p_c_neary@hotmail.com

Getting to “yes” in Palestine

In my last post, I reviewed the tangled, complicated events of the most recent conflict in the Gaza strip between Israel and Hamas. Some friends asked whether there was any way to cut the Gordian knot and achieve peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. The expert opinion says “no” because the issues are many, the hatreds deep, and the political will is lacking. All three are true, but there is only one thing preventing peace in the area (in my opinion): unrealistic expectations.

Such expectations can be moderated by real leaders, to the benefit of all concerned. Currently, leaders on both sides choose to pander to the expectations, with predictably violent results.

What are those unrealistic expectations?

For the Jews, there are some who believe they have a Divine Writ to the Holy Land, meaning all the territory of Judea and Samaria belongs always and forever to the State of Israel. I am not here to debate the theological underpinnings of this claim, but only to state it is a maximalist position that can never be realized. For if Israel were to ever claim sole jurisdiction over all that territory it would cease to be a majority Jewish state in a matter of years. There are currently about seven million Jews and seven million Arabs in that territory, and another two-and-a-half million Palestinian Arabs in Jordan and Syria. The Jewish state would soon face an Arab majority voting bloc, or the need to create a permanent sub-class of Arab citizenship: real apartheid. Which would be anathema to most Jews and the international community. So it’s never going to happen.

For the Palestinians, there are those who believe they have the right to a separate, fully-sovereign (aka “normal”) state with Jerusalem as its Capital. Now it is undeniably true that this was mostly what was on-offer in the 1947 agreement which the United Nations brokered (Jerusalem was shared). But that was eight wars, two intifadas, and few thousand terrorist attacks ago. Things have changed, so to speak. The first thing the new Palestinian state did was ally with five Arab nations and attempt to destroy Israel. During the period of Arab control, they evicted all Jews from Jerusalem and prohibited Jewish prayer at the Kotel, or Western Wall. Given the upper hand, the Palestinians have repeatedly acted in bad faith: and all this knowing that the very creation of the State of Israel happened as a result of international recognition that the Jews could not rely on other nations to behave.

Drive off the unrealistic expectations on both sides and an agreement is difficult, but possible.

For Israel, Palestine must recognize its right to exist and to defend itself. This has been the secret to Israel’s successful negotiations of peace with Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states. There is no sense engaging diplomatically toward a long-term agreement with an opponent who insists you must die. The Palestinians must accept this. And, because the geography of any two-state solution is so irregular as to make Israel literally un-defendable, and because of the long history of unprovoked attacks, the Palestinians must accept status as a demilitarized state: no military forces, no weapons of any kind. There is only one country interested in attacking Palestine, and it is Israel, for defensive purposes. Remove the ability to threaten, and you remove the need for any military force.

Could you defend the blue from the orange? Somehow they did, but they’ll never agree to this again

Next, secure this solution by giving Israel complete control over the land/air/sea ports of embarkation into the Israeli/Palestinian territories, solely for purposes of excluding the introduction of weapons. The Palestinians can control immigration, but any object moving in or out must be inspected by the Israelis. The Israelis would also retain the right to patrol all borders, for the same reason.

Third, Jerusalem would remain under Jewish control, but further resettlement and historical claims to land titles would be reviewed under UN sponsorship. The Palestinian government would be given land and transit rights to establish government buildings (like the UN has in New York) and the right to claim Jerusalem as its capital. Religious sites for Christians, Muslims, and Jews would be under the control of religious authorities, with guaranteed access as long as they are used solely for religious activities (i.e., no protests, no political rallies, no violence, in which case they could be temporarily closed by Israeli authorities).

Fourth, Jews and Arabs who lost property in the wake of the 1947 war and other conflicts could apply for remuneration under a UN-sponsored process allocating funds donated by the international community. While it is unfortunate that people lost long-standing family homes, it is impossible to recreate the 1947 status quo. Application is contingent on surrendering any existing claims to actual property.

Fifth, and finally, the lines between the two states should be established solely by the determination of local communities in one-time plebiscites. While this will create mostly contiguous borders, there will be isolated minority communities, which will require detailed negotiations on management and access. The goal here (remembering that the security issue is mitigated by the overall peace agreement, as well as the Israeli control of borders) is to encourage more open commerce and interaction between the communities, in hopes that eventually they choose to co-exist.

The Jews would have a Jewish majority, secure state, with the ability to ensure no threatening weapons can enter. The Palestinians would have a state of their own, with a Capital in Jerusalem, but at the cost of total demilitarization and demonstrated acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Those made refugees receive redress, if not the return of their property.

Are these peace terms unprecedented? Hardly. Costa Rica is an example of a state without a military despite living in a bad neighborhood. Japan went from militaristic to pacifist in a single lifetime, and no sane nation fears Japan’s Self-Defense Forces. There are even great examples of the details of a demilitarization process. The US and Switzerland have seventy-five years of experience with the functioning of extra-territorial government bodies (i.e., the United Nations). Many nations split their government functions up at multiple sites, and several have non-contiguous territory.

If it is all so clear and precedented, what is the hold-up? As I alluded to earlier, leadership. I mentioned the Israeli government’s paralysis, giving Prime Minister Netanyahu the push toward his natural, uncompromising positions. It is even worse for the Palestinians. The President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, is (a memorable quip from The Economist) “in the seventeenth year of a four year term.” Some suggest Hamas is not a terrorist group, since they have social service and administrative elements, and they even won an election in 2006. This is straining to put things in a good light, like the doctor who tells you that you have “a good cancer.” Those who always argue for more democracy should take a long look at this situation: many votes have brought to power (1) a corrupt leader beholden to a minority of extremists, (2) a corrupt and ineffectual octogenarian who has missed every opportunity to negotiate, and (3) murderous terrorists. So much for the wisdom of these crowds.

A breakthrough is unlikely either in Israeli politics or Gaza. Hope remains that a new generation of leaders in the West Bank could revive negotiations, leaving Hamas and the Gaza strip as a problem to be resolved later. A successful peace negotiation just for the West Bank would be a powerful impetus and undermine Hamas’ claims, while also allowing even tighter restrictions on Gaza in the meantime.

The Jews and Palestinians are like conjoined twins fighting it out in the womb, neither one realizing that the death of one will result in the death of both. We should all pray they choose new leaders, who choose life.

What Just Happened: Gaza

Israel warplanes and artillery mercilessly bombed Palestinian civilians trapped in the Gaza strip. The Israeli government evicted Palestinians from Jerusalem neighborhoods to secure Jewish control of the city. Jewish mobs dragged Palestinians from their cars and killed them.

Or . . .

Hamas indiscriminantly launched hundreds of rockets into Israel. Palestinian mobs threw rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall, and set fire to cars and synagogues elsewhere.

Or . . .

Cynical political leaders on both sides used a violent confrontation to further their own positions. Biased media reported parts of the story to get you to take sides. Gullible people who should be researching the situation instead shared and tweeted and emoted about things like international law and war crimes about which they knew little.

I’ll review the facts, you decide!

The current flare up–and remember, there have been countless ones before this–began in a courtroom. The Israeli Supreme Court was set to decide whether a group of Palestinians could be evicted from the Sheik Jarrar neighborhood of Jerusalem. The Palestinians had lived there since 1948, after having been displaced during the original Jewish-Arab conflict. The neighborhood had been Jewish prior to 1948, but the Jordanian government, which seized all of Jerusalem during the war and expelled the Jews, now had thousands of Arab refugees (there were no people called “Palestinians” at this time, as the term was a general one for the region, and not used for any specific people. It would be like referring to Ohioans as Midwesterners: true, but not specific). Jordan decided to settle displaced Arabs in former Jewish properties with the approval of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA). While this was a practical solution, it did violate concepts of international law which forbid the re-titling of personal property forcibly seized pursuant to war.

