p_c_neary@hotmail.com

America’s Race Problem

I seriously considered leaving this post empty. Just a title. An obscure existential point? Was it not really there? Was it a fragile white page? Would you infer what I was implying?

I also considered starting with a provocative quote, like:

But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle…One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is not in between safe space of ‘not racist.’ The claim of ‘not racist’ neutrality is a mask for racism.
Ibram X. Kendi, “How to be an Antiracist”

But such language is the jargon of the activist, leaving no room for discussion, no way to exchange ideas. It is the language of exclusion, not reason. So let us reason together.

Contra Kendi, does America have a race problem? If so, what is it? And then what must be done?

First it pays to define the problem (always, says the engineer-by-training). If we ask “does America have a race problem?” we necessarily imply something unique. If everybody everywhere has a race problem (and they do), and America’s is the same as everywhere else’s, well then, there is nothing American to discuss. We could talk about racism in general, and why people instinctively distrust those who look differently. Let’s accept that as a fact (people do distrust “the other”) and let’s look at what may be unique about America.

America prides itself as a nation of immigrants. America calls itself a nation committed not to a race or creed, but to an idea: freedom. France sent the statue of Liberty Enlightening the World as a gift to America, in recognition of those self-evident truths we hold so dear: “. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable (sic) rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Yet America practiced slavery while enacting those words. It massacred Native Americans, abandoned freed slaves, derided Irish and Italian refugees, exploited Chinese laborers and imprisoned Japanese Americans. Certainly these facts alone make the case that America has a racism problem. Except every country and race has similar stories. The only unique thing here is the glaring discrepancy between actions and ideals.

To be uniquely American, the racism would need to have some distinct American characteristic. Not all these groups were immigrants, and other countries in the New World display similar discrimination between those who were here, those who came, and those who “mixed.” Mexico’s history is replete with struggles that can be directly tied back to Peninsulares (Spaniards born in España), Criollos (Spaniards born in Nueva España), Mestizos (of mixed race), and Ejidos (from the Mesoamerican peoples). Not all the groups subject to American racism were–to borrow an anachronism from today–people of color (although “Know Nothings,” the Proud Boys of their day, tried to paint the Irish and Italians as “white n-words”).

Run the tape of American history forward, and what do you find? The Irish and Italians consolidate and gain power. Latinos arrive in waves, either returning home with agricultural or economic seasons or assimilating as the second largest American ethnic minority group (although they are a disparate, heterogeneous group). Asian Americans are mirroring the patterns of the Latino population (and will eventually become the third largest ethnic group), only they are succeeding faster and in a more dramatic fashion. Elite academic institutions actively discriminate against various Asian Americans because–strictly relying on test scores–they would crowd out all other ethnic groups in the student body. Native Americans remain such a small contingent as to be statistical outliers: that they have not done well is obvious, but they’ve done better than some indigenous groups (try to find some Mexica, for example).

Which leaves African Americans. Their story, which we memorialize each February during African American History month, is unique in that they are the only such group brought to the land of freedom in chains. They are the only such group that had a governmental policy to free them (the Civil War and Reconstruction), yet they are also the only group abandoned by the same federal government (federal policy toward Native Americans never considered making them full members of American society, which was the initial goal of Reconstruction). These are historical facts.

These facts are often cited by the anti-racist, white fragility theories of Mr. Kendi and others. But do the facts support the theories and do the theories accurately describe the problem? If America is systematically racist to its core, why do millions of brown-skinned peoples quite literally march to the southern border begging to get in? They might have been excused for their ignorance once upon a time, but today, the internet has all the data they need. Why do thousands of Asians take a spot in administrative queues that may last years or decades? Why have three-quarters of the emigrants of Africa–since 1990–attempted to locate in America, where their black skin dooms them to second class status?

Something different, not systemic white racism, is going on here. If it was systemic and all-encompassing, a Jamaican-Indian couple would not have chosen to raise their daughter as “black” in 1960s Oakland, and we would not have our first black Vice President. Such a choice, and it was that by their own admission, would have been child abuse if it consigned her to a life of second-class status. In area after area where past practices of racism prohibited or limited African American participation, the elimination of those limits was followed by African American excellence: sports, music, media, law, medicine, politics and on and on.

Today, most African Americans are middle class or better. Most do not live in inner cities, but in suburbs and small cities. Most do not have a serious criminal record. They graduate high school at the same rate as the white majority. There are successful black-majority cities (Atlanta) and suburbs (Prince Georges county). There are black role models in every profession. What do these contra-indications mean? While in-depth studies of the black community demonstrate significant progress in the fifty years since 1968 riots, there are also data which point to lasting issues.

African american college graduation rates have lagged. Black unemployment recently improved but remains stubbornly high. One-third of African American males have felony convictions. Black household income, family wealth, and home ownership have only marginally improved (relative to whites) in fifty years. How to reconcile these competing data?

If you believe in critical race theory, you ignore positive developments, blame all negative outcomes on systemic racism, and draw a line in the sand called anti-racism. However, if as the anti-racists posit, America is racist to its core, and the entire system is rigged to protect fragile white egos, we never would have developed the America we have today. This does not mean racism is not a problem: racism is a problem everywhere, all the time. Let me repeat that: racism is a problem everywhere, all the time. But what confronts America is not the all-explaining, systemic racism imagined by anti-racists, but a much more specific challenge: the combination of a small black urban underclass and the soft racist policies that enable and prolong it.

When people imagine the plight of the American black community, what they envision is an urban wasteland with high rates of crime and violence, few jobs, poor housing and services, lousy schools, and no grocery stores. This description is no different from various ethnic minority ghettos of days gone by, and it remains accurate. Why has only this one persisted? There are two main reasons.

First, the racist limits on where blacks can live are devastating to the family, the community, housing prices, wealth accumulation, job and educational opportunities, health and victimization from crime. The solutions to this situation are not easy, but are well understood. The housing discrimination (redlining) which created and limited these communities has been carried on for decades under multiple mayoral and state government administrations. Why? It props up the property values of affluent city neighborhoods, keeps their schools segregated, and limits exposure to crime. This policy preference has persisted despite decades of Democratic Party control of major cities, and even despite the development of black-majority polities and local governments!

Which points to the second reason: a willingness among black and white activists to honor anti-social behaviors within the black community as some kind of legitimate, indigenous culture. The urban hellscape I described earlier was consistent across racial and ethnic groups, but previous inhabitants were forced to choose: abandon the anti-social behavior or be locked up or deported. Only the African-American community has been given a different alternative: stay in the slums and make a virtue out of the vices. Given the lack of opportunities (of all types), it is not surprising a number (remember, still a minority!) choose to remain mired. None of the anti-social behaviors were unique to black culture, nor did they stem from some mythic African past. Yet now they are celebrated.

There are overwhelming social science data on the negative effects of single-parent families, paternal absence, truancy, toleration of petty crime or exposure to drug use. One doesn’t have to criticize those struggling with these issues in recognizing what the data say. Add these factors in to the previous mix of poverty and hopelessness I described earlier and you have a toxic cultural brew. Affirm this toxic mess as a cultural inheritance and you have our current state of affairs.

Remember, it’s not that successful African Americans don’t face racial slights, indignities, and tangible torts: they absolutely do, every day. This remains a challenge we must all continue to face. Successful African Americans have the character to ignore them, the resources to avoid the provocations, or the access to legal or social remedies. But this is not the case for black urban underclass, and the problems there won’t be fixed with the same solutions.

