I was against the initial attempt by the House of Representatives to impeach President Trump. I was against it because it was a convenient excuse (a “Pleiku” as I explained). The Democratic Party wanted to impeach the President from the day of his election, and finally settled upon an excuse to do so. It was an ill-fated attempt (one Speaker Pelosi even initially opposed) and one that came to the impotent end it merited.
What is happening today is different. First, let’s remove the emotional aspects of this case. This impeachment is not about removing the President from office. It will barely affect his term. It is also not about the President’s claimed lapse into unreality. He has always believed what he wants, nothing has changed there. Nor is it about his finger on the nuclear trigger. Some may be excused for not knowing this, but Speaker Pelosi does, so she bears responsibility for the hysteria she engendered: there is an entire system involved in nuclear release. It is not a button to be pushed. There are messages, codes, things that must be ascertained and confirmed. The system is designed to allow the President to respond in the case of a surprise nuclear attack. In the absence of indications of inbound missiles, it does not allow the President to launch, willy-nilly.
This NOT how we do it! (Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
So what is this about? Since his surprise (to him) election loss, President Trump has been in engaging in a slow-motion autogolpe (tip of the hat to Ken Copeland for reminding me of the word!), which is a Latin American term for when the leader attempts to retain power through non-legal means. The President began his opposition to the election results legally, but after losing lawsuit after lawsuit, he began seeking and supporting other means.
What happened at the Capitol was the culmination of those efforts. First, a legally permissible rally on the Mall followed by march to the Capitol building, which quickly descended into a riot and occupation. I have watched more video of the event that I care to admit, and it resembles every riot I have ever watched. Yes, there are people making specific threats against specific people, but they are screaming out as groups run and wander all about. In the end, all were allowed to leave, and they did so. Some coup. Law enforcement should treat this as the dangerous riot it was, nothing more but nothing less.
But this was no normal Congressional day. The President called for the rally, and spoke at the rally, and incited the rally members toward the Capitol to intimidate the only activity underway there: the counting and certifying of the electoral college results, finalizing the victory of Joe Biden. Did he specifically call for violence? No, but that is irrelevant. He organized the rally, fired up the rally goers, and sought to pressure the electoral certification. While there was very little chance of this scheme working in any real sense, the very act itself was an affront to the notions of the peaceful transfer of power all Americans should hold dear.
This President has routinely broken norms, and rarely if ever acknowledges any limits that should restrict his behavior. But there are norms and then there are rules, and he broke both. For the latter, he should be charged with impeachment by the House of Representatives and found guilty by the Senate. Most importantly, he should be banned from further federal public office, not only making an example of him but also removing the danger of another Trump candidacy. Perhaps the Republican Party can seize the opportunity to rediscover its moral bearings.
One final point: I still strongly oppose invoking the 25th Amendment. That law was introduced to cover the eventuality of an incapacitated President, not the removal of one who has behaved poorly or even illegally. The former is solved by an election; the latter is reserved for impeachment. The discussion of the 25th Amendment is one that should only be conducted in private among the principals involved (the Vice President, the Cabinet) to compare notes about disability, not bandied about by the Speaker of the House. As I have said before: we must avoid setting new, ill-advised precedents in response to the Trump presidency. Mark my words: having just elected a seventy-eight year old man to the presidency, we’ll hear more about invoking the 25th Amendment in the next four years!
After our recent visit to the States for early Thanksgiving, I saw an interesting e-mail in my queue. The missive claimed to be from a staffer for Peter Greenberg, the travel editor for CBS News. The staffer, Anthony, introduced himself and mentioned Peter was coming to Jalisco to film an upcoming segment. One part of the segment would cover Lake Chapala, and one part of that would be about the curious phenomenon of expats living there. Anthony had discovered my blog (Thanks, Google!) and “would I like to be part of an interview for the segment?”
Being the suspicious sort by nature and training, I googled all the names, offices and shows mentioned. They all checked out as described, so I said “yes.”
Anthony asked for suggestions for “things to do” as part of the interview. We’re a sleepy little village, so this was a challenge. I suggested meeting in the plaza for coffee, walking along the malecon, or a short hike up to the little chapel overlooking the town. All three provided some local color and good backgrounds. At first he accepted the idea of the hike, but after reviewing the route, it was too much for the camera operators, so he countered with a bike ride. I was skeptical: our streets are narrow and cobblestone: hardly conducive to a car-mounted camera or a smooth riding experience. So we agree to ride along the malecon.
As the day of the filming approached, the times and details kept changing. First it was midday, then 7:00 AM, before we finally settled on 11:00 AM. My dear wife–being even more suspicious then I am–kept suggesting this was some kind of a scam: “perhaps to get us out of the house so it could be burgled.” As I said, thirty-eight years of being exposed to my suspicion, added to her own native mistrust, is a powerful mix! “No,” I replied, “it’s just television.” I had a few dealings with televised media back in my work days, and I recalled how spur-of-the-moment it all was. “This shot doesn’t work, let’s go somewhere else” or “ohh, look at that background!” And since the schedule is so tight, the crew literally arrives, makes instant choices, films, and moves on.
