mind

Let me apologize in advance for the length, breadth, and depth (I hope) of this post. You’ll want to pour a large drink (coffee or something stronger), get comfortable, and take a few deep cleansing breaths before reading further!

Often during the past four years of blogging, and even back when I worked, I decried efforts to engage emotions over facts. Sometimes this happened in academia, more so in politics, frequently in news media, and overwhelmingly in social media. I found myself constantly warning others NOT to fall for the easy tug on one’s emotions. Ask yourself “why am I being told this?” Question “what is the rest of the story?” Ponder “how accurate is this data?” Always think “what else–beside the obvious aspect–could this mean?”

Analysts, indeed anyone with an analytic mind, must be careful when reaching for the very persuasive tool that is emotions. When I was still in the business of grading analysis, we had a rigorous debate about the use of graphics–pictures and graphs and maps and videos–to support analysis. After all, we all know “a picture is worth a thousand words.” One of the guidelines we instituted was the graphic should elaborate the analytic point (making it clearer, for example) but not extend beyond the analysis. Thus in an analysis which concludes that Bashar al-Asad used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in his own country, you don’t include a photo of gassed, dead babies, because the issue is DID HE DO IT? If the analysis was concluding he ordered the gassing in order to terrorize his opponents, you might include the same photo, because the point is his use of terror. As you might imagine, such a guideline raises interesting and difficult questions, but these are exactly the kinds of questions that should be debated when using emotional graphics in analysis.

But I realize that I benefited from years of training and practice in these arts, and constantly warning others not to fall for easy emotional grabs was not as useful as explaining how to avoid them. So here goes, with some examples of how to look at things and question what they mean:

This graph was from a New York Times’ OpEd piece. I didn’t embed the GIF for security reasons, but the graphic movement just shows that effective tax rates on the ultra wealthy have steadily decreased from 70% in 1950 to around 20% in 2018, while rates on most everyone else have slightly increased! Are you outraged yet? Take deep breaths, I’ll wait.

I am willing to concede that this data is correct, but what does it tell you? That the rich pay less in taxes? No. The wealthiest 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of all federal income tax revenue. That the government is stupidly ignoring taxing the rich? Unlikely, since the government needs revenue. Our leaders are corrupt? Believe that if you like, but to do so you must indict both parties at all levels of government: Democrats & Republicans, federal, state and local officials. That’s quite an indictment!

So ask yourself: why (primarily) does the government tax? To gain revenue. It can also tax to discourage spending (e.g., sin taxes) or to encourage investment (home mortgage exemptions) but these are secondary to the main purpose. The government can only print money, it has to tax to acquire it. Why would the government lower taxes on the rich, if the rich have so much money? Because rich people have many more ways to avoid paying taxes. And like everybody, they will only pay what they feel is a “fair share.” Beyond that, they will use every legal trick to avoid extra taxes. And they will avoid those taxes, because they are rich and have more tax-avoidance tools.

The poor, on the other hand, have much greater difficulty avoiding taxes. They can’t simply move their residence on paper to another state. The poor can’t shelter income as dividends or business expenses, and they can’t avoid gas taxes and tolls. They are more inclined to see taxes as inevitable, and only react strongly when the situation gets way out of hand. Thus the poor are easier to tax than the rich.

The real kicker here is the middle class. They too only want to pay what they feel is their fair share: any more and they rebel and seek some form of evasion. This was the story of Proposition 13 in California back in 1978, which restrains that state to this day. The middle class has more resources for the government to tax, but also more active voters to avoid taxes. So go back and look at that chart, and you’ll see the government stops trying to tax the rich (which is popular but ineffective) but raises taxes on the middle class and near-rich, which is an effective way to raise revenue as long as there are more of them and they don’t revolt. As to the poor, they can’t avoid taxes, so they get hit too (when you count all forms of taxes). It may not be “right” but it is absolutely rational, and doesn’t require you to be outraged or believe the system is corrupt.

This post has been marinating for a week while I waited for another, current example: the Good Lord (and the Washington Post) provided. In yesterday’s WaPo there is an article about a real world policy issue: whether the additional federal unemployment benefits provided during the pandemic were keeping people from returning to work. The article is here, and is based on a WaPo & Gusto study you can read here. Go ahead and read the article, I’ll wait.