Even the Jordanians respected this precedent, so despite Palestinian claims, Jordan never gave them proper title during the next twenty years, and Sheik Jarrar remained a Jewish neighborhood with Arab residents. The Israelis reclaimed all of Jerusalem in the 1967 war, and began systematically removing Palestinian squatters, both by legal and illegal means. This activity has proceeded in fits and starts for fifty-three years. At one point, Palestinian residents of Sheik Jarrar agreed to a compromise to be permitted to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent, on which they subsequently reneged. The Israeli Supreme Court finally ruled last year that the Palestinians had to vacate the property by May of this year, but last month delayed the eviction to let the Israeli Attorney General take one more look at the case.

Point #1: International law is clear that these specific properties are Jewish and the Israelis have every right to evict the Palestinians. That said, the Israeli government has also evicted thousands of Palestinians without proper legal authority, and denies Palestinians the “right of return” to their former properties in Israel, the same right they are enforcing in Sheik Jarrar.

In anticipation of the end of the Muslim holy period of Ramadan, and the expected Israeli Supreme Court decision, Palestinian youth began gathering nightly at the Damascus Gate, a popular location along the Old City wall. Local Jewish authorities responded with riot dispersal methods before any real problems happened: perhaps with the intent to defuse, but ultimately inflaming the situation.

Jewish extremists gathered near the al-Aqsa Mosque on May 10th to celebrate “Jerusalem Day” and the recapture of the holy city during the 1967 war. These same marchers demanded access to al-Aqsa and were denied by Israeli security forces, but they subsequently engaged in acts of vandalism and violence at various locations in and around the city.

They throw the stones down from atop the wall

Palestinians responded by occupying the Temple Mount, the site of the Dome of the Rock (al-Aqsa), and began throwing rocks down on Jews praying at the Western Wall. This is a time-honored Palestinian technique which puts the Jewish authorities in a bind: ignore the rock throwers and Jews will be killed at the Western Wall. Respond, and that requires forcing your way up a narrow staircase and occupying part of the sacred Muslim ground on the Temple Mount. Almost always, the Jews choose the latter, resulting in tear gas and rubber bullets on holy ground, but in the end, an end to the fatal rock throwing.

Point #2: Every Israeli-Palestinian conflict begins with a series of action-reaction-overreaction cycles. The youths did not spontaneously gather; they were encouraged in case the Israeli court issued a ruling. The police did not have to disperse the original crowd. The Jewish extremists did not need to approach al-Aqsa. The protesters did not have to throw rocks from al-Aqsa. Same as it always was.

Next, Hamas began launching thousands of un-aimed rockets into Israel from Gaza, to “protect the dignity of the al-Aqsa Mosque from the Zionist occupiers.” To review, Hamas is the terrorist organization that seized control in Gaza in 2007. Their website states Hamas is a “popular, patriotic Palestinian, Sunni Islamist movement that resists the Zionist occupation.” Wait, isn’t one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Why yes, but with whom do you agree? Hamas is a terrorist organization according to the USA, the Israelis (‘natch), the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others; Russia, China, Syria, and Egypt support Hamas. Hamas denies the Holocaust, and while publicly suggesting a willingness to negotiate with Israel, when speaking in Arabic to Arab populations, cites the ‘worldwide Jewish conspiracy’ and the religious duty to kill all Jews everywhere. The Israeli government would have a better chance negotiating with the Illinois Nazi Party.

Israel has the world’s preeminent anti-missile system, called Iron Dome, which can intercept these Hamas attacks. Except no system is 100% effective, and since the Hamas rockets are unguided and go just about anywhere, even the successful intercepts can result in large chunks of metal falling from the sky. And civilian casualties. Not to mention the fear factor of sirens wailing at all hours of the day and night, as Israelis scramble to get into safe-rooms in their homes (Israeli codes require them) or community shelters (provided by the government–remember this point for later). So the situation becomes intolerable for the Jewish people, even if casualties remain low. Thus Israeli leaders face a challenge: wait out the attacks, using up expensive Iron Dome intercepts on cheap Hamas rockets, or go after the launching systems and the people who push the buttons.

In Gaza, the Hamas leadership occupies a densely-populated (ranked as a city, it would be 43rd) urban area. It is, in effect, an urbanized refugee camp, which Israel can effectively blockade when it wants. Yet somehow, Hamas manages to smuggle in building supplies to dig hundreds of tunnels, both to further smuggling efforts into Egypt and to infiltrate terrorists into Israel proper. Note that Hamas does not insist upon safe-rooms in Palestinian high-rises, nor does it build community shelters. In fact, Hamas is infamous for co-locating its weapons and headquarters in schools, hospitals, and in this conflict, even a media center. Prior to the ceasefire, two-hundred thirty Palestinians and twelve Israelis had died.

The challenges of urban counter-strike operations

Point #3: In any Hamas-Israeli conflict, civilian casualties will always be one-sided. Israel can try all they want to limit Palestinian casualties, but Hamas is actually seeking more Palestinian casualties: more martyrs, more innocent bodies for the international media to cover, more calls for revenge. There is no accountability for Hamas, which does not need votes because it has the guns.

If the Israelis can defend against the missiles barrages, and striking into Gaza leads to inevitable civilian casualties, why doesn’t the government just wait it out? While this sounds attractive as an option, it has yet to work. Hamas and other militant groups have launched literally thousands of rockets into Israel in the last twenty years. The UN has even labelled these attacks as “terrorism” and oftentimes the Israelis make little or no response. However, when the attacks occur en masse, or seem aimed at specific areas (like Tel Aviv or Jerusalem), the Israelis respond. Can you name a country which stands by and suffers thousands of cross border attacks without responding? I can’t either.

The Israelis have physically invaded Gaza before, and could occupy the entire Gaza strip. However, doing so would require an extended urban military operation, resulting in tens of thousands of casualties and the destruction of most of the property. In the end (under international law), the Israelis would assume responsibility for the homeless refugees in an urban wasteland.

So Israeli government responses are a fine-tuned political calculation: enough force to reassure citizens and inflict pain on Hamas without causing an international outcry. Yet Israel’s national government is a precarious coalition. “Bibi” Netanyahu’s party has never achieved more than thirty percent in four elections over the last two years, so he remains Prime Minister in a caretaker role as the elections continue. And there is a powerful impetus to play the hard-line “warrior” leader in the meantime.

Point #4: No one should ignore the role internal Jewish politics plays in these crises. Jewish extremists wish to expel all Muslims from Jerusalem and elsewhere, and their small political parties play a crucial swing-vote role in determining the rise and fall of Israeli governments. No Israeli politician is ever penalized for acting or reacting too harshly to external threats; one (Yitzhak Rabin) was assassinated for being too willing to negotiate.

One new thing in this conflict was the effect of social media, which abetted the spreading violence into more and different areas. Using social media apps, Jews and Arabs began making claims about atrocities committed by the other side, and organizing to take revenge. This cycle witnessed Jewish mobs dragging suspected “Arabs” out of cars, and Israeli Arabs (there are almost two million of them living in Israel) forming mobs to burn cars and synagogues.

Point #5: Once again, social media demonstrated how it can be a tool for good or evil.

So, to wrap it all up. Does Israel have a long history of abusing the rights of Palestinians? Yes. Have Arabs and Palestinians constantly tried to eliminate Israel and the Jews since the founding of the state in 1947? Yes. Is Israel strong enough to defend itself against any threat at this time? Yes. Does Hamas employ terrorism simply to provoke Israel? Yes. Is Israel legally justified in responding to Hamas missiles? Yes. Has Israel ever offered a two-state solution to the Palestinians? Yes. Does current Israeli politics practically prevent a similar offer now? Yes.