For this shoot, Peter Greenberg arrived that morning, having flown red-eye from Spain via New York and Los Angeles. They came to Chapala in the early morning hours to do some bass fishing on the lake, and now we headed to the malecon for our segment. The crew amounted to about twelve people: Peter and his wife, some assistants, Gordon (the director), camera and sound operators, and some Tapatios (from Guadalajara) who were doing all the local coordination (transport, renting the bikes, meals, etc.). Gordon the director told me my part was simple: ‘what the hell are you doing here, what do you know that we don’t, and should we all be here?’
We proceeded to mic/mike up and test the equipment. People were walking around during the beautiful December day, so we did a test ride among the passers-by, then chose a leg further along (past the Ajijic sign) to start filming. We rode along–in turn–under a drone, behind a go-pro camera mounted on a bike, and past shoulder-mounted camera men. Peter and I rehashed the same story each time: how I learned about Lake Chapala, what was its draw, and why we lived here. At times, the crew just wanted the visuals, so we talked politics or travel and gestured towards nothing in particular as they filmed. By about two in the afternoon, the crew conferred and decided they had the right mix of audio and visual to do a segment. As Peter told me, “four hours of work for forty seconds of air.”
Peter and the crew were very kind and appreciative of my agreeing to the interview. For my part, I took my cues from Peter or Gordon. When speaking, I tried to be crisp, concise, and clever. Whether I succeeded or not remains to be seen. What did I say? Well, you’ll have to watch to find that out. When I have the details of the appearance (probably in January) I’ll provide an update.
They were off to Guadalajara, then Tequila, before finishing in Puerto Vallarta. Looks to me to be a Jalisco promo, which is not surprising. Many of the things Americans think of when they think “Mexico” are in fact from Jalisco: Mariachis and Tequila come to mind. Peter mentioned he and his wife were headed to Turkey next. I asked him, as a member of the US Travel Hall of Leaders, did it (travel) ever get old? He said, “no, as long as there is something new to learn, something new to experience.”
You may have heard that the US Congress passed (and the President signed into law) a series of massive spending bills, which included government funding for the rest of the fiscal year and additional Covid-related relief. As is usually the case in DC, the bills also included funding for a variety of special interests and pet projects. But the one which garnered the most outrage was a provision for a $10 million dollar study of gender in Pakistan, at a time many American students are not in school, their parents are not employed, and the families are looking at a measly $600 (each) bump.
“Why?” so many asked, with much anger and justification. And they deserve an answer. Foreign aid is always a touchy subject in the US, as we have so many things on which we need to spend domestically. Polls show Americans think the federal government spends about 25% of its revenue on foreign aid; the actual figure is 1%. We spend about .2% of Gross National Product, putting us behind almost all other rich nations in such giving, yet we’re still the largest donor in terms of total amount.
“Ok, ok, it’s still a lot of money, and why now, when Americans are hurting? And why to a country like Pakistan that is arguably not even much of an ally?” Well, that takes a history lesson, and one which is rich in irony with respect to foreign aid.
Way back in the 1970s, the US and Pakistan were close allies, as the US sided with the Pakistanis against their bigger, bitter rival India. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the relationship deepened, as we funneled aid through Pakistan to the mujaheddin making life impossible for the Russians in the Hindu Kush. We also tried to aid the development of a more democratic, liberal Pakistan by funding schools and clinics and the like. This wasn’t much money: it doesn’t cost much to put up a concrete building, buy some tables and books, and pay a teacher there. But who wants to vote money for their schools over say, the ones in West Virginia? So we found an alternative: another Muslim country with close ties to Pakistan that had unlimited funding: Saudi Arabia.
The House of Saud was more than willing to fund education in Pakistan. These madrassas (religious schools) excluded girls and taught the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam popular in Saudi Arabia. Pakistan and Afghanistan were once considered among the most liberal Muslim states, but all that changed. Graduates of the madrassas spread throughout the region, which in turn led Pakistan and Afghanistan to become the fertile home of Al Qaeda (the base), the secure enclave from which they planned, and to which they retreated after, the 9-11 attacks.
Kabul in the 1970s
and Karachi at the same time
Now those nations are rife with anti-American, fundamentalist Islamist thought. Pakistan has determined that its Saudi-funded madrassas are a problem, and wants to fix it. America is cautiously engaging with the notion of how to recover a lost generation of Pakistanis, to change their way of thinking and remove the possibility of those countries ever being a base for terrorism again. Rather than throw money at the problem, the US government is studying what to do, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
That’s the $10 million dollar study you heard about. It amounts to what the US government spends every minute. It pales in comparison to the costs of 9-11. Maybe it’s still a waste of money. Maybe someone in charge will make the study focus on gender neutral pronouns in Urdu. Maybe it won’t uncover anything useful. Educated people can disagree about this. But see how one can take any budget item out of context and make it look ridiculous? And there are many real cases of fraud,waste and abuse: ever see a bridge to nowhere built because Congressman Snodgrass wanted it? So people are right to question any budget item, but don’t fall for the easy targets and remember there is always someone out there trying to outrage you.