The essence of the debate is that red state Republican governors ended the extra benefits early, in the belief that workers were staying home cashing in on benefits rather than returning to work. Blue state Democratic governors kept the benefits flowing. Thus we have a natural experiment, the results of which should answer the question whether workers really were skipping a return to work because of the increased benefits.

The WaPo headline and lede demonstrates their analytic take: there was no hiring boom for the states who cut benefits. And they have a graph which proves the point:

However, the study also concluded that “who” was getting hired was different:

Blue states were relying on teenagers to keep pace

So red states saw a surge in 25+ year olds in hiring, but blue states saw a surge in teenagers to come up with the same numbers. Except those teenagers (1) weren’t eligible for the extra benefits, and (2) won’t be around in the Fall when they return to school. As the Post stated in a single sentence buried in the article: “The analysis also adds perspective to the teen hiring boom, revealing that more generous unemployment payments played a role in keeping more experienced workers on the sidelines, forcing employers to turn to younger workers.” (emphasis added)

Or, those who said the extra benefits were keeping workers from returning were correct. Which is not in the headline, or the lede, or anywhere obvious in the story. Now note I am not taking sides on whether it was a good idea, or moral, or anything else to reduce benefits early: just that the data suggests adult workers were staying out of the workforce because their enhanced unemployment benefits assisted that option. Which is/was the case in point.

The article also referenced workers who suffered from the reduction in benefits, which is an old emotional ploy. I wonder if the Post looked for someone in the states that maintained benefits and who used the extra money to buy oxycodone and died from an overdose? See how easy it is to tug at the heartstrings? Perhaps the article could have considered whether the best use of teenager’s time was to get them into dead-end jobs, or whether working affected their virtual schooling performance?

One last point: the WaPo piece also describes the other factors delaying workers from returning: schools or day-care, fear of the virus, or workers re-assessing their careers. It did so without mentioning why schools are still out (teachers union’s demands), whether vaccinated adults should be “afraid” and whether workers should be permitted to remain unvaccinated and opt out of working, or why federal benefits are appropriately used for workers to decide to change careers.

Nothing that the Washington Post wrote was factually wrong. But I think you can see how all of it was shaded toward an end. And that was done with all the data plainly provided for you to see. For those with an analytic mind, it isn’t hard to blow off the mists and see things as they are.

Look closely, because sometimes the smoke is just an illusion, and the only fire is in the eyes of the salesman.

A Family Visit

There are few joys more profound for an expat than when family comes to visit. Especially when family is skeptical about the whole “why are Gramps & Meemo living in Mexico?” story. So my dear wife and I were very excited when our younger daughter, her husband, and their young son and daughter decided to join us on our return trip from a family visit to South Bend!

They came for a solid week, and of course, we had the first full week of rain I can remember in four years. We got a lot of ribbing about “unlimited sunshine” and where was it? However, when reminded that back home in the Mid-Atlantic it was ninety degrees and ninety percent humidity at nine o’clock in the morning, they admitted it was still better here.

We went to the pool & the club and hit several local favorite restaurants. What was surprising to these first-time visitors to real Mexico? Not much. They were a little surprised by how inexpensive things were, especially booze and food. They noted the prevalence of barbed wire and broken glass on the tops of the walls, and the amount of roadside trash and shrines, all sad things we had to explain. Pick-up truck loads of standing laborers, families on scooters, and people riding horses while talking on cell phones brought surprised smiles.

We took a day trip to the Guadalajara Zoo, which I highly recommend. It has a variety of passes for different sets of exhibits, is nicely laid out with abundant shade, and the animals seem well-cared for. We also used the services of Mex-ECO tours for a private visit with friends to the town of Magdalena, near Tequila, for a afternoon of opal mining. Kids, hardhats, and pick-axes: what could go wrong? I asked about dynamite, but none was available. We did find a few opal and quartz stones suitable for polishing and great as keepsakes of the day. We also spent a fine Sunday visiting Juan Diego and his wife Laura at the goat farm (Galo de Allende) near Mezcala, where the grand-kids got to milk a goat and mix with the herd.

The kids and grand-kids got to experience that overnight tropical deluge along with prodigious thunder and lightning, eat from a molcajete, and try the Mexican versions of their favorite American cereals (“not quite right” was their considered opinion). After a week (the approved limit for all family visits), we took them to Soriana for the ritual covid tests and they flew back to the States.