This latest spasm was a calculated effort on both sides: by Hamas, who had virtually nothing to lose, and perhaps could incite leftist opposition in the West (which it did). For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was a chance to look the part of a forceful leader and test whether President Biden would back him (he did). Hamas has enough propaganda film for an entire season on PBS; the Israeli military believes they destroyed a significant amount of Hamas tunnels, launchers, and rising leaders.

The ceasefire will hold, because both sides can claim they won, and both sides have nothing more to gain at the moment. But the war goes on, as it has, since 1947. Whether the next spasm of violence comes from an arrest, a bombing, a riot, or an eviction, it will come. While the Jewish and Palestinian people continue to suffer, leaders for both seem unable to find a way to separate them, equitably, so they may live in peace.

A Mexican Driver’s License Test

Having recently prepared for this test, even though I was never asked to take it when renewing my licensia, I decided to make a helpful practice test so you can play along at home. Make sure to keep track of whether you guessed the legal or real answers. Enjoy!

This sign indicates:

Don’t go there
Don’t even think of going there
🎵 Don’t stop, believing 🎵
Don’t stop

The legal answer, and the real answer, is (4).

If you see this sign, you should:

Drive no more than 110 miles per hour
Drive no more than 68 miles per hour
Wonder what the difference between kilometers and miles is
Ignore it like everybody else on the road.

The legal answer is (2), the real answer is (4), but let’s face it, you’ll probably do (3).

You stop to let a pedestrian cross the road; he does this toward you. It means:

“¡Muchas Gracias!”
“Talk to the mano, gringo.”
“What’s the modal finger?”
“If I only had my gun!”

There is no legal answer, but the real answer is (1).

The car in front of you has its left turn signal on. It means:

The driver will turn left
The driver is indicating it is clear for you to pass on the left
The driver is a gringo who turned his signal on in 2019
The car only has one working light bulb

Both (1) and (2) are legally correct, but (3) and (4) are also real. Best to ignore the blinking left signal in all cases!

In Mexico, this is:

Likely to occur on any highway
Why you don’t drive at night
Not going to happen where the sign says
All the above

You already know it’s (4).

You come upon this sign. It indicates:

You are approaching a roundabout
You can’t get there from here
We are all part of the circle of life
You do you.

The legal answer is (1), but all answers are equally real.

If the first image means “right turn” and the second image means “left turn,” the third image means:

🎵All my friends know the low rider 🎵
Slowing down or stopping
Left turn but my arm got tired
Look, I can drive with one hand

Legally, (2), but quien sabe?

If you see this sign, you should:

Slow down because there are topes ahead
Slow down because once upon a time there were topes ahead
Slow down because the road has a ditch in it
Slow down for the topless beach

The legal answer is (1), but for God’s sake, just slow down!

This sign indicates:

You are now entering El Paso
Yield
You’re not in Kansas anymore
You took a wrong turn in Albuquerque

(2) is the legal answer; (3) & (4) may also be real.

What does this symbol indicate?

No hat zone
Sombrero only zone
Inspection site ahead
Can you say mordita? Sure, I knew you could.

The legal answer is (3). ‘Nuff said.

In Mexico, this is:

Exemplary helmet-wearing
HOV-4 compliant
Cheaper than a minivan
Everyday, everywhere

Who knows, legally? All four are real!

If you see this view in Mexico, you should:

Look for the hidden tope
Have gassed up earlier
Watch out for cows disguised as tumbleweeds
Check for the motorbike about to pass you on the right

Only (3) is wrong. Mexican cows don’t bother with camouflage.

The cross street you are approaching is ______; you should ______:

One way to the right; turn right only
One way to the right; turn right if that is where you want to go
real; stop and ask for directions
whatever; do you

The legal answer is (1). (2) is a real answer. (4) is always correct. (3) is a trick: you never, never, NEVER ask directions in Mexico. Mexicans want to be helpful. They will offer directions even if (1) they don’t understand you, (2) they don’t know where you want to go, or (3) they don’t know where the destination is.

This shows:

Room for more riders
Mexico invented ride-sharing
Sear belts are theoretically required
Nothing to see here

Probably (2), and long before smart phones!

How did you do? If you tried to keep score, you have already failed! In Mexico, scores are arbitrary and you have missed the point. If you guessed (most of) the real answers, consider yourself ready to drive here.

“Licenses? We ain’t got no licenses. We don’t need no stinkin’ licenses!”

Passing a final test

As we’ve now lived here more than four years (how time flies under a facemask!), Judy and I have experienced most of the peculiarities of expat life in Mexico. And by peculiarities, I mean those little distractions, annoyances, or absurdities that make you go “what the . . . ” before shrugging your shoulders and finishing the thought with “solo en México” (only in Mexico).

There was the driver’s test–on computer–wherein it didn’t matter how we answered, we still passed. The time that we got a red light at customs and got to unpack our entire luggage, one item at a time, and explain what it is and why we have it, which of course coincided with my wife importing a year’s supply of make-up. The time the government refused to reimburse the temporary importation visa for my US car, and wanted me to prove I still had the car in the US, when it had never entered Mexico.

As you may have noticed, these events all involve government bureaucracy. Now, we have had many good stories to tell about visas approved, licenses renewed, taxes paid. But those stories are boring; the fun ones involve the trouble. So many went smoothly, some went poorly . . . and then there was SIMAPA.

SIMAPA stands for the Sistema Municipal de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado (de Chapala), that is the municipal water and sanitation authority. And in my opinion, they are the gold medalist in the bureaucratic olympiad. Before I explain why, it is fair to note that water has a history in Mexico, and that history plays a part. Being an arid country, water has always been a scarce resource. Those who had access to water often used it to control the poor, to seek advantage over rivals, or simply to lord it over those without access.

So as Mexico went through its various wars of independence and revolution, access to water came to be seen by the people as a fundamental right: and so it is, in the Mexican constitution. It is so fundamental that access to water cannot be totally shut off even if the recipient does not pay for it. Water bills are sometimes paid collectively by a home-owners association, and talk to any HOA board and you’ll find stories of owners who haven’t paid water dues for years. You can reduce the flow to some small amount, but you can’t shut it off; and that goes for the government, as well.

Likewise for sewage. If you’re hooked into municipal sewer lines, there’s an initial fee for accessing, and a yearly fee. But here’s the rub: there’s no way to shut the sewage flow off. So again, non-payment is a problem.

Our condominio (roughly, our development) has its own well, so we don’t use SIMAPA for fresh water. But we are hooked up to the municipal sewer lines. Our house was built in 2012, and round about late 2019 our condominio received notice from SIMAPA that, “hey, y’all are hooked up to the sewer lines, but you haven’t paid anything, so please do so.” My wife dutifully took a copy of the e-mail down to the local SIMAPA office, where she explained (in Spanish) that we needed to pay. The ladies working there looked at the e-mail (in English), looked at our address, then explained we didn’t have an account, so we could not pay. At that, they went back to their busy desks. One might assume a municipal authority would be interested in receiving seven years of back payments; one would be wrong (in Mexico).

Time passed and the quarantine hit, and since our sewage kept flowing away, we sort of forgot all about it. Finally we talked with a neighbor who reminded us we were supposed to go to the SIMAPA office and ask to “start an account.” The magic words (in Spanish) were not “pay a bill” but “start an account” and we needed a copy of our identification papers and a copy of our deed. We collected the pesos (in cash, naturally) and all the documents and copies and went back to SIMAPA.

Round Two began as a replay of Round One. We said we needed to start an account, but the SIMAPA ladies checked their online records and assured us we didn’t have an account. Yes, we knew that, but we produced our documentation and they threw up their hands and called the supervisor, who spoke English–up to that point, we had engaged in Spanish. The supervisor reviewed our deed copy and explained it was not an official copy, so we would have to return with an official copy in order to start an account. One might assume a municipal authority would be more interested in collecting now nine years of back payments, and was there really a problem in Mexico with people showing up to fraudulently pay OTHER PEOPLE’S DELINQUENT SEWAGE BILLS? One would be mistaken.