I’ll end with another cautionary foreign aid story. Once upon a time, the US sent doctors to developing nations to train local medical professionals in how to treat infectious diseases. We bore the costs of such programs, making the training and advice free to the other nations. We did so out of charity and out of self-interest: diseases arrested there don’t spread here. One such nation was China. China became a more developed nation, but what we began in charity we continued in self-interest.
Except Chinese-American relations hit the skids, and we decided to end the program. We pulled out our liaison from the Chinese CDC. In early 2019, we took our doctors out of the training site at the regional medical center in some city named Wuhan. We didn’t end the program because it was too expensive or China wouldn’t pay for it; we just decided cancelling it was a low-cost way to show we were angry. You know how that story ends.
In case you’re unfamiliar with the phrase, it captures the challenges which seem very troublesome to you as a member of a WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) country, but those that at the same time pale in comparison to the rest of the world trying to find enough to eat, not get arrested by the corrupt police, or being extorted by some criminal gang. A quintessential First World Problem is when your high speed internet connection sputters. The indignity! How will you survive?
We had such a problem revolving around out stove. Seems we had a builder’s grade stove that was nearing nine years old and starting to show its wear and tear. Buttons were broken, stains resisted cleaning, and it never worked that well anyway. Estufas (stoves) are not as big a deal in Mexico, so what we had was serviceable, but just. Some models require a match to ignite; others don’t have much insulation. We have friends whose stove heats their counter-top and cabinets to scalding, but doesn’t keep a consistent temperature in the oven! In Mexico, you basically have a choice between GE/Whirlpool, Koblenz, and Mabe. All three producce models across the price spectrum, but Whirlpool skews highest, then Koblenz, then Mabe which has the cheapest models. The knock on Mabe (“Mah-bay”) is ‘mahbay they work, mahbay they don’t.’
So we decided to replace our old stove. It was set up on a small concrete pedestal (very common here), and we wanted a regular model which could slide in (and give us a warmer/storage drawer underneath). Judy, being the online maven she is, cleverly waited until the Buen Fin (Mexico’s answer to Black Friday) sales began and ordered a stove with a microwave/vent above it from Costco.
That’s when the fun began. First, FedEx–who delivers to us almost weekly–dropped us a text saying they couldn’t find our house to deliver the microwave so they sent it back to the Costco warehouse in Mexico City. Arghhhh. Judy contacted Costco, and they were polite and quick in refunding that part of the purchase, but they declined to let us re-purchase the microwave at the special discount price as that sale period was over. “No problema,” we thought, we’ll just find another microwave/vent combination locally.
Shortly thereafter FedEx resumed knowing our location and delivered the stove. We opened the box and saw various loose pieces like knobs (which are detachable) and the burners and grill, but things seemed to be in order. We contacted our contractor, who was doing a series of small projects at our place, to remove our old stove and arrange installation.
Because of the change in style, the workers had to hammer out the the existing concrete base, level it, then place matching tile. They did a quick and great job, and we looked to be close to completion, when the worker told me “hay un probelma” which is Spanish for “Houston, we have a problem.” Seems that one of the detachable knobs on the stove was not just detached, but was broken off the valve stem (not easily fixed). *Sigh* We stopped work on the installation while Judy worked her way through Costco customer service (no, there is no “por inlges, toca numero dos” option). She eventually found a Costco rep and worked out the details, sending them pictures of the broken knob. He said he would arrange for a FedEx pickup, but that it might be a while since this was the holiday season.
Now we’re in a pickle. Our old stove is gone, our new stove is sitting in the hallway, unusable. Which meant it was something new and not in the right place. Which meant that my fifteen year-old dog, who likes to get up in the middle of the night and get a drink, lost it when he saw this huge, threatening shape in front of him in the dark. At least he got used to it, and my heart rate eventually returned to normal.
Looks very scary at night, if you’re a dog, and you’re old . . . apparently!
Did I mention there is a worldwide appliance shortage. Wait, what? You didn’t know; neither did we! Seems all the disruptions in parts and work schedules has caused a shortage in appliance manufacturing. We decided to go the local appliance store (Tio Sam’s . . . yes, Uncle Sam’s, or as my Mexican gate guard calls it, Uncle Tom’s, which made me do a double-take) and start over. We had already gone there once to get the new microwave, so when we returned to buy a stove we were thrilled when then told us they had a model we liked available and could have it shipped immediately, arriving with the previously scheduled microwave. Hallelujah! Only a week or so without a stove.
But wait, there’s more. Delivery day arrived, and so did our microwave/vent. But no stove. Tio Sam’s called to apologize for the mix-up. There was no immediately available model, but they would have one available (wait for it) the third week of January. More like a month+ without a stove. We told them we would come in to the store in the morning and work something out.
We went in committed to buying a different model (whatever was available) or getting a refund and starting over again. They still had nothing available, so we went for the latter (refund) option. Suddenly, they found our model again, and said it would arrive tomorrow. Willing to fall for the mañana joke one more time, we went home and waited.
Tio Sam’s called to confirm a delivery time the next day (yesterday). The correct model showed up, intact, and our workmen rushed over to install it. So our stove drought ended after ten days, although we still need to get the microwave/vent installed. Mañana.