We missed the opportunity to get fresh chicharrónes, go horse-back riding, attend lucha libre, or see downtown Guadalajara, but they did get to see our new home (more on that later). Most importantly, everybody stayed healthy & unhurt and had a good time. They’ll be back, although it may be difficult to pry them loose when they move to Vicenza, Italy, later this year. Guess we’ll just have to pay them a return visit first (the things we do for our grand-kids)!

The Guadalajara zoo backs up on the Barranca de Oblatos, the amazing canyon you see when flying into the area.

On Patriotism

As we close on another American Independence day, I’ve been thinking about the nature of patriotism. It seems to me we Americans have lost the concept of the word. People talk about “love of country” and “American exceptionalism” leading to arguments that miss the point. Patriotism is not uncritical support; it is also not unsupported criticism. It is not the extremism of the fan who thinks only his team should ever win, and every referee’s decision or sport ruling to the contrary is unfair and biased. Yet it is also not detached neutrality, a keeping-your-distance and not-being-emotionally-committed attitude common in academia.

When I worked for the government, I used to remind my employees they were not neutral observers of American foreign policy: they wanted that policy to succeed, whether they personally supported it or not. (Note: we weren’t talking about policies they morally opposed; of course one is required to quit if asked to support a policy you could not in good conscience support). You didn’t need to chant “U…S…A, U…S…A!” all the time, but neither should you act like it made no difference to you.

Enough about what patriotism isn’t; what is it? Try this concept on for size: patriotism is an appreciation for the unique advantages your nationality bestows on you, unmerited on your part. Thus it does not mean your country is better than any other, nor does it mean everything your country does it right or best. This appreciative version of patriotism requires an objective view of your nation’s history, other nation’s histories, and the state of the world today. But it avoids silly chest-thumping on one hand, or ridiculous a-historical criticism on the other.

There is nothing particularly patriotic about believing your country is the greatest ever, nor in thinking solely about its many shortcomings. Both approaches lead to dead ends. There can be little doubt nations and nationalities demonstrate differing areas of excellence, and acknowledging this fact is not unpatriotic, just realistic. Brazil plays beautiful football. Nobody does cheese like France. Taiwan and computer chips. Sometimes patriotic fervor isn’t about absolute excellence, but simply relative excellence or good fit. I wouldn’t prefer the United Kingdom’s National Health Service, but the British cherish it as a national accomplishment nonetheless. It just works for them.

Heaven is where
the police are English,
the chefs are French,
the mechanics are German,
the lovers are Italian,
and the Swiss organize everything.
Hell is where
the Germans are the police,
the English are the cooks,
the French are the mechanics,
the Swiss are the lovers
and the Italians organize everything.
An old joke about Heaven, Hell and Europe

I didn’t storm the beaches at Normandy, but I benefited from the those who put an end to the Nazis. I never enslaved anyone, nor did my Irish forebears, but I was born into a society that had far more opportunity in South Bend than Sligo, just as an African American descended from slaves but born beside me in South Bend had so much more opportunity than a distant cousin still in Soweto. That we both had different (and unequal) opportunities is both a global statement of fact and a call for continued hard work. It is simply amazing to me that some people today think it is a remarkably American failing that inequality exists; if this surprises you, you either haven’t traveled much or weren’t paying attention when you did.

All nations have strengths and weaknesses. As do all forms of government, all ethnic groups, and all individuals. Being honest about these strengths and weaknesses is not disloyal, while only considering one or the other might be. I have little patience for those who say “America: love it or leave it.” I have no patience whatsoever for those who claim unrelenting criticism is some higher form of patriotic fervor.

America is, was, and ever will be far short of perfect. Yet it remains a blessing to be born an American, regardless of race, creed, or color. In praise or criticism, this remains true, and only an ingrate would challenge it.

Happy Independence Day!

Moving on (up)

When we first mentioned our intention to retire to Mexico some nine years ago, we faced a variety of reactions. Family thought we were joking, or crazy, or both. Friends were astounded, and couldn’t understand. A few of my work associates (who were familiar with Mexico–so to speak) congratulated us on an excellent choice, but most told me I was too young to retire. Some told me to hedge my bets, since I would undoubtedly be back soon, having “missed the game.”

Despite the concern and astonishment, we bought the house in Mexico, and (literally) counted down the days during those last five work years, waiting to retire early. We sold nearly everything, loaded up the FJ with the family dog, and set out for the retired expat life. Four years later, we have no regrets. Expat retirement has been a wonderful experience, and even the pandemic has only reinforced our belief we made the right choice.