Weeks later, we collected an official deed copy, the pesos, copies of every bill and identification we could muster, extra copies of all these, and went back to SIMAPA for Round Three. We entered the office and cheerfully greeted the SIMAPA ladies; Judy even complimented one woman on her embroidered blouse (smiles all around). We explained that we did not have an account, but we needed to start one and pay our arrears. The SIMAPA ladies quickly checked online and confirmed we did not have an account (*sigh*–an unsettling déjà vu descended on us).

The supervisor reviewed our official deed, then used it just to provide our address to the woman at the keyboard. She began the (apparently) laborious process of opening a new account. Now everybody should have an account, but one felt like this was the first time an account had ever been opened. There was discussion about how to enter the address, how to print the bill, and even (no kidding) how much to charge us. The supervisor even asked us if we had an e-mail from the condominio stating what the charges were for this year! Wasn’t SIMAPA the ones who determined the charges, I thought? I told him “no” initially, but Judy checked her account and did find it.

They proceeded to develop a receipt, but I could see the supervisor and the lady on the keyboard were a little concerned by the size of the bill. It was, after all, for many years, and I am sure they have had some surly customers come in and go ballistic over a large bill. I told them they had approximated the bill for us once before, so we were ready for it, which seemed to alleviate their concerns. I even joked that we only wanted to pay our bill, not purchase all of SIMAPA (I got a little smile for that Dad-joke).

Finally, we paid the bill, got signed originals of the account statement, and went on our way, safe in the knowledge we were no longer sewage outlaws.

Solo en México.

Frames of Reference

Ever take a good hard look at your frames of reference? By that I mean the experiences, education, travel, lifestyle and intellectual pursuits that are not necessarily unique to you, but frame how you process and make sense of what’s going on around you. Some might call them your biases, but I think that’s a little too pejorative: we all have them, so why automatically think of them as negative?

For example, I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. I had a frame of reference that people were basically honest and friendly, schools were competent, the local authorities honest, and opportunities abounded. Americana 101. I also believed large cities were dirty, and people there were rude or potentially violent. Their schools were ramshackle. Their police might entrap you. Their government was corrupt.

I eventually lived in or near big cities, where I confirmed everything I previously held about them! I also learned the big cities were cosmopolitan, held cultural treasures, and had even more opportunities. And small towns could be somewhat provincial; imagine that!

The entire concept of generational cohorts (think “The Greatest Generation” or Baby-Boomers, Gen-Xers, Millennials) involves frames of reference. People who go through the same major events (say WWII) at around the same age tend to develop a common way of thinking. It’s not universal, but it is useful as a way to generalize about them. My grandmother, who survived the Great Depression as a young woman, always kept on hand a large supply of canned goods and other things, and retained a profound distrust of banks. Those characteristics were common among her generation, and persisted long after the cause for them ended: for example, when banks became federally insured.

What about your unconscious frames? If you grew up in the States, you most likely imbibed an English cultural frame. Which does not mean an understanding of English History; good heavens no! Most Americans think The War of the Roses was a 1989 divorce flick. No, I mean an English view of history and culture. France and the French: weak, decadent, presumptuous. Spain and the Spanish: corrupt, untrustworthy, nefarious. Germany and the Germans: autocratic, efficient, and of course Nazis. China and Chinese: inscrutable. India and the Indians: Servile. England and the English: indefatigable, educated, and enterprising. Hmmmmm, one of these things is not like the others! Where did Americans, who originally had little contact with many of these countries, get these stereotypes, some of which were contradicted by early American experience (France and Spain sided with us in the revolution against England)?

Frames are hard to identify simply by introspection; new experiences–or encountering other frames–make it easier. As an expat, I often laugh at some aspects of the US history I once learned: all about Plymouth Plantation and the English colony of Jamestown. Only after living in Latin America did I stop and reconsider that the Spanish settlement of St. Augustine, Florida, was forty-two years old when the English got to Jamestown, and the only reason Jamestown survived was the Spanish decided not to attack it.

As an expat, you bring a lifetime of frames to your new home. Expect police to be well-paid, well-trained public servants dedicated to the rule of law? Government to be efficient and transparent? Law to be impartial? Depending on where you land, maybe, maybe not. The reverse is also true. Where you once might have experienced people judged implicitly by their skin color, you might find those judgments applied to shades, or accents, or even facial structures!

Whether for good or ill, frames exist and affect us everyday. For expats, identifying your frames may be critical to whether you can ever fit in your new community. Change in cultural frames happens slowly, and almost never by external forces (I’m thinking the pacification of Germany and Japan as exceptions that prove the rule). When you come from somewhere else, you’re free to observe, to comment with courtesy, but most of all to respect the new culture. It may welcome you, but you sought it; it didn’t seek you.

What ails America?

It seems like Americans agree on few things these days. Perhaps the one thing almost all Americans agree on is something is wrong in America. Even there, the agreement is only skin-deep: progressives and conservatives have decidedly different opinions on what is wrong, yet agree that something is wrong.

For conservatives, America has lost its moral bearings, forgotten its past, and seems dead set on atomizing into various victim-groups competing for an ever more debt-fueled federal largess. Progressives see a people unwilling to remember its failings, unable to accept new rights claimants, blind to racism, sexism, and ever-greater economic inequality. For the moment, I’m willing to stipulate that both are correct, and at the same time, totally irrelevant. Why? Because both are focused on symptoms, not the problem.

America is unique among nations because it is a nation based on a notion. That notion is a complex mix of individual liberty, collective responsibility, and the right to be left alone. It was heavily influenced by English common law and traditions, and deeply embedded in a Judeo-Christian background. I would characterize that background as America’s Soul. The Founders, from a variety of religious backgrounds, were clear:

Washington: Religion is “a necessary spring of popular government.”
Adams: Leaders “may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.” and “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Franklin: “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth–that God governs in the Affairs of Men. . . . I also believe that without his concurring Aid, we shall succeed in this political Building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

I am not engaging in the tiresome “is America a Judeo-Christian nation?” argument. I am stating that the notion that is America rests upon a Judeo-Christian heritage, which is now only tenuous. The Deism that animated so many of the Founding Fathers was a Christian heresy (technical term, not derogatory). Their ‘Watchmaker’ God was not Zeus; He only makes sense as a derivative of Yahweh. And that connection is practically lost today.

The notion of America has changed subtly over time. Jefferson foresaw a nation of land-owning farmer-gentlemen. Lincoln envisioned a born-again Republic free from its original sin. Roosevelt sought solidarity among the classes and the birth of a world power. Reagan proclaimed the triumph of that power and renewed personal freedom.

All different, all variations on a theme.

The American people are once again in the process of debating that theme. During our recent visit to the States (grandkids & vaccinations), Gallup released poll data showing, for the first time, Church membership in the United States fell below fifty percent. As recently as the turn of the century, almost seventy percent of Americans belonged to a Church, and the decline since has been precipitous. This is something new: the theme is up for discussion, but so is the background.

The answer is not simply a call to return to the pews (as much as I would welcome that). America experienced a series of Great Awakenings, Protestant revivals that corresponded to various American crises. But today’s problem is not simply the dramatic decline in American Protestantism, but the deeper loss of any American connection to its Judeo-Christian heritage.

“Who cares about religion, anyway, can’t we just live by the Golden Rule?” That rule exists in nearly all religions and cultures, so I would respond with “how has that worked out for the world so far?” Its secular limits are many and obvious: “others” not defined as people, the narcissist who expects to be taken advantage of, the problem of scale. The Judeo-Christian elaboration on the Golden Rule provided means to address these problems, and provided a check on the way we respond to each other’s disagreements. That people at times violated these rules no more invalidates the rules than a murder invalidates the crime of murder.