I’ve touched on the solution before: a real effort to eliminate redlining’s legacy and to foster the growth and retention of a black middle class in the cities. Nowadays, the first thing a successful black family does is leave the city. Assisting them in becoming home-owners in the city’s affluent districts, or remaining in gentrifying neighborhoods, is a tangible and feasible policy. So is building affordable housing in those same areas and redeveloping the remaining areas. This in turn improves educational and professional prospects. But this would mean big-city mayors taking on the segregated, affluent power centers of their metropolises. Don’t hold your breath.

Even all this–by itself–won’t succeed. Work must also be done with leaders of the African American community to acknowledge those anti-social behaviors which have previously been tolerated or even celebrated. Past efforts in this vein have faltered as they were painted by activists as “blaming the victim,” which, in the absence of any other program to correct the problems, was true. However, no policy will succeed without addressing the self-harm the black community does. Strengthening the black nuclear family and addressing the problems associated with fatherlessness are key components. Again, where are the courageous leaders who will take this stand?

The over-emphasis on race embodied by the anti-racism movement and Critical Race Theorists defines the problem all wrong. When all you see is race, every issue becomes racism. Focusing on police violence is daft when only three percent of black murder victims are victims of police violence. Citing the greater effect of the coronavirus on African Americans is misguided when what we are seeing is not genetic, but the side effect of poverty and poor health care. Politicians and activists can take credit for meaningless gestures: changing school names while the school itself remains a shambles, or removing statues that are tributes to a history not even taught. And so the game goes on.

If you get the cause and effect wrong, you most certainly have defined the problem wrong.

And two wrongs still won’t make it right.

What Just Happened? Texas

Seeing the so-called news coverage about the blizzard and power outages in Texas, I wanted to do (another) post criticizing all the partisan hot-takes exploiting a natural disaster (also a man-made one, to boot!) to play politics. You know, those blaming “fragile green power” (the GOP), “Red States” (Democrats), or “unbridled capitalism” (Democratic Socialists), to name a few.

Instead, I decided to start another occasional series (What Just Happened, or perhaps WJH?) to give as straightforward as possible a review of some recent event. For the purposes of being as objective as possible, this will never be as instantaneous as a Tweet-storm, but it should be much more factual.

So what just happened in Texas? First and foremost, a snow and ice storm. Now Texans all know that the state gets snow and ice. Even a Yankee like me remembers a January 1st Dallas ice storm as the backdrop for the infamous Joe Montana “chicken soup” game when Notre Dame scored twenty-three points in the final eight minutes to beat the Houston Cougars in the 1979 Cotton Bowl.

A shameless lead-in to an Irish football story

So these storms are not normal, but are not rare. In fact, similar blizzards caused similar outages in 1989 and again in 2011.

Texans like to claim their state is unique, and when it comes to energy, they are right. Texas was the first big energy producing state, and to this day remains the largest US energy-producing state. Back in the 20th century, when electrification was all the rage, Texas was the first to build electricity-sharing networks. Texas looked at its own growth potential, the (then) weak energy potential of its neighbors, the federal government which claimed jurisdiction over interstate energy associations, and decided: we’ll go it alone! So all Texas (less San Antonio and parts of the Panhandle) is on its own, separate electricity network.

How did that work out? Pretty well; for the next seventy years, Texas had plenty of energy to fuel a building boom while enjoying some of the cheapest energy prices anywhere. Texas electricity rates are among the lowest in the nation. They averaged (before the blizzard) about 11 cents per kilowatt hour, although even residential users could find wholesale providers at rates as low as 5 cents per kilowatt hour! ((Note: wholesale providers are advising residential customers to immediately change providers, as now they are charging rates–high demand, low supply–that result in thousand dollar bills!)) Houston went from a small town to the 4th largest US city, and Houstonians could run their air conditioners all-day, most of the year, and pretend the city wasn’t built partially over a swamp.

After the 1965 East Coast blackout, Texas created the Electric Reliability Council of Texas or ERCOT. As the name implies, this non-profit was supposed to ensure Texans never faced a blackout. Over its history, ERCOT was relatively successful: Texas experienced major heat waves (when electricity consumption is at absolute peak) but never a heat-wave induced blackout. But Texas did experience blizzard-induced blackouts in 1989 and 2011. ERCOT was supposed to ensure lessons learned from 2011, along with the introduction of renewable sources (wind and solar) would prevent another blizzard blackout.

The problem in the summer is that electricity demand peaks. People (generally) keep their homes cool even when they’re not there, and of course the offices, stores and restaurants must keep cool too. The advantage is that hot weather generally does not affect electric power generation capacity. Some generative capacity can surge-on-demand (nuclear, natural gas, coal; wind and solar vary, but generally cannot be surged on demand). So the power authority surges to meet demand and there is no problem. Or, the power authority asks others in its network to share additional energy, and still no problem . . . except for Texas, which has no one else with whom to share.

Winter generally has less demand, so normally any increase in demand can be covered by surge, even in Texas. But, or should I say BUT, winter can affect those surge systems. Water pipes (at nuclear plants) or gas lines freeze. Tanker trucks get stuck. Wind turbines freeze. Snow covers solar panels (briefly) or falling snow blocks the sun. Meanwhile, people are stuck in their homes which may not be adequately insulated.

The New York Times created an excellent graphic (they had to ruin it with their explanatory article) showing day-by-day electrical power production under ERCOT:

Power production, by day, before and during the blizzard

You can clearly see several things:

Natural gas not only did not surge, it dropped significantly.
Coal, too experienced a small drop.
Even nuclear had a small drop due to one plant’s closure.
Wind dropped by the greatest percentage and slowly recovered (no, it didn’t cause the blackout).
Solar actually surged, although only in the daylight hours (duh).

Ever wonder why there was a system blackout when the graph shows some power being generated at all times? Power distribution systems are designed to run within tolerances. When demand greatly exceeds electric supply, surges happen which can result in component failures, fires, even explosions. Thus when things get really bad, it’s always better for the power authority to shut it down than risk having to replace costly, perhaps rare systems. That’s a worst case for which they’re prepared.

Several folks have voiced criticisms like “why did turbines freeze in Texas and not in Alaska?” or “why do solar panels work in space, but not Texas?” The second one is too stupid to be believed (it’s not the cold, it’s the snow; there is no snow in space). But the first hints at the problem: gas and water lines, turbines, and delivery vehicles can be winterized, and they were supposed to be. But they weren’t. We don’t know yet why.

Before we jump to the obvious conclusion, consider one more thing: the paradox of worst-case planning. How much do you spend preparing for the worst case? Texas experienced three outages, lasting less than two weeks total, over the last thirty-two years. In the meantime, the daily headline (for over eleven thousand days) was “Texas has the nation’s cheapest energy.” Winterization is cost effective, but not cheap. Any company which went ahead and did it was at a cost disadvantage to others in Texas as they passed along the costs to their customers. The same people attacking the Texas government had nothing but sympathy for Puerto Rico, where Prepa failed to plan for hurricanes which are far more frequent. The American federal government continues to subsidize the rebuilding of homes in flood plains rather than force homeowners to move in order to qualify. Sometimes government acts like a bad parent that lets the kids have candy before dinner.