But change happens, as they say. You get older if not wiser. Things once new become commonplace. So we decided to put the house up for sale and move again. Now don’t panic: no, we’re not returning to the States. We just finally decided to get another place here in Ajijic, but this time a house with a view. And what a view!

The home selling and buying process in expat land is quite familiar. First, there are numerous real estate agencies here that specialize in expats, often staffed with former NOB real estate agents. Many homes are priced in dollars, although the final sale must be made in Mexican Pesos, so there is the possibility of an exchange rate issue, but that is understood going in. One complication is that Mexico has a capital gains tax on properties, which could result in a large tax bill if your house really appreciated or if these is a major change in the dollar-peso exchange rate. However, Mexico also has an exemption for primary residences (you can claim it once every three years).

You select an agency, sign a listing contract, have showings and put up a “For Sale” sign. Many people don’t stage their properties, but some do. You make an offer, there is some negotiation and counters, and you go “under contract.” You agree on a settlement date, the lawyers (abogados) do their thing and make sure the property is free of liens, not in ejido land (indigenous lands can’t be transferred), nor is it in the federally-protected coastal lands (a legal hangover from way-back-when the government thought the US might invade again, now resolved through a long-duration fideicomiso or bank trust), and –presto–you sell/buy a house.

What’s different? Many expats move down here for life, furnishing their homes after arriving, so it is not uncommon to find properties for sale fully furnished (and by that I mean fully, like silverware and linens and tchotchkes!) You’ll find people buying homes sight unseen, from far away NOB, based on a local friend or agent. Some people put homes up for sale, over-priced, then leave them on the market forever. The cost of maintaining a property here is minimal, so there is little incentive (if you don’t need the cash to buy another property) to do a fire-sale price reduction. Mexico doesn’t have a mortgage system, so you bring cash to the table. Our agent told us on more than one occasion he had faced someone walking in to the settlement office with a suitcase full of pesos. It’s possible to arrange private (i.e., personal) financing but the interest rate runs north of ten percent with a guaranteed year’s interest.

We just started thinking seriously about a new place, mountainside with a lake view, a few weeks back. Then we stumbled on just the right place, which greatly accelerated our efforts. We are midway through the process, having put our home on the market and having recorded a contract to buy the new house. Now we are “on the clock” to sell or arrange financing to complete the purchase. Somewhere in there we need to arrange the settlements, schedule some movers, and do the local move. Oh, and we’re visiting the family & friends in the States twice in the next few months!

If all goes to plan, what changes? We’re going from a small gated community (seventy homes) to an even smaller gated community (thirty homes). We’re moving from the west end of Ajijic and practically on the lake to the centro, but right up against the mountains. Losing a walk to the lakeshore, gaining a million-dollar view and las brisas (breezes). Trading the sounds of the countryside (cohetes and roosters) for those of the village (cohetes and gas trucks), although an out-of-the-way part of the village. We’ll be part way up the mountain and just steps away from the Tepalo trailhead.

Friends always characterize our current, single-storey, two-thousand square foot home as “cozy” and that it is: from the central courtyard you can reach any room in under ten steps. The new place is, well, a little different. It’s six-thousand square feet on three levels (with an elevator), each level the same size as our current home. Judy and I joke that we’re buying the new house just for the main level, and the guest level and garage level are bonus spaces.

Here’s the sales video for our current home:

I’ll update the blog on the move, the closing(s), and especially the new house as things progress!

Eucharistic Bombs

It’s not every day one sees Catholic doctrine debated on the front pages of the New York Times and in the chyrons of the so-called news channels. Given the quality of the debate we’ve witnessed recently, that’s a good thing. Watching professed-atheist journalists wrestle with concepts like transubstantiation is like watching monkeys with the proverbial football. Better still is “former” Catholics proclaiming their own gospel, Bishops suddenly attempting to regain the standing to make moral judgments, and poorly-catechized Catholics offering their take on right-and-wrong. Phew; what’s a poor sinner to do?

You may have heard that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently decided to issue a document attacking President Biden for receiving Holy Communion when he attends Mass. You might have heard that Pope Francis warned the American Bishops not to do this, but they did so anyway. You may have heard the Bishops are in the tank for former-President Trump and are attacking the current occupant of the White House for political reasons. You might even believe the Bishops have no moral standing to tell anybody anything, what with several decades of child sexual abuses allegations on their hands. All these things have an element of truth to them; none is actually correct. Like the blind men and the elephant, people are grasping for a partial truth, and oftentimes seeing what they want to see. Let’s stop looking through a glass darkly and see things as they are, shall we?