Looks good! Guess which sticker was hardest to remove?
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Feliz Navidad!
“Belated?!?” you ask, “aren’t you a little early?” No, not at all. See, the liturgical year began with start of Advent on November 29th, hence my apology.
“But I’m not Catholic” you might object. Never-mind! God keeps time in His Own Way, and if I had wished you blessings for Diwali or Hanukkah, would you have objected? Of course not!
And who doesn’t want to see 2020 go, even if it means adopting a Catholic calendar for a few weeks? Our Annus Horribilis is one for the record books, and in all the wrong ways. But I don’t want you to focus on that. I want you to focus on something positive: what’s ahead.
Which is Death. Wait, wait, hang on here, I’m absolutely positive we’re all heading toward death. So much so, I’d wager on it, but you (or I) would not be around to pay (or collect) if either of us won (or lost). Not death from the Coronavirus, thanks to Big Pharma, but death nonetheless.
Why be so morbid, during this festive Christmas season, with a vaccine being distributed and the quarantines and masks and restrictions all within sight of the finish line? Well, I ask you, what was the point of 2020? If you believe in God, you’ve got ‘some splainin” to do’ (cue Ricky to Lucy). Divine Punishment? Only He knows. An Act of Man gone awry? Possibly. Poor choices by many? Absolutely. I don’t know what God’s plan in all of this was, but I do know that however it started and spread, He will use it to His Own Ends.
But let’s keep it personal, shall we? Do you know anybody who was unaffected by the pandemic? Me neither. Some harshly, some (like me and my family) only a little, but everybody felt the effects. What was the lesson we were supposed to learn? If this was a once-in-a-lifetime critical event, how should we process it, and what does it mean for how we live?
Many thinkers are producing analyses of how our pandemic experiences will change the world. They often focus on the notion that it will primarily accelerate trends already underway; that is a strong bet, and one I plan to write more about next year. But if the effects of this virus are limited to more screen time, online shopping, work-from-home and telemedicine, or less commuting, fewer handshakes, and no cruise ships, we will lose an opportunity.
We all faced the possibility of serious illness or death for ourselves, those we love, our friends and even casual acquaintances. We lost simple pleasures like eating out or going to events. We were prohibited from traveling, limited to when and where we could shop or gather to pray, forced to mask and rinse and provide our body temperature on demand. What did you learn? What did you miss, and why? How will you live in the future? What will you commit to do differently as a result? We are quick to point out the failings of governments and leaders, and such criticism may be warranted, but will we turn that critical eye on ourselves?
2020 was the year we want to forget, but the year’s lessons must not be lost as well. So take a few moments as we prepare for a New Year, take stock, and ponder how you will be different after the pandemic. Faced with loss of freedom or even loss of life, what did you learn? There’s a resolution worth keeping!
Another in my (endless) series about the coronavirus.
I still see articles and social media stories about ‘how bad the US is doing with Covid’, complete with graphs designed to set your hair on fire.
Game on! Here’s one such chart:
Big countries all, right? You probably already guessed what’s wrong with this one: it compares a country trying to (and mostly getting) good data–the US–with several similar countries where no one believes their data.
Let’s try that again with “good data” countries:
Hmmmmm, not much better
OMG! We are the worst. I call this stunt “fun with data.” Here’s another version, using data that is displayed on a logarithmic scale, adjusted for population size, comparing the US and EU and ignoring a small island nation no one visits (I’m looking at you, New Zealand. More people cross the US border in two days than visit the Kiwis in a year!):
Well, well, well . . .
What you are witnessing is data convergence, which is the phenomenon that occurs when a natural event plays out over time. In plain English, some (even very large) initial differences gradually disappear over time.
Heard of the unique experiment in Sweden over their policies? Here’s the latest data:
More convergence
Wait, you’ll say, but don’t government policies matter? Yes, but mostly in degree and for a time. Note the similarity between the data tends for deaths in these disparate countries/Unions, despite very different policies/situations:
Complicated, no?
If you want to see something really interesting, look at the data for Japan. They have a large population and were a hub of international travel. They also were one of the first to confront the pandemic based on the cruise ship Diamond Princess which pulled into Yokohama harbor full of coronavirus.
The Japanese government had a big disadvantage: the world’s most elderly and therefore (according to the WHO and CDC) vulnerable population. They also had one huge advantage: a compliant population accustomed to wearing masks. They intensely studied the Diamond Princess affair and concluded airborne transmission was probable even if it was not the main source of spread. They further decided that the main variables in spread were close contact, closed spaces, and crowded places. They initiated an educational campaign called the Three C’s so everyone understood what the problem was, why it was important, and what they (the public) were supposed to do.
They never quarantined their entire society. They did not mandate mask wearing. They do not (still) do mass testing (less than 10% of the testing done in America). Theaters remain open but socially distant. The mass transit system runs full with open windows. Schools reopened in June with staggered schedules. Sports are played with spectators (no cheering, social distancing in the stands). There are no legal limits beyond the governmental and cultural exhortation to avoid the three C’s. How has that worked out?