What about the moral costs of failing to prepare? Twenty-two (at last count) Texans died due to the blizzard, millions were seriously affected, and some even needed to flee (that’s for you, Senator Cruz!). Yet in bluest of blue Illinois, where blizzards are an annual event, eleven people died due to the storm, and millions were affected, and so on. Blizzards kill people and destroy property for the same reason viruses spread: that’s what they do.

So what just happened in Texas? A rare but not unprecedented winter storm, perhaps a type becoming more common. A long-ago policy decision restricted options. The State government failed to confirm whether systems were winterized; we’ll know eventually whether they were mislead or incompetent. Networks proved (once again) to be more robust, although some engineers have pointed out the larger US western electrical network also experienced rolling blackouts, and if Texas had been attached to it, the entire system might have collapsed! Finally, preparation is less costly than recovery . . . if the worst case happens.

Oh, we can certainly confirm hindsight remains 20/20, and politics is always in play.

Mexican Expat Myths #2: You can not criticize the government

This is another oft-repeated saying among expats in Mexico, and yet it sounds odd. It usually comes amidst a heated online discussion, where one party scolds the other, “you can be deported if you criticize the (Mexican) government.” Such a bold statement certainly has an effect in chilling the conversation, but is it true?

You’ll find many expats who remember a case of someone who was deported for criticizing the government or engaging in politics. Or they heard from someone else of a case. But go and Google it for yourself, and it’s hard to find one. The closest I could find was a 2008 case in Merida of a young male expat who claimed he was avoiding a protest rally when Mexican authorities seized him and deported him for engaging in politics. The vast majority of American expats deported (there were only 750 Americans deported in 2020, and those numbers have been steady for decades) were longtime visa overstays (or people in Mexico with no visa at all).

All this goes back to the Mexican constitution. It said (Article IX) that, “Only Citizens of the Republic may take part in the political affairs of the country.” That is pretty plain in black & white. It went further (originally) in Article XXXIII which stated the President “shall have exclusive authority to expel from Mexico, immediately and without trial, any foreigner whose stay is deemed inconvenient.” Wow. That is as blanket a statement of the authority to deport as you’re likely to find!

It is easy to see how that absolute ban on politics and the blanket deportation language led many expats to assume you can’t criticize the government. But there is much more in the Mexican Constitution, and the issue is more nuanced than it would appear. Article I of the document gives all people, not just citizens, “. . . the human rights recognized in this Constitution and in those international treaties to which the Mexican State is a party, as well as the guarantees for their protection, whose exercise cannot be restricted nor suspended except in the cases and under the conditions established by this Constitution.” Article IX says, “The right to associate or unite peacefully for any licit objective cannot be stifled; but only those citizens of the Republic may take part in the country’s political matters.”A 2011 revision changed the President’s blanket authority thusly: “The Executive of the Union, after a hearing, may expel foreigners from the country on the basis of the law…”. Those additions changed the plenary authority of the President to exile an expat to something that must be adjudicated with due process.

Clearly the Mexican government has been liberalizing the rights of foreign residents, but one can see there remains a clear red-line: no political activity. Yet even this is murky. Some expats were appalled by the last American administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP, commonly called “Stay in Mexico”) which forced non-Mexican asylum seekers to await a hearing while remaining in Mexico. Expats spoke publicly against it. But the MPP was an agreement with the government in Mexico City, so the expat protestors were (wait for it) criticizing the position of the Mexican federal government! Yet they all still seem to be around.

So how to interpret all this? Engaging in political speech or action will likely offend someone and get you in trouble. This would include fund-raising, marching, promoting one or the other party: it doesn’t matter whether you are pro- or anti-administration, you might offend someone from another party who could report you. Discussing issues in general, talking with friends, even around a local, is highly unlikely to land you in trouble. Go online in social media sites and the odds get worse, since now there is a record (to be misconstrued, possibly) and you don’t control who sees it. Make yourself a general nuisance to the host nation by leading marches and starting movements, publishing tracts and proposing policies? More likely still: Adios, muchachos! In the end, there are very few recorded cases of expats being deported for engaging in political activity; more often it’s a case of immigration fraud. So have your paperwork in order, and don’t sweat it.

Final judgment: Expats can not criticize the government; Partially True.

Mexican Expat Myths #1: You can not have a gun in Mexico

You’ll hear this common wisdom all the time among expats, sometimes with the added sarcasm of “this isn’t the United States” or “please don’t come here, you gun nut.” Those are the cleaned up versions. Questions about guns seem to bring out the worst in judgmentalism among some expats, but what’s the law say?

Mexico’s constitution (Article X), like its northern and southern neighbors, specifically protects the right to keep a firearm in one’s residence for the purpose of self-protection. This right extends to citizens and legal permanent residents (such as expats). There are many further restrictions, on the size of the weapon, the types of ammunition, permits to carry or hunt with it, buy or sell one. This web of restrictions is what leads expats to believe you can’t have a gun in Mexico, but it’s not quite true.

Part of the confusion about guns is that Mexico’s firearm laws are federal ones, applying across the entire country, while America has some federal rules and a patchwork of state and local regulations that vary between practically denying the constitutional right to promoting mandatory gun ownership (see Kennesaw, Georgia). In Mexico, there is only one set of rules and little tolerance, unless you’re a cartel.

There is only one legal weapon shop in Mexico, near Mexico City, and it is run by SEDENA, the Mexican Department of Defense. You can pre-apply for a permit to bring a weapon into Mexico, but the weapon must meet all the requirements mentioned above and then be carefully brought across the border with much paperwork. As always when laws, paperwork, and border guards are involved, there is a lot of room for miscommunication, corruption, and trouble. Americans who accidentally show up at the border with weapons or ammunition (like they do everyday at US airports) find themselves immediately incarcerated and the subject of diplomatic negotiations.

Why is Mexico so tough on weapons? For one thing, there is that long history of revolutions in which firearms play a significant role. Lately there is the raft of narcotics-related cartel violence. While many weapons confiscated can be traced back to the United States, many thousands more come from the vast quantities of AK-47s (the weapon of choice) that remain available throughout Central America, left over from the various Soviet-sponsored revolutionary movements there. Suffice it to say that the Mexican government feels about weapons trafficked from the United States the same way the US feels about drugs coming from Mexico.

Cue Glenn Frey: “the politics of contraband, the smuggler’s blues.”

So, yes, you can have a gun as a legal permanent resident, but many types of guns are prohibited, there are further limits on numbers, you have to pre-apply to bring one, you have to go through a paperwork hassle to buy one, there are permits for transporting (with significant costs), and your chance of being approved for carrying the weapon (outside your home) are negligble. One can see how some expats, comparing gun ownership here to the States or in Canada, opine “you can’t have one.”

Finally, that right to defense of one’s self at home in Mexico got strengthened in 2018. The changes made it permissible to hit, injure, or even kill any intruder (armed or not) in one’s home, and forbid criminal prosecution of the home defender in such cases. But note this new law, like “castle doctrine” laws elsewhere, has to be interpreted, so don’t accept it as carte blanche.

The larger question is “why would you need a gun?” In the States, this is an incendiary question, because one doesn’t require a reason to exert a constitutional right: “just cause I want to” is perfectly fine. This is clearly not the case in Mexico, where the constitutional right is hemmed in in ways that resemble “why?” For lakeside residents, it’s easy to explain why not. I didn’t own weapons in the States, but I did support the 2nd Amendment. I know expats here who did own weapons in the States, but don’t here (neither do I). Why not? No threat to justify it. Violent crime here locally is minimal, and even less so for expats (another myth I’ll address later).