I know you were told there would be no math, but no one said we wouldn’t discuss Catholic doctrine, which is where we have to start. First off, Catholics believe in the Real Presence, namely, that the bread and wine on the altar are trans-substantiated into the real body and blood of Jesus Christ. This is a non-negotiable, eternal element of Catholicism. It means that the Eucharist is the “source and summit of the Christian life.” It is nourishment for the journey that is life, and a source of strength for life’s battle between good and evil. It made me laugh when some claimed the Bishops were “weaponizing the Eucharist.” Why of course they were; that is its purpose.

Because of this teaching, Catholics must be worthy to receive the Eucharist. This is a nuanced subject, as no one is truly worthy to receive the Savior’s body and blood. What worthiness involves is being in communion with the Church (believing what the Church teaches), not being in a state of serious (i.e., mortal) sin, and having completed the prescribed fast and penitence. So all Catholics are sinners, but repentant and in accord with the Church, so we go to Mass and line up for Holy Communion, or if we know we don’t qualify right now, we stay in the pews until we are. It does not matter whether you failed to keep a one-hour fast before communion, or you are remarried but not annulled in the eyes of the Church, or you are an abortion-performing doctor: all require the believing Catholic to repent and do penance before returning to the Eucharistic line. A long time ago, the faithful only took Holy Communion once a year, or tried to win a Divine Trifecta by being baptized, confessing, and receiving their first communion on their death bed (talk about just-in-time delivery!). Eventually the Church taught we all need the sustenance of the Divine Presence, seeking to avoid such heavenly gamesmanship.

The Church in America today is in crisis. Actually, the entire Roman Catholic Church is always in crisis. It began with leaders who were doubters, deniers, braggarts, vengeance seekers, fools and knaves, and never got better. There is a wonderful story about Napoleon occupying Rome, and learning that the Pope had forbid it, whereupon he threatened a Cardinal thusly, “Your Eminence, are you not aware that I have the power to destroy the Catholic Church?” To which the Cardinal replied: “Your Majesty, we Catholic clergy have done our best to destroy the Church for the last eighteen hundred years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”

Somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, despite it being consistent, unchanging Church teaching. Now there is nothing wrong with believing communion (note the small “c”) is only a symbol of Christ’s presence; this is a common holding of many Protestant sects. But is it most certainly not Roman Catholic teaching. So there is little doubt that Catholic catechesis is lacking, and whose job is that? The Bishops. Despite whatever other failings they have, the job is theirs.

On top of this, about half of Catholics don’t think abortion is a serious (as before, mortal) sin, reinforcing the lack of Catholic education. Again, there has been no change in Church teaching, as abortion has been around as long as the Church. And to remind, mortal sin is a dis-qualifier for receiving Holy Communion. Many of these Catholics don’t go to Mass, so the issue is somewhat academic. But some do. Now if you secretly support abortion, and go to Mass, and receive Holy Communion, your sin is very serious, but a private one: no one but you and God will know. You may be damned (it’s up to Christ), but your twitter standing is secure.

But what if you publicly proclaim your support for abortion rights, support funding for it, defend it as a morally-acceptable choice, and campaign for officials who do likewise, and then go receive Holy Communion? Why, you’re President Biden! Or Speaker Pelosi. Or any of a number of Catholic politicians who do so. And here’s the rub: by being public in their position, and continuing to receive Holy Communion, they commit an additional sin the Catholic Church calls scandalizing the faithful. This means other Catholics will look at them, see they say and do as they please with no sanction, so they must not be wrong, right?

This is the dilemma the Bishops face. Failing to act, and to teach what the Church believes, they ended up with faithful who don’t believe. Take a position, and you enter into politics, since the overwhelming majority of Catholics who support abortion rights are Democrats. What about the Bishop’s support of then-President Trump? Isn’t it hypocritical to call out President Biden? President Trump wasn’t Catholic (Gracias a Dios) so supporting him was a prudential issue, where one had to measure various political, moral, and ethical positions and decide. Faithful Catholics could come down for or against, and they did. President Biden is Catholic, so his behavior becomes an issue of Catholic teaching and who gets to decide what Catholics believe. Which are the Bishops.