Despite greater vulnerability, amazing results
Are their lessons universal? No. Are they applicable? Yes. When we blindly close schools, or restaurants, or churches without regard to activity or size, we are not following the data (ie., the science). Likewise, when we ignore social-distancing or mask wearing, we are ignoring obvious answers to the problem. Both are critical. The first because no society can long endure excessive quarantining, loss of income, or loss of human contact. People went out during the great plagues of Medieval Europe, for God’s sake! The second because these are small-but-helpful measures that buy time and mutually protect us, whether they are foolproof or not.
I’m not nearly as tired of the lockdown as I am of the politicized use of data and specious counter-arguments. Yes, you need to wear a mask and stand apart. No, it doesn’t solve everything; only a vaccine does, and yes, the vaccine is safe and effective and you need to take it. No, we could not save hundreds of thousands of people who were vulnerable due to obesity and illness and some genetic combination which Covid uniquely targeted: we could play for time, but given the vaccine took almost a year (under a miraculous scenario which we engineered), we were going to lose them. No, it it is not useful to compare a globally connected, large, heterodox nation like the United States to small islands or geographically-isolated, homogeneous countries. Do I have to explain why?
Here’s a way to reconsider the pandemic by comparing it to another natural phenomenon to put it into perspective: earthquakes. They happen. Actually, they happen almost everywhere. People die. Sometimes they happen somewhere regularly, and people become used to them, and their governments prepare for them. Sometimes the preparations are so good that most quakes don’t kill people or destroy things. But even then, sometimes major earthquakes still happen, things fall down, and people still die. Sometimes earthquakes don’t happen for a long time, then suddenly reappear, and they are catastrophic. Know when/where the largest earthquake was recorded in the continental United States (i.e., lower 48)? New Madrid, Missouri, in 1812. So large it moved the Mississippi river hundreds of meters. That one goes off again? Bad things will happen. Some will blame the government for not being prepared, and maybe more should be done. But really?
Every country has made serious mistakes facing this crisis. No medical entity or public health body has covered itself in glory. Some mistakes were worse than others (personally, not quickly quarantining eldercare facilities was among the worst, and it happened in such diverse places as Germany, Sweden, and New York State) and some were avoidable (the early US debate over wearing masks, for example). Some results were not reproducible: not every nation is a remote island, nor does everybody have Africa’s remarkably young demographics. I’m willing to bet the historical record of Covid-19 will not focus on the spread or mortality (neither of which were impressive by historical standards), nor on government actions (which were all over the place) but rather on the speed of the vaccine development, which broke all records while maintaining necessary safeguards. That was truly remarkable.
*As a footnote, if you EVER want to look at Covid data, you MUST go to the Financial Times website here, which allows you to do the kind of comparisons I made above. It is the best website and most tailor-able data display available.
One of Judy’s Christmas quiltsAnother quilt, with our Charlie Brown Christmas Tree as a centerpieceA daughter’s school art project keepsakeI call them the Thee Wise MenMini-creche from Playa del CarmenOur tin tree and the gang from Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer
We recently passed the milestone of four years retired (I’ll stop counting when the number exceeds my thirty-eight work years). Around this time each year, I review our decision to retire early and choose the expat life in Mexico. Yet the coronavirus and on-and-off again quarantine has me pondering the bigger questions (“what’s it all about, Alfie?” “Is it technically a weekend if it’s not a work-week?” “just how near is a near occasion of sin?”). Oh, that and the liturgical year just ended, with daily readings about the end of all things leading to Advent, a season popularly misunderstood as a festive build-up to Christmas, but in reality a chance to take stock whether we’re prepared for the inevitable end of our existence. Phew, that’s an existential load!
Took this during our visit to Playa del Carmen. It has nothing to do with today’s post. Sometimes, a photo is just too good to ignore.
Retired life in general, and retired expat life in particular, give one the time and perspective to consider such things. But how many times can I say “we enjoy being retired” or “the weather is amazing” or “life is good” without becoming repetitive or annoying? 2020 threw us all a curve ball and — unlike Michael Jordan– I want to make contact on it.
If there ever was a time or condition which would cause one to reconsider choosing to live the retired expat life, the 2020 Covid experience was it. One reason for being expats in Mexico was to enable us to travel the world. Not so much now. Few countries would welcome us, and few things are open to see or do if they did. Another reason to be here in Mexico specifically was for the climate: perfect weather enabling daily outdoor activity, including alfresco dining year-round. Ehhh, sometimes. Restaurants have been hard hit, some closed and others forced into carry-out only. And wearing a mask even to exercise outdoors is a drag.
On top of all that, one of the biggest challenges to expat life is ensuring quality medical care. We have that, but no medical system in the world has done well during the pandemic: they have all flailed and failed in one way or another. That is not a criticism: this is simply what happens when a novel, contagious, and sometimes deadly disease appears. It just so happens this was the first really contagious one in a century, and many people had started to “believe in science” (what an oxymoron!) to the point they were surprised by the inevitable.
Mexico doesn’t engage in widespread Covid testing, so no one knows how bad it is here. Mexico’s health minister mused out loud ‘why test if you have no treatment?’ which was medically accurate if terribly tone-deaf. The hospital admissions here mirror the rates in the States, so the incidence and case load are likely about the same.