Final disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. If you are thinking of bringing a weapon to Mexico, or buying one here for self-defense, contact a lawyer who can walk you through all the angles. If there is one thing I have learned in Mexico, it is this: there is the law, and there is what happens; the two don’t necessarily coincide.

Final judgment: Expats can not have a gun; mostly false.

Attention to (Executive) Orders

President Biden has been on a tear these past two weeks, daily signing executive orders to a running total of twenty-five. What are these things, and what do they mean? As the name implies, an Executive Order (or Executive Action, the name sometimes changes) is just an order issued by the President as Chief Executive. It has the force of law within the Executive branch, meaning when I worked for the federal government, I could have been fired, fined, or jailed for violating one. But it is not a law, which requires the passage of Congress and signature of the President (as Bill from Schoolhouse Rock taught us):

Executive orders go right back to President Washington, and recent Presidents aren’t even in top ten when it comes to numbers: Teddy Roosevelt cranked out over one thousand, as did Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge; FDR spouted over three thousand, and set the record for average per year, too! Recent Presidents (starting with Clinton) started returning to executive orders as it became increasingly impossible to get any agreement on new laws in the Congress. Like a law, an executive order can be reviewed by the courts and deemed illegal or unconstitutional. When an executive order conflicts with a law, the law wins. Finally, an executive order can be rescinded by the President or his successor at will.

Some of the best and worst policies in US history came about as executive orders. FDR used EOs for many of his New Deal policies, but he also imprisoned Japanese Americans with one. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, but so was his policy to deny habeas corpus in Maryland. Truman desegregated the US military with one, but he tried–and failed–to seize the nation’s steel mills with one, too! Woodrow Wilson found time to issue an executive order covering the use of torches for hunting in the Panama Canal Zone, and Herbert Hoover went all meta by issuing an executive order on the issuance of (wait for it) executive orders.

So are these EOs, as they’re called, important? Maybe, maybe not. Consider some examples. The President can use an EO to adjust how the federal government enforces a law. Take immigration. According to law, people inside the United States illegally are to be deported after due process. Each President can issue an EO indicating what emphasis should be placed on which groups: for example, President Obama directed (via EO) deportation be focused on violent criminals, in effect (since there are only so many immigration officers and courts) allowing many people eligible for deportation to stay in the United States. This was a very significant executive order, with very real effects on average people.

Executive orders can also be symbolic. President Trump’s “Muslim ban” (a pejorative I’ll use just as shorthand) was an Executive Order reviewed by the Supreme Court and found constitutional, primarily because the actual EO highlighted the fact that all the countries included either failed to provide–or did not have–data on their citizens for the US to consider for visa purposes. President Biden faced a dilemma: if he simply rescinded it, he would be permitting visa applications which could not be verified. So his new EO rescinds the broad policy put forward by President Trump, but retains a review of its information sharing requirements, which will likely have the same effect. Visa applicants from the countries previously banned are still going to have to provide positive proof they are not suspect in any way–a thing very hard to do.

Executive orders may cause more confusion than execution. President Biden rescinded all of President Trump’s immigration-related EOs. Except no immigration is currently permitted due to the pandemic, so no one can come anyway. But his administration telegraphed the changes before the inauguration, so now thousands of asylum-seekers are headed to the border. That, and Mexico is not very happy with the new administration, so they changed their laws (partially) to prevent the US from returning non-Mexican families across the border. So now the CDC says no one can cross, the Mexican government says no one can cross back, and the border patrol has been told what not to do (family separations). Result: migrants are walking across the border and being quarantined then released in the United States to await further processing in already overwhelmed immigration courts. Tricky business, what?

At times it is unclear what effect an EO will have. President Biden enacted a mask wearing requirement for all forms of public transportation. So if you take a bus or train, or go an airport, you too have to wear a mask. Of course, most of these locations already had a Departmental, Agency, or local requirement for masks. But now the EO means that if a federal employee (say, a National Park Service Ranger) lets you go maskless, they can be fired. And that bus driver (not a federal employee) must not let you board without a mask. Do they refuse to move the bus? Call police? Throw you off? All this remains to be worked out. I trust most people will just wear masks, but there have been several incidents on airplanes, so who knows?

It is a shame that there is so little bipartisanship in Washington that Congress can’t pass laws, so Presidents rely on possibly ephemeral executive orders. It is worse in my opinion that the media does such a poor job of explaining what the orders do or don’t do, instead characterizing them by numbers or failing to note the complexities altogether. This has and will only lead to more public distrust, when the policy outcomes don’t match the rhetoric. President Trump had a number of executive orders on “buying American” and now President Biden has one, too. Did any smart media source point out that United States treaties have the force of US law, so commitments made therein trump these orders? Did you know that any federal procurement over $182,000 USD (a paltry sum to the federal government) must be open to bids from twenty US allies under the Government Procurement Act? But it sounds good, no?

Executive orders appear to be a policy option which will be around for the near future. They can sound grand and be meaningless, or sound harmless and be far-reaching. They are simply a tool, and with all tools, over-reliance is a problem. As we used to say in the Army, if your only tool is an M1A1 tank, every problem looks like a target.

Pay Back time

No, no, not the “payback is a . . .” type. The good kind!

We’ve benefited from numerous suggestions about things to watch while on lock-down . . . again. I thought I would pass along what we watched, what we liked and disliked, in case anybody else is in a similar need.

Judy & I basically stopped watching network TV in the late 90’s. Seinfeld lurched to an exhausted, silly ending (in my opinion), which was an apt metaphor for most major network fare. Friends kept suggesting “edgy” shows on cable, but they seemed mostly gimmicks. Sex scenes replaced good writing, token characters (“look, the first x on network TV”) replaced depth. I knew there had to be good television out there, but I was unwilling to wade through the dreck to find it.

Hunkered down today with satellite TV and decent Internet speeds, we had literally decades of material available, and more important, the longer vista of critical reviews (and friends) to guide us.

We enjoyed The Sopranos, which held to high production standards across six seasons. The characters were interesting, if not always likable. You could make a very entertaining drinking game by taking a shot every time an episode shows a completely unnecessary scene set in the strip bar. One could almost here the producer saying,”hey, this is cable, dammit, get the naked dancers in here.” And no, I didn’t really like the en . . . . .

Likewise, The Wire was excellent for five seasons. We really enjoyed seeing actors we liked in later series, here in their first breakthrough roles. This series got so many plaudits for its gritty realism, and they were well-deserved. What kept bothering me was: how could so many people watch a show like this and NOT begin to understand the problems of urban crime and race? It’s all there literally in black and white.

Breaking Bad was a guilty pleasure: such well-crafted plot-lines and characters. Sadly, it completed a transition I noticed at the time, from cheering for good (if flawed) characters to asking us to cheer for despicable ones. Judy & I began debating whether there were ANY identifiably “good” characters in the series, and as the five seasons unfolded, we both concluded “none.” The sequel movie El Camino and prequel series Better Call Saul are just as good, and “bad.”