This all plays out in complex ways, across a spectrum of issues. The First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion was a rational attempt to avoid favoring one religion over another in order to avoid the religious wars which plagued Europe. Extended today to the relationship between religion and unbelief, it becomes untenable: you can’t interpret law to be neutral to both a positive concept and its denial. This has lead to increasingly complex and contradictory Supreme Court rulings, wherein individuals seek more restrictions on religious activities and various faiths seek more and more exemptions from existing law.

Shorn from the Christian dictum to “care for your neighbor (and who is your neighbor?),” conservatives feel free to ignore family separations and leave the old and sick vulnerable to pandemia. Progressives discover a new Gospel. In their telling, Jesus says to the rich man, “Go, support a huge government program for the poor, use the right #hashtag, and you will inherit the Kingdom of God.”

Science advances apace, but in what direction? Moral questions of whether we should do something are pushed aside in favor of simple utilitarian answers. Scientists in California and China teamed up to create chimeras: embryos that are part monkey, part human. They claim to be addressing the need for more organs to transplant, and deny any ethical issues. Should we follow this science?

The absence of Christian charity in our exchanges should be obvious: it is why we often immediately question the motives of any who disagree, characterize any transgression as evil (I would say mortal sin), and refuse to offer or accept simple forgiveness. Our American system of government is full of checks and balances, and therefor it requires compromise to function. But now both sides seem more interested in scoring points or dominating, not cooperating.

I could cite a thousand examples, from hate crimes to tax policy to road rage to immigration to, well, you get the point. America is losing, perhaps has lost, its Soul. It wasn’t the fault of any faith, political party or movement. It wasn’t simply the aggregation of a trend by millions of individuals deciding just to sit home and watch the NFL on Sunday. It happened over a long period of time, mostly as a result of neglect: a simple lack of understanding of the role our Soul played in the notion of the nation of America.

Am I overstating the role of Soul? Look at the Presidents we most admire, and see how they all intuited, and used, our reliance on Soul. Lincoln, himself not a Christian, was the greatest practitioner: calling on God time and again, citing our better angels, readily pulling memorable quotes from the Bible. Roosevelt’s “nothing to fear” line directly mirrors “Be not afraid” while he characterized the New Deal as “the path of faith, the path of hope, the path of love.” Reagan constantly borrowed the optimistic view characteristic of Christianity.

As Lincoln so well put it, “‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’. . . I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.” Americans face a choice: what is to be our Soul? There has to be an underlying principle to our notion of a nation, one that all Americans can accept. Just as not all 18th Century Americans were Protestants, our new Soul need not be the creed for every American, but it must be accepted by all.

I recently watched an entertaining debate between Alex O’Connor, a well-followed British atheist who runs The Cosmic Skeptic YouTube channel and Bishop Robert Barron, the prolific Catholic apologist of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and Word on Fire.

Two hours long, and with some high-fallutin’ words!

During the debate, O’Connor noted that as an atheist, he has an advantage in that he need not put forward a rival worldview, but only need point out inconsistencies in the faith-view; the onus was on those who believe. This is absolutely true in such a debate, but I believe the opposite pertains in the argument over America’s Soul. There, the existing connection (to Judeo-Christian beliefs) has been challenged, so the onus is on the challengers: what comprehensive, attractive and feasible concept do you propose?

If we were a nation based on race or ethnicity, this discussion would be unnecessary. But as a nation based on a notion, we must not only have the discussion, we must come to a conclusion. Arguing against the Judeo-Christian background is not enough; in the end, what holds US together?

Data, Numbers, & Hate

A few posts back, I promised to explore the rise in anti-Asian hate crimes. First let me explain two challenges: one is the difference between data and numbers, and the other is the difficulty in determining intent behind an action.

First, I think we all know what numbers are, but how to distinguish them from data? Data are just numbers that have been processed in some way to make them useful in comparing or combining. A simple example: if I told you the temperature in Cincinnati today was 40° but only 20° in Ajijic, you might assume Ohio was warmer than Jalisco, and that would be wrong. Those are numbers, not data. The numbers are in different scales (Fahrenheit and Centigrade); placed in the same scale, they become data and we can compare.

Another example: I just saw a headline (later revised) that said “One hundred fully-vaccinated people in Washington State have gotten Covid” which sounds scary. However, those one-hundred victims came out of a pool of 1.2 million vaccinated people in Washington. With context, the story was that less than .01% of vaccinated people in Washington later got Covid, which is reassuring, not scary. Processing numbers into data is essential!

Second, actions are easier to assess than intent. If I walk past you and don’t greet you on the street, was I angry at you, preoccupied, inconsiderate, unaware, near-sighted or some combination of all of the above. You can easily assess the fact that I did not greet you, but the cause becomes a matter of great conjecture, and I myself may not be able to answer “why?”.

You may have seen the claims of a great increase in the number of anti-Asian (sometimes referred to as anti-Asian/Pacific Islander, hence AAPI) hate incidents. Activists and the media tie the phenomenon back to the Trump administration and his blaming China for the Coronavirus pandemic in 2019. Let’s dig into the numbers (hint). The first point to understand is that the FBI has not published its 2020 crime data, so there is no single, national, data-set for hate crimes. Here is the last FBI graph:

The data are low, and hit an all-time low in 2015 before starting a gradual rise. The FBI data is not comprehensive, as law enforcement elements participate voluntarily, but it does cover more than fifteen thousand organizations representing over three-hundred million Americans.

In the absence of 2020 FBI data, what numbers do we have? The numbers cited in most major media reporting come from StopAAPIHate. Here’s the pull quote from their website: “In response to the alarming escalation in xenophobia and bigotry resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Asian Pacific Planning and Policy Council (A3PCON), Chinese for Affirmative Action (CAA), and the Asian American Studies Department of San Francisco State University launched the Stop AAPI Hate reporting center on March 19, 2020.” I’ll set aside the question of using data from a group which set out under the assumption of an “alarming escalation” and just show their results here:

There are several potential issues here. The numbers come from the sixteen largest US cities, so we have an urban skew to the data. The numbers are very small: eleven cities had incident totals in the single digits, and four reported no incidents in 2019, meaning the data could go nowhere but up. The overwhelming number (eighty-eight of one hundred twenty-two) of hate crimes happened in just six cities: New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco, and San Jose.

StopAAPIHate has other issues. Among the numbers it uses to buttress its claim of increasing hate crimes are: Google Search terms, slurs on Twitter, and any claim that China is possibly responsible for the coronavirus. The last one would make much of the planet guilty of anti-Asian hate crimes, including most of Asia. StopAAPIHate does not acknowledge other explanations or causations (e.g., the non-representative nature of Twitter, or the use of Google search to explain unfamilar words).

It is interesting to note that overall hate crimes declined by seven per cent in 2020, while anti-Asian hate crimes rose by one-hundred forty-nine per cent. It is also relevant to note that anti-Asian hate crimes account for only seven per cent of all hate crimes, and the following groups had more reported victims of hate crimes in 2019: blacks, whites (!), Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, Gays, and LBQT+. On top of that, there is the issue of attributing crimes based solely on the race of the victims. The Anti Defamation League (ADL) discovered a huge increase in anti-Semitic attacks back in 2017 when it included thousands of false, phone-bomb threats (to Jewish Community Centers and schools) conducted by an American-Israeli Jewish student. Still, the purported rise in anti-Asian hate crimes demands attention, even if the numbers are small both in absolute and relative terms. So let’s dig into the phenomenon further. We know who the victims are, but who are the perpetrators and what are the crimes?