Or should I say, the Bishop. One aspect of Catholic doctrine only covered in passing is the role of the national conferences. They are advisory bodies, a relatively recent phenomenon, meant to give the Church a means to speak in unity on national issues. Their writ extends to consensus documents and to such things as which extra holy days of obligation (Church feasts) to require for the faithful in their country. This is why Pope Francis admonished the Bishops to ensure whatever they taught about receiving Holy Communion, it was not divisive. He did not, and could not, say it was ok to receive Holy Communion in a state of serious sin, nor did he suggest support for workers’ rights, immigration, or child care were issues as serious as abortion. In fact, then Cardinal Bergoglio was the principle author of the Aparecida document which stated the prohibition forcefully: “We must adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, be conscious that they (editor’s note: politicians) cannot receive Holy Communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments, particularly when abortion, euthanasia, and other grave crimes against life and family are encouraged. This responsibility weighs particularly over legislators, heads of governments, and health professionals.”

In the end, whether President Biden receives Holy Communion in the District of Columbia every Sunday is up to Cardinal (Archbishop) Wilton Gregory, who has said “yes, he may.” And if the President travels outside of Archdiocese of Washington, it is up to the Bishop in whatever diocese he visits. Normally, these issues are dealt with privately in a parish setting. The would-be communicant visits the parish pastor, finds out what is needed to be “in communion” and not in a state of serious sin, then accommodates the priest’s directions. Sometime a priest recognizes someone in line for Holy Communion and is forced to make a snap-judgment: the priest may know the communicant was (at some time) not eligible, but what if they went to some other priest and are now “worthy” in Church eyes? The problem with public figures is they provide a public example, which reinforces the lack of understanding by the faithful, requiring a very public response which can be characterized as political. And remember, the priest is responsible for helping even a wayward Catholic, for in knowingly receiving Holy Communion in an unworthy state, the sinner merits even greater punishment.

Are some Catholic American Bishops engaging in politics? Maybe. Is there a deficiency in Catholic Americans’ understanding of the Real Presence? Yup. Will the Bishops author a document attacking President Biden? Nope. In the end, they will reiterate Church teaching on worthiness, specify that it is incumbent on the faithful to comply, and that Bishop’s only–not the believer–make the determination. I would bet they will have a sentence or two reminding public officials that, despite the claims of President Kennedy and Governor Mario Cuomo, there is no exception for elected officials who are Catholic. That will be all. The Bishops will approve the document, as will the Vatican. There is nothing new here.

Not all sins are equal, and I understand that non-Catholics may find it hard to believe that failing to support programs for real live children is not as morally suspect as abortion. However, for Catholics, there are differences, and if you want to say you’re Catholic, you don’t get the option of personally challenging how the Church categorizes sin. Sin, by itself, does not disqualify a Catholic from receiving Holy Communion. Serious sin, and disregarding Church teaching to reform and refrain from it, does. Even for Presidents.

Greek Travel Tips

In no particular order:

Greek is not a spoken language. It is a shouted language. Time and again, we would walk down the streets and locals would start shouting at one another. They weren’t angry, or even excited. They were just Greek. Do not take offense at it; it is part of the culture. To avoid being shocked, Judy and I took to making up instantaneous (mis-) translations of the encounters, such as: (Man on street) “DID YOU SEE HOW GREAT THE WEATHER IS TODAY?” (Woman on street) “YES, AND IT WAS LOVELY YESTERDAY, TOO!” (Man) “WHY YES, YOU ARE CORRECT!” At times, a shouting Greek (redundant) would turn to us and say–in subdued, polite, perfect English–“may I help you?”
I found little rhyme nor reason to pricing. A gyro (grilled meat and vegetables stuffed in a pita wrap) would be two or three Euros, but a mixed grill dinner (the same thing, unwrapped) would be ten. Taxis were expensive on Santorini & Rhodes, but cheap on Crete. Buses were cheap everywhere. There were usually “cash discounts” from businesses (big or small) who wanted to avoid paying VAT to the government. Tax avoidance is the Greek national pastime.
Damn near everybody speaks English, and if they don’t they will find someone who does for you. Greeks assume their language is just too hard for everyone else, but they are thrilled if you try. Try these simple rules: thank you is EF-ka-ris-TOE (which reminded me of the word eucharist), hello is Ya-SUE, good morning is Ca-lee-MER-a (think calamari) and good afternoon is ca-lee-SPER-a. Thank you and please is pa-ra-ka-LOW. Cheers is YA-Mas.
You already know Greek cuisine is amazing. But you may not know just what Greek cuisine is. That is, back in the States, a number of things that are actually Lebanese or Turkish cuisine get lumped in under the title “Greek cuisine.” Add to that confusion the fact that sometimes these foods make a transition. Take moussaka, which I liken to a Greek version of Irish shepherds pie. It is Lebanese/Turkish in origin, but when the Greeks achieved independence from the Ottoman empire in the early twentieth century, they cleansed Turkish influences from everything. For moussaka, that meant adding béchamel sauce (from France), which somehow made it “Greek.” You’ll see far more pork than lamb in your souvlaki and gyros: no pork for Muslims in the region, but it’s cheaper and tastier for everybody else. You may not find hummus, although if you ask for it the kitchen will probably make it for you. Normally, Greek pita is dipped in olive tapenade or tzaziki.
Cappuccinos are for breakfast. During the warmer part of the day, Greeks drink frappe, which is an odd mixture, served cold, made from instant coffee whipped to a thick foam, with or without milk. It comes with a glass of water to “cut it.” You MUST stir it before drinking, or it’s like mainlining coffee-laced coke. Trust me, that’s from experience. Drinking it properly is a refreshing experience.
There are many ways to get around the Greek isles. There are hydrofoils (very fast and direct), ferries (usually much slower, sometimes overnight), and hop flights of about an hour. Many times you must connect through Athens, but it is not a hassle; Athens International airport is about the size and complexity of a mid-size American airport, so it is a good option for connections.
That said, timetables and schedules are understood to be aspirational goals. We had a hydrofoil from Santorini to Heraklion, and I double-checked the schedule to find it left ninety minutes later than originally posted. No message, no warning. But I had a scheduled pick-up from the port in Heraklion, so when I became aware (the morning of departure), I called them. The taxi service told me “yes, yes, we know, we track these things. The ferries are always changing. It’s ok.” I hadn’t even told them what island I was on or what line I was coming in on! During the rare bad weather in the Aegean, ferries and planes cancel frequently. It all works out.

When your culture is thousands of years old, you have to work your way around some things. Like ancient ruins. But you don’t let that stop you.

Find ancient ruins on your construction site? Just build your office building on stilts!

When your culture is thousands of years old, you have old pipes. Hence this image everywhere:

Like most European countries, there is good health care available all over. Judy took her now customary fall while we were walking in Santorini, and the next morning we were easily able to find a pharmacy where she could get an ankle brace and a sample pack of topical anesthetic.

Guilty of falling in public; sentenced to one week with an ankle bracelet

You’ll need to adjust your eating habits. There is no way to eat three meals a day without being in serious danger of exploding. We had a breakfast buffet available at our hotels, then we looked for one full other meal, either in the afternoon or early evening, and that was almost too much. Remember, Greek food is very flavorful and rich. Two appetizers probably equal a meal for one person, and you’ll probably receive either a free dessert or digestif, like ouzo or raki, afterward. True story: after two free dessert plates and a small pitcher of raki on Sunday afternoon, we decided to go visit one more museum. Due to the raki, we accidentally went to the natural history museum instead of the history museum, but hey, why not? Except we were warmly welcomed into a special event: an earthquake simulator, where we learned all about how it would feel to be in real earthquakes like those recently in Japan or Taiwan. Mostly we learned that we don’t want to be practically inebriated for the next earthquake. Lesson learned!
Amphora and Stelae are to Greece what castles and cathedrals are to the rest of Europe. After a while, they all start to look alike. However, if you pay attention, sometimes you see one that calls something else to mind:

Greeks have a word for “no” but they don’t have a concept for it when it comes to food. At one hotel, breakfast included Greek yogurt & honey, fresh bread & butter, coffee & fresh orange juice, eggs your way, olives with tomatoes and feta cheese, ham & cheese toast, cheese pie, and assorted fresh fruit. The second day, we told the staff “no” to cheese pie, so they brought apple pie. That day, we asked the hotel owner where to buy baklava, and he said he would bring it to us the next morning. Our last morning, he called us while we were at breakfast to see if he could bring some more. We told him, “no, thanks,” so he brought two other large desserts instead. Just say “yes.” It doesn’t matter what you eat. Our taxi driver told us this: it does not matter what is on your plate, as long as the table is full.