So here we are, quarantined in a developing country during a pandemic. And loving it nonetheless. Why?
Let’s start with the medical situation. Mexico has a higher death rate then the States, but that is mostly due to the high incidence of co-morbidities and poor public healthcare services. There is no magic treatment in either place, and the best outcome is prevention in all cases. The prevention outlook is the same: state-by-state, with some closures and restrictions on movement, mask-wearing requirements, sanitizing at the entrance of public facilities (restaurants, bars, shopping centers). In the end, it’s a wash for us as to where to get sick, and our best protection is our own ability to abide by the necessary health policies.
One major difference is the attitude: nobody seems particularly upset or angry about all this here in Mexico. Nobody expects the government to get it all right, and most understand that some things–like novel pandemics–are beyond the current understanding of even modern medicine, so we learn by experiencing. People die. But to Mexicans, death is a tragic reality of daily life, and coronavirus only provides the how and when, but does not change the if. Every person’s death is mourned, but there is a realism (not fatalism) here that affects how Mexicans deal with a pandemic. And that’s a very positive thing, in my opinion.
Travel? Why yes, please. Small secret #1:despite all the headlines, at no time during this pandemic did the United States prevent American citizens from returning home. All the announced restrictions were only for foreign nationals. We’ve traveled back to the States twice during the restrictions without trouble or even questioning. The US Department of Homeland Security did recently announce that ‘US persons returning to the States could be denied entry if they were sick.’ Small secret #2: That has always been the case. ANY airline, and ANY country, can and will deny you boarding/entry if you show symptoms of illness. You can be (and some returnees have been) put into quarantine. Thus it has always been.
One overlooked aspect of travel is that while the cruise industry is stuck in port and the land border open only to “essential business” (a term with significant discretion: Canadians have learned it may not allow them to drive from Mexico to Canada), Mexico and the USA have kept their airline connections open. While individual states may have stringent provisions once landed, there have been few restrictions on flying back-and-forth across the border, a fact unique to the Mexican-American relationship. Importantly for us, it has permitted two trips back to visit family, all with limits and distancing, of course.
As time goes by and we learn more about Covid, things change. We’re not wiping down every product which enters our casa. Most restaurants have adapted to socially-distanced dining, and since the weather is great, that option remains. Places like our Church have reopened for regular Mass with distancing rules. Even when the case rates rose, the government didn’t overreact and re-enact the original restrictions, but changed them to fit what we’ve learned.
We’ve noticed many of our Canadian snowbird friends returning to Mexico of late. Whether they would, given their health insurance and government warnings, was an open question among us year-round expats. Mostly they have, sensing that enduring the pandemic in sun and warm weather is the better option. That and the less tangible sense that the pandemic is something which demands serious–but not overwrought–attention, which is more the case here than elsewhere.
All things considered, Mexico in general, and lakeside in particular, remains the place for us to be in this Annus Horribilis of 2020.
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front, lest I be accused of sensationalism): I’m negative for CoVid19. But I am traveling again during the pandemic, and didn’t feel well, and here’s the rest of the story.
Back Saturday November 7th, I woke up with a nagging headache. Nothing serious, no other symptoms than some post-nasal drip, an on-and-off again allergy symptom. The night before, Judy & I hosted our monthly dinner club, which meant I drank more wine and less water than usual. I chalked it all up to tannins and dehydration, drank more water, watched football, ate pizza.
The headache continued and worsened a little, but it was intermittent: I seemed sensitive to light and noise, or sudden movement of my head. but I also went long stretches with no pain at all. By the time for our Tuesday night red-eye flight to O’Hare airport in Chicago, I was steadily taking aspirin powders. No fever, no cough, no other symptoms less the drip.
For my expat amigos, here’s the link for the health screening site you mst complete for any flight in, into, or out of Mexico:
Sorry about the length! AeroMexico did a great job segregating passengers to maintain social distance. Then they had us board a bus crammed together for a ride on the tarmac and mosh-pit boarding. *sigh*
We did have masks, but no distance
Gathering the family clan on Wednesday for early Thanksgiving proceeded apace, but so did my headaches and gradually soring throat. ((Unpaid commercial announcement: early Thanksgiving remains the best new idea since sliced bread! That is all)). Judy convinced me to go to the Walgreen’s minute clinic to see if I could get any relief: in the back of all our minds was coronavirus. Nobody thought I had it, but the potential consequences were severe. We were all together in a home, seeing each other for the first time in months, and about to have a family dinner and get together.
I went to the clinic on Thursday morning. Judy and I talked, and we decided I would not mention my recent travel: the word “Mexico” would lead to an instant suspicion, even though the pandemic is no worse there than in the States. I wanted to avoid even a Covid test, as that introduced the pre-result need to quarantine and the possibility of a false positive.
The Nurse Practitioner got about fifteen seconds into my symptoms and said, “I want to do a Covid test.”
“Is that really necessary” I weakly defended. “No fever, no chest congestion, I feel fine except for the weird headache.”