According to the New York Times, the NYPD does have data about the identity of perpetrators in 2020. Of the 20 anti-Asian hate crimes in which arrests were made, eleven arrested were black, five were Hispanic, two were Black Hispanic, and two were white. This tracks with the FBI’s 2019 hate crimes data, and it tracks with anecdotal reporting of 2020 and 2021 incidents. And the Times has noted that so many of the perpetrators of these alleged hate crimes are either homeless, mentally ill, or both.

As to the crimes, the vast majority of hate crimes (against all victims) were verbal intimidation/simple assault (eighty percent) or vandalism (seventy-five percent). StopAAPIHate has added the category of “shunning/avoidance” which accounted for twenty percent of its reports.

I will spare my friends a long litany of specific events, categorized as hate crimes by activists and the media, which failed to be so upon further scrutiny. A large number are simple robberies or assaults where no evidence of hate, except for the ethnicity of the victim, was ever introduced. Some attacks do include language which supports a hateful intent, but when the perpetrator is mentally ill, can we rely on their words?

So are all these incidents wrong? No. The most famous ones do not stand up to scrutiny, but there was a trend towards slightly increasing anti-Asian hate incidents going back for four years. Is the trend overblown by activists and the media? Probably.

I have little doubt more people are making more hateful statements today than yesterday. One need only check social media to confirm it. The social fabric in the States is wearing thin, and people are increasingly escalating encounters. Those with whom you disagree are not just wrong, they’re evil, why, maybe even Nazis! If someone looks askance at you, they might be “dissin'” you, and you don’t have to put up with that in 2021, do you? Activists talk about “getting in people’s faces” and even small disagreements become political battlegrounds. The other day in the States, my dear wife made the mistake of asking a woman (at a public park) whether she had lost her face mask; the woman’s response assumed my wife was attacking her for not wearing one, when actually my wife had just found a mask, and the rest of that woman’s family was wearing masks, so she thought she was about to do a good deed. Not in this day and age.

Long ago, I was a daily runner, which meant I ended up running in places like aboard a ship in Kattegat, on the rolling plains of Kansas, in smoggy Budapest and uber-urban Tokyo. In three of those locations, the sight of a lanky, six foot-plus white guy running around merited just odd looks. It was only in the States where I had cars on rural roads cross the centerline toward me, strangers toss trash at me, or carloads of teenagers hang out the windows and swear at me. And that was back in the well-meaning twentieth century! So do I believe there is more hatred now? Sure.

Is there an epidemic of specifically anti-Asian hate? Probably not. And can the increase be tied to former President Trump? Only if you believe in a secretive cabal of New Yorkers, Californians, Blacks, Hispanics and even Asians waiting to follow his lead. No, there is something deeper going on here, and I promise to cover that in the near future.

Everything You Know is Wrong (VIII): The Crusades

Valparaiso University is a small Lutheran school in northern Indiana which recently decided to abandon its athletic team name, the Crusaders, because the term suggests “aggressive religious oppression and violence.” What’s your first reaction to the word “crusade?” What about the term “crusader?”

There have been a series of academic or popular works which have revised public perceptions of the Crusades. First and foremost was Stephen Runciman’s 1950s era, three-volume history of the Crusades. Terry Jones of Monty Python fame relied on this work for his BBC series “Crusades.” And no hall of shame would be complete without Ridley Scott’s execrable movie Kingdom of Heaven (2005). What do they all have in common? “Terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining” as one historian put it.

What is/was the misconception? The Crusades were a series of aggressive wars launched by a backward, religiously-fanatic West against a more peaceful, civilized East. Crusaders were a motley array of Kings in search of new domains, 2nd or 3rd sons of nobles (hence without title or prospects) seeking wealth, and peasants desperate enough to join, spurred on by fanatical clergy eager to make money off the endeavors. This toxic mix made Crusaders an intolerant, blood-thirsty, and rapacious force that broke the laws of war (as they were). Did I miss anything?

The funny thing is, the Crusades lasted 700 years (1095-1798), and happened at a time when common people, nobles, and the Church actually wrote about their lives and kept records. And little of what I described above comports with the historical record.

Let’s start with what was a “Crusade.” Like bowling, there were rules!

There were four rules for a crusade:

The Pope had to call for, or endorse, it.
Participants “took the cross,” an oath that they would not relent, or give up until the specific goal of the Crusade was achieved (and there was a specific goal). The Crusaders then sowed a red cross onto their clothes signifying their oath.
Crusaders were promised that the lands and families they left behind were under protection of the Church (not insignificant when lords were constantly prowling to poach each other’s lands). They were exempt from many tolls and charges en route, and could expect the hospitality of the Church and the faithful on the way.
Upon successful completion, crusaders were awarded an indulgence (a form of pardon for sins).

Why are these formal aspects of a crusade important? Various individuals or groups initiated their own crusades, or tried to tack alongside Crusader armies without “taking the cross.” These unauthorized crusades committed atrocities against Jewish communities, sacked towns, and robbed civilians. The Church criticized these efforts, suppressed them, and excommunicated those participating. Yet some historians started including these events in histories of the Crusades!

Were the Crusades aggressive or defensive? Islam had overrun the Holy Land by force in 637 Christian Era (CE). For the next four centuries, Islamic leaders permitted a steady stream of Christian pilgrims to visit the holy sites in Jerusalem, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1009 CE, a Fatimid Caliph ordered the destruction of the Church and other Christian sites, which caused a great outcry in Christian Europe, although the Caliph’s son permitted its rebuilding in 1048 CE. When the Seljuk Turks captured the Holy Land, they commenced persecuting Christian communities, culminating in the slaughter of twelve-thousand defenseless pilgrims outside Jerusalem in 1065 CE. The Seljuks defeated the Orthodox Byzantines at Manzikert and pushed toward Constantinople, and in 1095 CE Pope Urban II called the First Crusade to secure a safe path across Asia Minor to the Holy Land, and to liberate Jerusalem. If not defensive, this Crusade certainly had just cause.

Were the Crusades authentically religious, or was that only a pretense for economic motives? This is one of the most scurrilous charges, one easily believed by moderns, and one overwhelmingly disproved by the records. Over the centuries, Westerners have gone from believing in fighting for religion, to not believing in fighting over religion, to not believing in religion, to not believing anyone could ever believe in fighting over religion. But the Crusades happened during the first of these belief systems.

Runciman et al promulgated the notion that the Crusades were for the extension of kingdoms and the wealth of 2nd and 3rd sons. The problems with these assertions are manifold. First, the historical records show the vast majority of nobles “taking the cross” were eldest sons, those who had the most to lose. Kings and nobles alike went bankrupt just in paying to get their crusader armies to the Holy Land, and this was not unexpected. The many wars of Medieval Europe usually ended with all sides in economic ruin, and at least there, there was a chance to occupy nearby territory. On top of this, armies generally lost more troops to disease than combat, and travel involved inevitable new disease encounters. The most likely outcome for any crusader–rich or poor– was known when they “took the cross”: death by sickness or the sword in a far off place. Of the 60,000 crusaders in the First Crusade, only 300 knights and 2,000 common men lived to occupy Jerusalem.

Why take such a vow? Faith, supplemented by the possibility of an indulgence. Whatever you think of the practice of indulgences, they are only compelling IF one believes in Heaven and Hell. Faith is the consistent refrain in the contemporaneous writings of noble and commoner alike. Could they have been posturing for history? Perhaps. Did some have mixed motives? Probably. But for the vast majority, the cause was simple.