On a lighter note, the recently concluded Schitt’s Creek was a joy to watch. The Canadian production (eighty episodes, but only twenty-plus minutes per) proved the sitcom is not dead, it just requires writers. Now, this is not earth-shattering television: the story line is basically Green Acres with a side story of a gay couple. But it marked the return of very flawed characters who (mostly) evolve in positive ways. And it’s funny, even if just for the facial expressions of Eugene & Dan Levy (Father & son). Bonuses: No laugh track, no gratuitous sex.

Another favorite was the Starz/BBC dramatic miniseries The Spanish Princess about Catherine of Aragon. We stumbled onto this one before realizing it was third in a series, so we need to double back to the The White Queen and The White Princess. Together they tell the tale of the various powerful women involved with the English War of the Roses and subsequent reign of Henry VIII. There are some historical liberties taken: no, Catherine did not ride into battle in maternity armor (she elsewhere and at a different time gave a rallying speech to the troops wearing such armor), but the discrepancies are only minor and the stories remain solid.

The only thing we gave up on so far was Ozark, which seemed to take the same general theme as Breaking Bad and the production quality of The Sopranos. Every character was despicable from the get-go, and the plot contrives early on to get into the strip club business, because, “hey, get the naked dancers in here!” Sorry, derivatives need not apply.

Turning to movies, here are a few lesser known treats:

Find the full length director’s cut of Apocalypse Now and watch it. But first, do me a small favor. Find a copy (or free PDF) of Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, the book upon which the Coppola movie is based. It’s short, and you probably were forced to read it in high school or college and quickly forgot it. But the movie is not about Vietnam, it’s about the issues raised in Conrad’s book: myths about civilized and uncivilized peoples, the confusion of technology and progress, misguided loyalties and the depths a person can sink to when they become unmoored. The movie has about a hundred unforgettable quotes, and of course, this scene:

“Someday this war is gonna end . . . “

Since you have time, how about watching some trilogies as collective stories?

I suggest you begin with the Dollars Trilogy, the three Spaghetti Westerns directed by Sergio Leone and starring Clint Eastwood. Leone didn’t intend that A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly be a trilogy. But Eastwood’s iconic “Man with No Name” is unchanged throughout, bringing the movies together.

Next, an actual trilogy done by Sergio Leone, the “Once Upon a Time” series. These stories capture the essence of different periods and places. Caution: make sure you get the full original versions of these movies. They were initially released in the States with severe editing that made them practically unwatchable! Once Upon a Time in the West covers the mythology of the American Western Frontier, Duck! You Sucker (the real title) covers the Mexican Revolution, and Once Upon a Time in America is the story of Jewish Gangsters in New York City. All very different, and very compelling.

Finally, a really off-the-wall trilogy: the El Mariachi series (by Robert Rodriguez), also called the Desperado series or simply the Mexico series. It comprises El Mariachi, Desperado, and Once Upon a Time in Mexico (an homage to Leone’s work). These are modern Westerns, love stories full of tragic mistakes, revenge, and surreal violence. The first was practically a home movie, but proved so interesting it sparked a sequel that brought Antonio Banderas in for the lead with Salma Hayek as his love interest. Steve Buscemi, Cheech Marin, and Quentin Tarantino have bit parts (Google “Tarantino’s joke scene in Desperado”. This is a family-friendly blog or I would link to it!). The finale adds in Johnny Depp (as a CIA ‘agent’), Eva Mendes, and Danny Trejo. While it has a meandering plot, it is still good fun and you’ll never look at puerco pibil the same way again!

If you have a favorite series or movie that might deserve another look, or might have been overlooked, please mention it in the comments!

Get Vaccinated (against stupidity)

What to believe about Covid vaccinations? Here’s some common sense (with authoritative links) to avoid senseless politicizing and help you make an informed decision.

— Was the development of the coronavirus vaccines rushed? If by rushed, do you mean they cut corners, then the answer is no. They did take a process that usually happens sequentially and ran it in parallel, which accounts for the unprecedented speed of completion. Vaccines are usually produced in small test batches, then tested for safety (side effects?). After a vaccine passes that test, another small batch is produced and tested for efficacy (does it work?) Then the results are sent to the federal government for review, and the government also reviews and approves the production process. In the case of the coronavirus vaccines, the full human trials were done simultaneously, and the government insured the pharmaceutical companies from liability. It also immediately reviewed the initial production process, approved and authorized full-scale production, and guaranteed to reimburse the companies by either buying the vaccine (if it worked) or paying their costs (if it failed). It was potentially an expensive proposition for the government, but a worthwhile bet nonetheless.

— Some of the vaccines (Pfizer & Moderna) use messenger RNA (mRNA). Is this an unproven technology? Health professionals have been working on mRNA vaccines for almost thirty years, doing clinical trials and injecting this technology into people, so the technology is not new. The problem has been that they hadn’t developed a single successful vaccine, as either other treatments looked more promising (for HIV/AIDS, for example) or the disease threat disappeared (as in MERS and SARS) before they could complete the vaccine development process. The exciting thing this time is it worked and in time! Why is that important? Up to this point, vaccines used either a live virus, a dead virus, or an attenuated virus. The common word: virus. One of the bugaboos of the anti-vaxxer movement was the (true-but-irrelevant) claim they were injecting the disease into you! With mRNA, there is no form of the virus injected into you. This could prove to be a promising new treatment for a variety of diseases.

— What about the claim an mRNA vaccine could affect my DNA? As soon as people hear RNA or DNA, they get concerned, as we all learned DNA is the “building block of life” and messing with it can be tragic. I heard a great explanation of why you shouldn’t worry from Natasha Loder, the health policy editor at The Economist, and it goes like this: the whole purpose of DNA is to create proteins that in turn make life possible (make blood cells, repair neurons, reproduce, everything). DNA does this by generating messenger RNA, little temporary messages that tell cells what proteins to make. So DNA is like a record album on your old phonograph, and mRNA is like the musical notes coming our of the speaker. The notes play and then they are gone. When your immune systems “hears” the notes from the mRNA, it “remembers the tune” and learns how to protect from the virus. Can the song you hear “change” the record playing it? Nope. An mRNA vaccine is also potentially a great response to virus mutation, since the mRNA in the vaccine can be more easily changed to deal with mutations.

—Why is the United States failing at its vaccination program? Define failing. Here’s the most recent data on vaccinations:

The US is currently in 5th place worldwide, and the only large country ahead of the US is the UK. Our vaccination rate is three times higher than the EU or Canada, and six times higher than China. The world leader is Israel, which has advantages in small population, small geographic size, and a national health system set up for imminent emergency (i.e. wartime) function. That, and they don’t count Palestinians in territory under Israeli control. Still lessons to be learned, for sure, but the numbers don’t lie.

The Biden administration has announced plans to give one-hundred million inoculations in its first one-hundred days. Since we achieved the ability to inoculate one million a day before the inauguration, we should easily meet and surpass this goal.

—Did the Trump administration have a vaccine plan or not? At one point, President-elect Biden said “There is no detailed plan that we’ve seen, anyway, as to how you get the vaccine out of a container, into an injection syringe, into somebody’s arm.” An unidentified senior Biden administration official said “There is nothing for us to rework. We are going to have to build everything from scratch.” In response, Dr. Anthony Fauci said “We’re certainly not starting from scratch, because there is activity going on in the distribution.” So the plan did exist, and involved the complex distribution of difficult-to-transport vaccines across the country to medical providers for injection. The task of putting needles in arms was left for the States and health professionals. Who would you prefer do it?