She interrupted “Do you know what they tell us is the clinical clue to coronavirus? It’s WEIRD. This virus acts weird. It is individual. There is a long list of symptoms, and many people have none, many have one or two, and a few get really sick. And the list of symptoms is the same for colds, flus, sinus infections, you name it. WEIRD!”
Out came the test kit and in went the swab. Lucky for me, they now have a short swab so it doesn’t have to feel like they’re poking it through your brain. However, they do do a roto-rooter motion once up each nostril, so it is still unpleasant and leaves you sore.
And the waiting began: three-to-five days for results. The Nurse Practitioner told me to wear a mask at home and to stay away from my family. That way, if I was positive, their quarantine period would start the day I tested. When we arrived back home, the adults gathered for a family meeting: what to do? I stayed quiet (no really) and let our adult children make the call. They agreed that starting quarantine early was no big advantage, and since I had symptoms for several days, I was probably past peak viral lode, meaning they were already infected or weren’t going to be. They decided I should skip the mask at home and just go about our family reunion/early Thanksgiving as planned. I have to admit I was impressed by their level-headed, common-sense discussion.
My headaches continued and the irritated throat waxed and waned over the weekend. Any sniffle from any family member gave me pause: was that just Fall, or something more?
Fall is beautiful, especially in the morn!
On Sunday our younger daughter and her brood departed for home, not knowing whether she was headed back to work or quarantine. Finally on Monday morning the results came back negative for coronavirus. Today the headache is fading and the throat seems better. All systems go for launch!
Lessons learned?
The implication for even a sniffle during a pandemic. I felt pretty confident I was not positive, but I also understood the medical professional’s position: during a pandemic, treat everything as coronavirus until you can prove it’s not. We’re into fall, and cold/flu season. People will contact those conditions and the default medical response is going to be coronavirus test first, with all the implications.
Knowledge is power. Our kids and their spouses are “up” on the situation, and had a panic-free, rational discussion. If anybody had bought into the hysteria, we would have had to overreact. That is not to conclude Covid isn’t serious business: it is. But adults face serious decisions with concern and care and facts, not emotions.
There’s a song tie in for anything. You knew this one was coming:
While nothing is final just yet, three things are increasingly clear: Joe Biden is the President-elect, Mitch McConnell remains Senate Majority Leader with a tiny majority, and Speaker Pelosi lost some Democratic seats in the House. In no particular order, some analytic points about the whole enchilada:
Joe Biden received over seventy-four million votes, the largest number of votes in the history of the United States. This is most amazing, especially considering that in two previous Presidential runs, he never got past “*%” (that is, negligible) support. His support was strongest among non-white voters (especially black women), young and/or first-time voters, the irreligious and voters not employed full time. According to the New York Times exit polls, two-thirds of those voting for Mr. Biden said they were voting primarily “against the other candidate.”
President Trump received over seventy million votes, or the second-highest number in the history of the United States, eclipsing even winning candidate Obama in 2008. Trump won both white men and white women voters (while losing some ground) but registered gains with blacks, Latinos, and LGBT voters (% increase over 2016). Whether you loved or hated him, it’s fair to say he had the worst four years of media coverage in modern American presidential history (deserved or not), and somehow gained over seven million votes!
Mr. Biden has called repeatedly for reconciliation and stated bluntly he will work as hard for those who voted against him as for those who voted for him. These are exactly the right words for our times. The country is deeply divided, and until we stop referring to one another as enemies, Nazis, morons, etc. we cannot move forward. With President Trump out of the White House, the “but Trump” excuse for rudeness or vulgarity has expired. President Biden will have his hands full restoring dignified disagreement.
The exasperated foreign coverage of the election was amusing. Yes, there are many more efficient ways (to have a Presidential decision) than holding fifty state elections. But these are, and will remain, the UNITED STATES of America. The Soviets held very fast, very efficient elections: it was not an improvement. Those Americans calling for a more centralized, national vote have either (1) never worked in Washington, or (2) forgotten their civics lessons. The system is working well, thank you very much, and we’ll keep it. President Trump’s claims notwithstanding, we only started “calling” elections on election night in the 1960’s with the advent of television and polling. There is no reason to consider systemic change because it takes a few days to finish vote counting, or to conduct a recount.
One bright spot was the dog that didn’t bark. Thus far, there has been no government commentary about possible foreign activities to affect the actual voting. If that holds true, it would appear that the United States Cyber Command, Department of Homeland Security, and the Intelligence Community accomplished the mission.
For the second time in as many Presidential elections, pollsters made fools of themselves. Chagrined after their 2016 fiasco, which fostered some of the initial paranoia about President Trump–since after all, he couldn’t have won the election fairly based on what the polls predicted–the pollsters believed the 2018 mid-term results proved they had adjusted and were once again accurate. What they forgot was President Trump was only figuratively on that ballot, and the massive 2020 blue wave the pollsters imagined only demonstrated they were once again looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Citizens of all stripes should remember that polling is roughly akin to fortune telling: you see mostly what you want to see, and that’s not necessarily what will be.