Were the Crusaders uniquely violent? This charge sometimes relies on the actions of the faux crusades and crusaders I mentioned earlier. But the most glaring piece of evidence is the Crusaders’ behavior after they captured Jerusalem, killing everyone in the city until “the streets ran ankle-deep with blood” or the Temple mount ran with blood “up to the knees” as quoted by former President Clinton in a post 9-11 speech at Georgetown University. Historians have demonstrated the mathematical and geometric impossibility of this claim, traced the gradual exaggeration over decades as eyewitness accounts were embellished, and generally debunked them using Muslim sources.

The point remains: many people died after the Crusaders broke through the walls. But this was Medieval siege warfare. Cities were offered the chance to surrender and let inhabitants flee. This happened at Jerusalem. The remaining Muslims and Jews–who fought side-by-side–were considered combatants, and any who surrendered after the walls were breached were subject to summary execution or enslavement. This was the way of war for the Christians and the Muslims in those times: surrender at first, and live as you were with a new ruler. Surrender while besieged and live to suffer the spoils of war. Fight on until the walls are breached and die or be enslaved. While it seems barbaric, remember that the attackers generally suffered huge losses in the breach; the Crusader army at Jerusalem appears to have suffered about thirty percent casualties in the attack. It is unspeakable by modern standards, but was not unique at the time.

How did the First Crusade ever succeed? First and foremost, the Muslim world was rent at the time by a series of deaths which left the various factions at war with one another. Second, the Crusader armies were tough and resilient.The Crusaders spent four years marching from various locations in Europe to regroup in Byzantine territory and set off across modern-day Turkey. There they fought off numerous Seljuk armies, successfully laid siege to several port cities (establishing a sea-line of communication and supply), and ended up outside the walls of Jerusalem almost four years later. After capturing it, they withstood a countersiege by Fatimid armies before establishing the various small Crusader states in the Holy Land. Finally, the Crusaders had a huge advantage in that they were highly motivated by the goal of capturing Jerusalem, while the Muslim defenders were much less so.

Wait, how can that be? Isn’t Jerusalem one of Islam’s holiest sites? Well, yes and no. Jerusalem is not mentioned (by either its Hebrew or Arabic names) in the Qur’an. There is a mention of the Prophet Mohammed’s night journey to the “furthest mosque,” a title accorded to the al-Aqsa mosque on the Dome of the Rock (aka, the Temple Mount) in Jerusalem. The problem with that is that when the Prophet would have journeyed there (610 CE), there was a Byzantine Christian church on the site, but no mosque. The claims of al Quds (Jerusalem) as the “furthest mosque” really began after Muslim armies captured Jerusalem in 638 CE. So while the city had some import, it wasn’t the same for Muslim defenders and Crusader besiegers.

What led to the none-too-subtle shading of Crusades history? Salah al-din (a Kurd, by the way) famously emasculated the Crusader presence in the Holy Land in 1187 CE, and Islamic histories treated the period as a minor footnote, likening the Crusader presence to a temporary event of little significance. Likewise, Christian Europe lauded the individual crusaders but eventually came to see the overall enterprise as a failure. The Crusades became a historical trivia item, both East and West.

During the post World War II movement toward decolonization, however, activist academics cited the existing European colonies as modern-day Crusader states, and Arab nationalists grabbed hold of the claim, using it to bolster the cause of self-determination. The Crusades became a lens for arguing modern discontents, well beyond the historical record. Modern secular academics had a perfect foil in the Crusades: violent Catholic religious fanatics bent on subjugation against a peaceful, more enlightened Muslim opponent, who eventually prevailed.

So, the Crusaders certainly share a unique spot in military history. Are the Crusades something worth celebrating, or not? That is certainly a point for debate, but one that should be informed by the actual record, not a Monty Python skit version of history.

Bring on the Vaccine Passports

Disclaimer: as an expat and a frequent world traveler, I have a lot to gain by the institution of a globally-accepted vaccine passport system. That said, please allow me to explain why even a someone who has never left their hometown would also benefit from such a regimen.

We’re entering the Coronavirus Endgame, where we reverse-the-snap and bring life back to where it was in early 2019. Things will of course be different–they should be–but the weirdness, isolation, and fear will be gone. To extend the Marvel Avengers metaphor, the vaccines are like the first 45 minutes of Endgame, where our heroes find Thanos and kill him, only to realize nothing changes. The vaccine is not the snap; we have to figure out how to get back to normal.

Why is that? The virus isn’t going away; the current betting in the medical community is it will become endemic, like the cold and flu, always there waiting to make someone sick. Vaccines provide protection, but not perfect protection. Some people with weaker immune response will still get sick and be contagious. And we don’t know how long our immunity is good for: the clock is running, and people immunized in the early trials are still not getting sick, so we’re (just a swag here) probably good for a year, and counting. But it’s unlikely this immunity is forever, so we’ll need to keep practicing things we hated from 2020: masks and social distancing and fever checks and hand sanitizing and elbow-shakes and so forth.

So what good did vaccination do? Well, it greatly reduced the risk of getting sick/hospitalized/dying. And since there is less risk, governments may be willing to allow more mobility and fewer restrictions. The obvious implication is for international travel; right now, US citizens can travel to most of the Western Hemisphere and Africa, along with a few other locations. Likewise, few foreigners can come to the US. A viable vaccine passport could loosen those restrictions.

What about the complaint that a vaccine passport is another government restriction on our freedom? Well, it’s true, it is. In fact, it already is, and has been for almost ninety years. All governments reserve the right to refuse entry to sick people; the only difference is whether the governments are screening for illness (now they are). Many of us already have a vaccine passport: the World Health Organization (WHO) “yellow card” which was a necessary part of foreign travel for decades. If you traveled internationally back in the last millennium, or were in the US Armed Forces or Peace Corps, you have this form. So the concept is not new and not another restriction; it’s the same restriction that always was, you just either didn’t know about it, or forgot about it.

NaTHNaC - Polio vaccination certificate — The International Certificate of Vaccination or Prophylaxis ICVP): pretty old school!

Why not just use the WHO certificate? It is a yellow piece of paper with scribbling on it, from the quaint old days when faking it was considered unlikely (“You want to go to the Amazon without a Yellow Fever inoculation? Go right ahead, and who’s your next of kin?”). Using it today would invalidate the entire concept, since any damn fool with a color printer and Photoshop could make one up.

So we need something digital and secure and updatable and widely-accepted across the globe. This is why the US federal government should be leading the charge. I would like to know what President Biden is doing about this, as it falls squarely in an area where he should be leading, but I have heard nothing about it. Why should the airlines or the EU or Israel be the places to develop this concept?

What if you don’t travel, never had the WHO card, and really don’t care if I can traipse around the globe? Fair point! You too have much to gain. As medicine continues to learn what the risks are with respect to immunity, mutation, side-effects, boosters, and transmission rates, governments will become more comfortable in relaxing some rules based on vaccination. And this will require some readily acceptable, common way to prove it: a vaccine passport. Just like the immigration officer at the airport in London, your dentist, the checkout clerk, your waiter and the baby-sitter will want to know what risk they are entailing in being near you. Will this be forever? No, because eventually people won’t care. How do we know that? Because that’s what happened to the WHO yellow cards; they have never been rescinded, most people just forgot about them, although in a few cases they are still necessary for travel (Yellow Fever being a great example).

For all those folks who are sick-and-tired of masks, your vaccine passport will become a path out of that particular hell. Now, there is no reason the passports have to be mandatory. You can refuse to get the vaccine, and just wait for herd immunity and the end of restrictions. Or, you can get the vaccine and skip getting the passport: you’ll still face restrictions, but you’ll know you are relatively safe. Or you can get the shot and the passport and breathe easy. Choice is a good thing.

Vaccine passports can be an important tool in the transition back to normalcy, both for travel and day-to-day life. And the passport won’t be forever, as I already demonstrated. Sometime in the not too distant future, your passport app will just be a memento of how things were, just like an old face-mask you’ll find crumpled up in a coat pocket. Won’t that be a great day?