Why? First, the initial vaccines approved have these unique transport requirements; when Johnson & Johnson’s one-shot vaccine is soon approved, it can be easily shipped, making large-scale movement and storage possible. Second, no country is undertaking mass, indiscriminant inoculation. For example, the US CDC recommended sending the limited vaccines to healthcare workers and the elderly. Setting up even a hundred large inoculation sites would not have addressed this target population, which is all over the country and not easily moved to such sites. Medical staff can’t take time off to wait in line, the elderly aren’t mobile. So a slower start was inevitable, but remember, our overall numbers are still strong. Third, there is no federal health infrastructure to help with this problem: no doctors, no nurses, no lists of same. The federal government did help speed the vaccine, and is distributing it. They could have provided more resources to States and medical providers, but that would not have changed the results much. Why not?

— What are the factors slowing the vaccination program? First and foremost, the pandemic! Hospitals and staffs are overwhelmed just when we need them to conduct the vaccinations. State governments are experiencing the same problems they attribute to the federal government, as inspectors aren’t available, employees are remote, resources are strapped. If this was all on the federal response, we would expect to see almost all delivered vaccines to be injected by States. States are averaging using less than fifty percent of their received inoculations! Second, the combination of the difficult storage and transport requirements bouncing up against vaccine resistance. Even medical professionals are reporting between fifteen and fifty percent of their ranks refusing the vaccine, so only about sixteen percent of the initial target population has been vaccinated. Medical staffs include doctors, nurses and a large cadre of less-skilled professionals, many of whom are people of color. These latter groups are especially skeptical of government safety claims and were also affected by irresponsible pre-election claims about “Trump’s vaccine.” If someone says no, there isn’t always someone else eligible for that shot right away. At best, vaccinations are delayed; at worst, vaccines spoil. Third, there are no magic wands to increase production or distribution. As I explained before when discussing Covid testing, these processes are not ones you can ramp up easily using the Defense Production act. The pharmaceutical companies can’t outsource their controlled vaccine production to, oh, say, beer bottlers, and even if they could, would you want them to? The Biden administration has directed the mass production of a syringe which permits more Pfizer doses per syringe than the current one, but take note: Pfizer has agreed to provide the US a set number of doses, so they will send less vaccine if we are using these syringes!

The US state leading the vaccination charge? West Virginia. Yes, a state with lousy health care, poor infrastructure, and an older/sicker/widely dispersed population is succeeding. Why? They skipped participating in the big federal program, worked with local independent pharmacies/doctors/hospitals (whom they know), and used their National Guard (under State, not federal direction) to manage the process. Instead of whining and pointing the finger of blame, they are getting the job done. Their only complaint? They would like more vaccine, please.

There is a role for large federally-run vaccination sites as the number of vaccines and doses increases and the eligibility pool does too. It will be interesting to watch how the federal government runs this effort. Vaccinations are not rocket science, but they do require some training and some medical staff on hand; from where will they come? Stay tuned!

—Should you get a Covid vaccine? This of course is the sixty-four million dollar question. In general, yes. All the vaccines out there (even the Russian and Chinese ones) appear to be safe, although some (the Russian and Chinese ones) have limited efficacy (may not work so well). Even then, some immunity is better than nothing. The more vulnerable you are to serious illness or death from the coronavirus, the greater your need to get vaccinated. Of course consult your doctor, especially if you have a history of severe allergic reactions. We still don’t know whether the vaccine prevents you from being infectious (as opposed to being sick), so even once vaccinated you may still face requirements for masking, social distancing, and testing for public activities. Scientists are gathering data establishing protection from infectivity, so those precautions may be temporary for the inoculated.

Like everything else during this pandemic, getting inoculated is a personal call assessing risk versus gain. Take it seriously, get expert medical advice, and don’t judge others who decide otherwise.

Part Three: Domestic Tranquility

In part one I tried to make people understand the difficulties inherent in the interaction between police and protesters as the latter suddenly changes from a protest to a mob to a riot. In part two I attempted to show that while nearly everyone agrees violence (and its incitement) is wrong, it’s hard to describe when the threshold is crossed. Historically, the United States government treats such violence as a crime, not a national security threat (for good reasons justified by the exceptions to the rule). In part three, I’ll cover the really difficult area: how we get back to normal!

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure (sic) domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United State of America.”
Preamble, US Constitution

Man, could we use some domestic tranquility now! I want to distinguish further two different approaches to the way forward: one centering on punishment, and the other focusing on mercy. For shorthand, the punishment approach I’ll call Reno after US Attorney General Janet Reno, for her decision to end the Waco hostage crisis, and the mercy approach I’ll call Lincoln, for the President’s views on how to deal with the former Confederates. I mean no disrespect to AG Reno, as the DOJ after action report supports her decision. It is not about being right, it’s about going forward and living together.

On November 3rd, 2020, over seventy-four million Americans voted to support a second term for President Donald Trump. Despite receiving the second most votes in American Presidential election history, he lost by seven million popular votes and seventy-four electoral votes. The challenges posed by counting vastly increased mail-in ballots led many to believe President Trump was “ahead” when night fell, but behind in the days that followed. This effect was predicted (called a “red mirage”). In reality, there is no “ahead” nor “behind” in an election; the counting is a process that has no result until it is completed. Our fixation on immediately knowing how the vote counting is proceeding (why? Who absolutely HAS to know who wins on election night?) birthed a myth of a stolen election, a myth which has failed to deploy a single significant piece of supporting evidence.

On January 6th, 2021, tens of thousands of Trump supporters attended a rally in support of this myth. They came in organized groups from all over the country: supported and transported as at every large Washington, DC event. They fervently believed their leader, who incited them to march to the Capitol, where he hoped their presence would intimidate the Vice President, Senators, and Representatives into not certifying Mr. Biden’s victory. Several thousand marchers did so. The protest and the rally march were entirely legal. Yes, they were misguided, but legal. Included in the larger group of protesters were smaller groups which openly planned to conduct violence and occupy the Capitol. This was never legal.

At the outer barriers of the Capitol, protesters overwhelmed police lines and surged forward toward the Capitol building, breaking the law as they broke the lines. While data is incomplete, it appears somewhere between three and five hundred violently fought their way into the Capitol and occupied it for several hours before being allowed to evacuate.

To summarize, tens of millions supported, tens of thousands rallied, thousands marched, and hundreds assaulted.

Take any large protest movement in US history, and you’ll find the same story. Abolition? Yes. Civil Rights? Yes. Prohibition and Repeal? Yes. Women’s Suffrage? Yes. Vietnam war? Yes. Black Lives Matter? Yes. The numbers and percentages vary, but the results remain the same. Any mass movement has protests, and protests beget mobs, and mobs riot and commit violence. And even peaceful movements have splinter associations or opportunists who agree with the ends but not the means, choosing violence as a necessary tool. Even the Capitol as a target is not unique, if you’re familiar with the 1968 riots or the 1954 Puerto Rican pro-independence assault.

No, I’m not comparing the boneheads who smeared feces in the Capitol to the Mothers Against Police Brutality. My point? We have been through this before, and notwithstanding the talking heads trying to rile you up, we’ve been through worse. The treachery at the Capitol was certainly no worse than that of the civil war. The violence less than that of a single day in 1968. The planning less than several thwarted terrorist attacks. It was ugly and unconscionable, but not unprecedented.

One thing that was different was the President called for the rally and intended it to intimidate the electoral process. For that, he merits impeachment, conviction, and disqualification from future federal office (as I already opined).

But what of the movement, the rally goers, the marchers, and the rioters? Nothing has changed for them: they still cling to the myth. Where do we go from here? Braying influencers use the most extreme rhetoric: for treason, death; for insurrection, ten years. Justice demands punishment, but how much and to whom? The interest of domestic tranquility suggests something less harsh.

Here is where the Reno versus Lincoln debate arrives. I propose a Lincolnian approach:

For the millions who believe the election was stolen: they did nothing wrong. They were misled, but that is not a crime. They are no more liable than anyone who has said “Hands up, don’t shoot!” the last six years (no, it didn’t happen, according to some guy named Eric Holder). The incoming President should establish a bipartisan commission to investigate the results of the last two elections (myth-making goes both ways) and demonstrate how the outcomes came to be mistakenly characterized as illegitimate (2016) and a steal (2020). Will this convince everyone? No, but some percentage will look at the results and say: enough. And that’s worth another commission (and I HATE Washington commissions!).

For the tens of thousands attending the rally: nothing. Most knew no more beforehand than anyone else. But for those few speaking at the rally: public censure. Perhaps by the Congress, but certainly by all of us. When you are asked to whip up a crowd, you take responsibility for your remarks, and some of the speeches I have heard appear to be over the line. I don’t want the government prosecuting such speech, but we should all shun it: shame is a neglected part of our repertoire these days.

For those who marched to the Capitol: mostly nothing. This was permitted, and one would have to determine who knew about and overran the perimeters: a daunting task, but one worth attempting. If the authorities can figure it out, charge them with trespassing on federal property.

But for those hundreds who entered the Capitol building: charges of trespassing/unlawful entry/vandalism/theft and the like for every single one of them. And unless they can prove a claim of false identification (several already have), conviction and punishment.

For the subset who evidenced planning for violence, or committed any single act of violence (and there is ample video): prosecution to the full extent of the law for the specific offense. Not treason, not insurrection: felony assault, attempted murder, whatever. In Federal Court.

Now the pièce de résistance (oddly apt in this case), President Biden should offer a conditional pardon to anyone charged above (Lincoln & Johnson did the same). It should include as conditions: publicly accepting blame for the crimes; publicly admitting that the election was not stolen; publicly forswearing any further violence against the US government; and publicly proclaiming the Pledge of Allegiance. It should also be limited to the day of the riot, leaving those who planned for violence beforehand still at risk.

Do those things, and be welcomed back. Do them not, and accept justice.

We don’t need to exaggerate what happened. We do need to be specific about what was legal (a rally) and what was illegal (violence). I have said this from the beginning of the Trump administration: we must consciously avoid lowering the bar (for our behavior and norms), weakening our freedoms (Speech? Assembly?), diluting our system or compromising our laws (Insurrection? Treason? Really?). In response to our debaser-in-chief, so many have opted to debase themselves. This must stop now.

Finally, how to address the lingering discontent. President Trump didn’t cause this, he exploited it while exacerbating it. Much like we were told to treat the Black Lives Matter movement as a wake up call, I suggest we do the same with the nearly violent disquiet among the working classes. Many people seized on Trump as a candidate because they felt he was authentic, he heard them, he was looking out for them. They followed him on Twitter and watched Fox News or OAN because it was the only place they saw or heard anything like their own views. I guarantee that calling all of them white supremacists (remember: seventy-four million!) and banning them from publicly-available, privately-held media will not help the situation, especially when the terms of service being cited are regularly violated by others with impunity.

I don’t like the idea of the federal government regulating private media (FaceBook, Twitter and the like). But some means must be sought to ensure these private media services act justly and not stigmatize one side. If violence is the standard, apply it equally (not exceptions for those I like). If incitement is the standard, apply that equally. Or the federal government could simply remove these companies liability protection and let the courts work it out.

I do know this: the solution to ignorance is not stupidity, but education. The solution to bad speech is more speech, not banned speech. It is axiomatic in the therapeutic professions that “talking it out” works, while keeping it all bottled up doesn’t. Go full Reno: call them traitors, charge the with treason, fire them from jobs, hound them from social media. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Another idea: after the 2000 Florida election debacle, news media voluntarily agreed not to call state election results until all the polls were closed in said state. This was a responsible act, but not enough. I think now the media need to revisit the “Super Bowl” style coverage of election night: Given the possibilities of election challenges and voting irregularities, perhaps we don’t need the media to call elections at all. Perhaps coverage, even exit polls, without specific calls for some cooling off period of days.

President Biden intends to call for unity and comity: I say A-men. But it is easy to be nice to those we like, those with whom we agree. Understanding the other, being magnanimous with an opponent: that’s the salve to our nation’s wounds.

Part Two: Domestic Security

If you watch the news, read a paper, or just surf online, you’ll see people bandy about terms like “coup” or “insurrection” or “treason” or “rebellion”. Some have no idea what they’re talking about, while others have as much or more experience in these issues as I do (thirty-eight years, to be exact). I continue to disagree even with the latter group for one simple reason: while they make studious and serious cases for such language, their reasoning is driven by their emotions, rather than having their emotions prompted by their reasoning. Let me explain.

In these United States, we traditionally treat violence directed at any lawful authority (federal, state, local, tribal or territorial) as a criminal matter, NOT as a national security matter. Even after 9/11, we only unified disparate elements into a Department of Homeland Security to improve information sharing amongst the various border and air/sea port authorities and with non-federal authorities. The FBI retained investigative authority against federal crimes (less counterfeiting and threats to the President et al, which belong to the US Secret Service in DHS).

Why in the wake of the worst terror attack in US history did this remain the case? Because we place such value on individual liberty and freedom of speech that we chose NOT to infringe them even under threat of tremendous assault. You remain free to think the most vile, phobic, sexist, racist thoughts you can imagine. You can even gather together (really or virtually) and share those disgusting thoughts and comments with others. Up to the point you plan violence or take a specific act, you remain free. Even if your target was the US government.

A short digression, if I may. I worked the domestic security issue at DHS in 2010, when a certain Faisal Shahzad attempted to set off a car-bomb in Times Square. He was a naturalized US citizen born in Pakistan who was married, had children, owned a house, had a job and was completing a Master’s degree. He traveled to Pakistan once, where he had family. He was self-radicalized, although we later learned he had attended a bomb-making school while in Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks, a friend heard him say “they had it coming.” That was it. Ten years later, the first truly obvious illegal thing he did was double park an SUV full of explosives in Time Square. This was the risk we accepted, even after 9/11.

We treated it as a crime, and we never turned the elaborate, powerful US Intelligence Community apparatus against the domestic threat. Why? US intelligence could no doubt gather the information to determine all kinds of nefarious intentions domestically. But it would also gather reams of information that represented nothing more than citizens exercising their constitutional rights. The cost to liberty was simply too high a price to pay for effectiveness against this threat.

“Yes, yes,” I hear you think, “but this Capitol Hill assault was a direct attack on our system of government!” and you are correct. But what was the civil war, if not such an attack? And no southerners were ever executed for treason, and its leaders weren’t even tried for it. Lincoln and later Johnson pardoned most accused of these and related crimes, despite the fact they had taken up arms and violated oaths. Even northerners who sided with the Confederacy generally ended up with leniency.