What Just Happened? Hate Crimes, Atlanta, & San Francisco

A few blog posts back, I mentioned that the problem with race-consciousness is eventually, when one adopts this worldview, you see racism everywhere. And here we are.

A few days back, a very troubled young man killed eight people in a shooting spree around Atlanta, Georgia. Of course you heard all about it; the only person who didn’t was my wife, who happened to be under dental anesthesia that day, but later had no recollection of the original event or our discussion (“What are you talking about?” was her initial response).

The news script went like this: the suspect was a twenty-one year old white man who was a “religious fanatic” and belonged to an “evangelic group.” He claimed to be a “sex addict” who attacked “massage parlors” to eliminate the “temptation” they presented to him, and he told authorities he was on his way to Florida to attack the “porn industry” when he was apprehended. Six of the eight people killed were women of Asian descent (ages thirty-three to seventy-four years old!) who worked at or owned the massage parlors. A police spokesman, when asked to explain the motivation for the killing spree the day after the attack, related that the suspect “denied having a racial motive,” and when further questioned, the spokesman ad-libbed that maybe the suspect had “a really bad day” which led to the spokesman’s reassignment from his duties. (The quotes above all come from news articles)

Those are the facts of the case as we know it. The media spin was to place this story as the crescendo of a series of anti-Asian hate crimes that began with the killing of eighty-four year-old Vicha Ratanapakdee in San Francisco in January. Media news and commentary opined that the suspect (I am intentionally avoiding using his name in accord with the idea that ignominy deserves no recognition) clearly committed a hate crime, equal parts misogynistic and racial. According to a running count by Andrew Sullivan, the New York Times ran (as of March 19th) nine stories along this line, while the Washington Post went for the gold with sixteen! Network news parroted the same line. A few went so far as to claim white male fetish-sizing of Asian women was the underlying cause, with a dollop of white supremacist violence on top. Those who mentioned the police spokesman did so with incredulity that anyone would be so stupid as to (1) believe what the suspect said his motive was and (2) could ever say anything as stupid as he had “a really bad day.” I saw at least two reports that the removed police spokesman had once tagged a racist meme on social media, calling Covid19 “the virus imported from CHY-na.”

Here’s the New York Times running highlight box

Now what is the rest of the story? It’s still early, but so far not one intrepid reporter has uncovered a single text, tweet, or social media post expressing anti-Asian or anti-woman views by the suspect. In private discussions with his friends (which a few reporters have interviewed), the suspect told them he went to Asian massage parlors not because of race, but because those parlors “were the safest place” to acquire casual sex for money. And he was a repeat customer at two (of the three) places he later attacked. The suspect had long complained of a sex addiction, and had gone to rehab more than once, yet he remained plagued by his inability to control his sexual impulses. His Baptist congregation and his parents were well aware of his continuing struggle. In fact, the night before the attack, the suspect’s parents threw him out of the house, perhaps prompting the police spokesman’s “very bad day” comment.

According to a Times’ story and video, the suspect spent an hour inside his car outside the first parlor, then spent another hour inside the facility before he started shooting. We’ll know eventually what happened before the killing began.

The media coverage of the victims has been of two minds. Some commentators decried the suggestion any of the victims were involved in the sex trade, as if that was attacking the victims. Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms denied any evidence this was the case, but she was sadly mistaken, as the attacked massage parlors were previously targeted by law enforcement and were on the sex rating app RubMaps as locations for prostitution.

Some media noted the ages of the victims and stated this somehow suggested sex was not involved; a simple Google search would reveal a story from SupChina, an all-things-Chinese web service, entitled “Chinese moms in America’s illicit massage parlors” explaining the more than nine-thousand illicit massage parlors in the United States staffed and run by 35-55 year-old Chinese women. It’s an empathetic and personal story about women trying to make ends meet for their children, but it belies the notion that “Asian massage parlors as brothels” are somehow a fantasy imposed by others. The Times even ran an earlier March story (before the attack) confirming the size and illicit activities of these parlors, although that story highlighted the Asian organized crime ties of the industry.

The President and Vice President used a previously-scheduled Atlanta visit to mourn the deaths and decry anti-Asian racist violence, but where in the preceding facts is that racism? The claim seems to go all the way back to the first national case, in San Francisco in January.

Back then Vicha Ratanapakdee, an eighty-four year-old retiree of Thai descent, was taking his daily walk in the Anza Vista neighborhood of San Francisco. Perhaps you saw his story? The unprovoked attack was caught on video and is frankly, shocking. He was violently knocked off his feet and hit his head on a garage door. He died in the hospital days later. His assailant was a nineteen year-old black man named Antoine Watson. The media coverage inevitably cited a rising tide of anti-Asian violence and linked it to former President Trump’s “China virus” tweets, despite any evidence Mr. Watson is a MAGA man or how he was influenced by the President. The local police indicated repeatedly they had no evidence of a racist motive, which was criticized by local activists and ridiculed by the national media.

The apparent ridiculousness of the Trump-Watson connection got me interested, so I waded through tens of cut-and-paste national reports looking for better coverage in the local media. There I found this gem, hidden away by the barrage of the national media narrative:

Watson was “apparently vandalizing a car” when Ratanapakdee looked toward him and changed directions on his walk, (Assistant District Attorney) Connolly said in his detention motion, citing surveillance footage from the scene. The teenager then sprinted “full speed” at Ratanapakdee an instant after the elderly man looked back at him, according to the motion. Ratanapakdee was sent flying backward and landed onto the pavement. A witness told police they heard a voice yell “Why you lookin’ at me?” twice before hearing the apparent impact, prosecutors said. Sliman Nawabi, a deputy public defender representing Watson, disputed the perception that the attack was racially motivated.“There is absolutely zero evidence that Mr. Ratanapakdee’s ethnicity and age was a motivating factor in being assaulted,” Nawabi said. “This unfortunate assault has to do with a break in the mental health of a teenager. Any other narrative is false, misleading, and divisive.” Nawabi said Watson comes from a biracial family that includes Asians and had “no knowledge of Mr. Ratanapakdee’s race or vulnerabilities” since the elderly man was wearing a mask, hat, sweater and jeans.
Michael Barber in the San Francisco Examiner, February 8th, 2021

Oh, and Watson was with a woman named Malaysia Goo, who was at the scene of the attack, was arrested as an accomplice-after-the-fact, but was later released and not charged.

So we have a man of Black-Asian descent with an (possibly) Asian woman, vandalizing a car, seeing a man covered from head-to-toe looking at him. Then the suspect knocks the potential witness off his feet. These are points upon which both the District Attorney and the Public Defender agree. These are points not mentioned by national media piece. It would be easier to find Waldo in a sea of red hats than to find the racism in this story. Yet it remains exhibit #1 of anti-Asian hate.

Some may wonder about the data cited repeatedly showing an increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in recent years. I’ve gone on long enough here, so I’ll save that part of the story for a future post. Suffice it to say there is the media narrative, there are numbers, and there is data, but all three don’t get along well together.

What’s the harm in jumping to conclusions about racism and hate crimes? First and foremost, every debunked or manufactured claim of racism undermines the many real cases of racist violence. Second, hate crimes involve proving a mindset, and any attempt to do so requires examining all the various relationships involved in the crime. It’s a major reason prosecutors don’t like to take hate crimes charges to court. If you want to prove the Georgia man hated Asian American women, you’re going to have to let the defense demonstrate all the ways he “spent time” with them, so to speak. Whose end does that serve? Third and finally, lost in all this nonsense about who-hates-whom-and-why is this simple fact: people were murdered. Which is a serious crime. Innocent people became victims and died at the hands of violent criminals. These are real crimes which call out for real justice, not hate crimes demanding social justice.