If we invoke national security language like coup or legal terms like treason or insurrection we change the rules of the game. The former calls into play the Intelligence Community or the US military, and no sane American should want that: I can tell you that many intelligence and military professionals would quit rather than comply. The latter lower the bar to crimes which should remain rarely–if ever–charged. The Insurrection act is triggered solely by the President in cases when “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States” and allows him to deploy the military (Posse Comitatus notwithstanding!) to handle it. Yikes! People want to use these terms because they are upset and want to make a statement, but this is bad policy. Why would anyone want to set a new, lower standard for such crimes, knowing that someday it will be used against others?

One final story about domestic security to pull it all together. There are groups in the United States who disavow the legitimacy of the federal government: Sovereign Citizens comes to mind. They don’t pay federal taxes, they resist even traffic citations, they seize government buildings and assault government officers. All the time. All over the country. Most of the members of this movement are harmless followers who don’t follow through, but there are violent activist members, too. If there ever was a group eligible for charging under some of these terms, they are it. These are not right-wing nuts or left-wing nuts, these people are just plain nuts. Yet we let them go, only charging them with tax evasion or fining them or imprisoning them if they conduct a violent attack. Why?

Back in 1993, a man named David Koresh led a cult-like commune called the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. His outlandish behavior and alleged abuse of children brought him to the attention of Texas authorities who could not substantiate any charges. Eventually, Texas got the US Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (USBATF) involved due to suspicions about weapons at the Davidian compound. When USBATF raided it, a firefight ensued and four federal agents (and six Davidians) were killed. This brought the FBI into the case, as the death of federal agents is a federal crime. The FBI under Attorney General Janet Reno laid siege to the compound for fifty-one days, then, attempted to force them out using tear gas and a US Army combat engineer vehicle. The compound caught fire (probably set by the Davidians), and seventy-nine Davidians (including twenty-one children) died.

But that was not the end of the story. You see, a young man named Timothy McVeigh was a protester outside the siege. He had no interest in the Davidians or their cult, but he was pro-gun rights, and the ensuing violence left him a changed man bent on revenge. Two years later, he got his vengeance by blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City on the anniversary of the Waco fire.

Waco wasn’t handled in a routine criminal way. The US government created martyrs at Waco, and reaped the result. It is important to note that the rightness or wrongness of what the government did was irrelevant.

The question before each of us is simple: do you want righteous vengeance or domestic tranquility? You can not have both.

Part One: Domestic Violence

Trying to get my head around the recent events at the Capitol, and fend off some poorly-thought out commentary from the national media, I kept circling around three related issues: how we view violent groups of Americans, how law enforcement and the national security apparatus approaches them, and how the media plays a role. I have labelled these three topics as domestic violence, domestic security, and domestic tranquility. In addressing all three, I will note similarities and differences in each case, but I do so to highlight the larger phenomena: please spare me comments like “you can’t compare the brave BLM members who were brutalized by police to the white supremacists in the Capitol” or the reverse. If you don’t understand how to compare such things without making a value judgment about the rightness or wrongness of the causes, stop reading now and retreat to the safety of your Twitter/Parler feed.

The phrase domestic violence is traditionally used to refer to violence within a couple or family. I find it appropriate here because the larger problem is an American cultural one: our American family is at war with itself. Much like a family, we all take sides and vilify the other. Much like a family, there is a little truth and a lot of hyperbole on both sides. Your large rally with a small riot at the end is ‘the inevitable and understandable cry against injustice’ while mine is ‘racist hate-filled mobs bent on white supremacy.’ And vice versa. Both sides may be correct, and neither may be.

Protests and mobs and riots are peculiar things, made up of many people with disparate intentions. That they act coherently at all is something odd in itself. If you have ever been among a group of fans, chanting and screaming for your team and against the other side (or the refs, or God), you had a small taste of the phenomenon. A protest is simply a group expressing a point of view. When the protest becomes agitated, it starts to turn into a mob. At some point, someone moves from agitation to an act of violence, and the mob becomes a riot, where otherwise reasonable people do violent, unreasonable things. Once the riot has begun, it must burn itself out: either through time, or at the point of police force. Ever ask why rioters burn down their own neighborhood? Because once the riot begins, reason goes out the window. Police force is not always the correct response: at a certain point, rioters stop fearing for their own safety and even deadly force does not deter them.

Sometimes a large police presence deters the mob, other times it incites. Sometimes an arrest halts the violence, sometimes it worsens it. This is a tricky matter, made more so by the fact every protest/mob/riot is different.

But one thing we all, as Americans, can agree on is that until violence happens, the rioters-to-be are simply an angry mob (or even just protesters) practicing their constitutional right to assemble and seek redress of grievances. Perhaps the problem is becoming clearer now. No one can tell when or if the line of violence will be crossed, and yet the police must be prepared in every case, and that preparation may be the spark. Tricky indeed. To borrow a line from A Few Good Men,: “I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post.”

Colonel Nathan Jessup: usually wrong, always entertaining

But let’s not leave it that simple. Remember, the mob and the riot have their own will. Imagine yourself on the police line: When they turn off the approved protest route, are they heading to attack a target, or just lost? The guy carrying a fire extinguisher: is he putting out little blazes that break out, or will he hit me in the noggin with it? Somebody is spraying a mist at me: is it acid (a deadly attack) or urine (just disgusting). There’s a bag flying over my head: a Molotov cocktail or loose stool? (In case you’re wondering, these are all real examples.) In all these cases, people have to make split second decisions between good and bad intentions, legal and illegal acts, violent or just gross behavior. It goes both ways: the face hidden behind the visor with a badge–good cop or racist waiting to crash in my skull with a baton? What do I do when the police line says stop but the people behind me push forward? Why can’t we get a little closer to make ourselves heard? Why is my voice stifled?

For opinion-makers, it’s all so clear-cut tweeting out your outrage and sharing your disturbing allegations, but at the point of attack, it is very murky. Hucksters on all sides inflame the true-believers and repeat the cycle. And our family rift goes on.

Other than deploring violence, there is another area where almost everyone agrees: that those who specifically incite violence deserve more serious sanction. But even there the consensus is illusory. What is incitement to violence? The Supreme Court has held that the act or language must be imminent and likely to cause violence. Thus no one can use something I say today as justification a year from now for a violent act and blame me. Likewise, if I post to no one in particular “the Governor has to go,” my statement is unlikely to cause any specific act (even if by some chance someone did attack a Governor). And the words themselves are tricky; which of the following is an incitement:

“freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed”
“justice that law gives is a punishment.”
“where justice is denied, . . . neither persons nor property will be safe.”
“It’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.”

The first is the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The second is Mahatma Gandhi, the third is Frederick Douglas, and the last is Jacob Chansley, aka the QAnon Shaman, in a note he left for Vice President Pence.

Clear as mud. I invited you into this morass to show that when one takes off their ideological blinders, it is much more difficult to pontificate. We are making snap judgments (“I know that look on his face” was a famous one about a teenager that cost several media outlets millions of dollars) about people we don’t know, spurred on by sources we don’t always check for bias.

And it’s not innocent, for reasons I’ll explain in parts two and three.

Meanwhile, mom and dad are at each other’s throats.