On the other hand, massive kudos to the prognosticators who looked at the demography and changing State voting rules and identified where the “red mirage/blue shift” would happen. In case you missed it, this was the concept that President Trump would hold an advantage in some states at the end of election day, but as the counting went on, that edge would narrow and disappear. To those claiming the constant erosion of support for President Trump in the final state election tallies is evidence of fraud: sorry, that’s not the case. States who counted absentee ballots late demonstrated the effect of greater Democratic Party representation in those votes, that is all.
Progressives and Democrats dancing outside the White House, . . .
Whither Progressivism? I still have friends who say this election was only close because the Democrats ran a moderate, and the result would have been a blue wave with candidates Sanders or Warren. The notion of either of them capturing Pennsylvania or Arizona, let alone Georgia? I’ll leave the last word to Representative Abigail Spanberger (D-VA), a moderate Democrat and former colleague of mine who oh-so-narrowly won re-election. Leaks from the House Democratic conference call on Thursday had her screaming at Speaker Pelosi and others, “We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that. If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f—ing torn apart in 2022.” The House Democratic majority may be in the single digits when all the races are decided. And Progressives should avoid looking at State results, where the GOP gained control of several states just prior to redistricting.
The GOP danced in the Statehouses, gaining at least one, holding total control in twenty-three.
This year, as in several past elections, pundits claimed that the Republican Party was doomed because demography is destiny. That is, younger voters skew liberal and Democratic, so they will stay that way in perpetuity. Or minority voters do, and the Unites States will shortly be a non-white majority electorate. So Democrats win. ((Brief aside: population estimates for China all the way through the 1970’s showed accelerating growth. Demographers joked that the modal person on the planet was an eighteen year-old Chinese female, and nothing reproduces itself like an eighteen year-old Chinese female. Demography is destiny. Except the Chinese Communist Party had other ideas, and the will to enforce a draconian one-child policy. They were so successful they halted Chinese population growth, because political demography is not destiny, it’s a variable. People change.)) Young people want free stuff and fewer restrictions. They grow up and get jobs and hate the high taxes. They buy a house and resent the loud music from the bonger next door. Minority groups refuse to act like monoliths, because they are comprised of real people, not stereotypes: for example, Latinos overwhelmingly do not identify as “people of color.” While it is undeniably true the Democrats capture the most minority votes, the GOP has gained an increasing share of the black and Hispanic vote in the last several Presidential elections. Both parties will continue to evolve and compete for all voters. . . for that is what they do.
The Media? Where to start? Major media organizations decided that President Trump was a unique threat to the American experiment and therefor adopted the stance of active resistance to his administration. Will they reclaim any semblance of nonpartisan coverage, let alone objectivity? Unlikely. President Trump was a major boon for the bottom line of these media, and that is at an end with the end of his Presidency. Where do they go for eyeballs, now? Can they possibly resist covering former President Trump?
What about President Trump? While it is possible he’ll just walk away from politics, it is very unlikely. Late in the election cycle, former President Obama broke with tradition and campaigned heavily against President Trump; former President Trump won’t even consider staying above the fray. Trump will resume his role as Tweeter-in-Chief, grabbing headlines with outrageous comments and over-sized rallies. Needless to say, any sputtering of the economy or increase in coronavirus cases will yield a Trumpian tweet-storm of ridicule. Nothing would more salve his ego then attempting to oust President Biden, so he’ll remain in the mix.
Trumpism as a movement? It’s future depends on what you think it is. If you view Trumpism as a collection of racist, misogynist, ignorant and hateful ideas, then Trumpism will recede back onto the fringes of the American polity. But Trump’s view of China as a problem, not a partner? Already mainstream in foreign and economic policy circles in DC. President Biden will have nothing good to say about President Putin, but he’ll be hard-pressed to develop a more oppositional Russia policy. The Wall is over, but support for immigration is flagging, and both parties admit immigration reform is essential, or another wave of child refugees is likely. Protecting the working class from the ravages of globalization is now a rare area of bipartisan agreement. Oftentimes, Trump’s extreme words belied mainstream thoughts. If he were at all introspective, he might realize how easily he could have won re-election with a little moderation.
So we’re headed for a period of Divided Government, which has gotten a bad reputation of late. The “Not My President//the other side is Evil” stuff really got started after Bush v. Gore in 2000 and became steadily worse. By the end of the Obama presidency it deteriorated into the Merrick Garland Supreme Court debacle, a preview of most of the Trump presidency as nothing useful could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President. Let me counter all that by stating that divided government is something America traditionally has a genius for, and we should welcome the chance to re-awaken the spirit. Our worst policies happen when one party controls both the executive and legislative branches, as they inevitably overreach. A willingness to compromise among the three branches has previously and can again result in laws and policies that are supported by the vast majority of Americans. Not accepted under force of law, not resented but accommodated, but supported as the best for all.
Finally, the closeness of the election should put to bed some of the more extreme and unwise ideas: dumping the electoral college, conjuring up new states, creating a national election, packing the Supreme Court. The system worked, people: leave it alone. In the end, the Electoral College will reflect the popular vote, and will exaggerate (a positive thing) the size of Mr Biden’s victory. Adding states fixes nothing, nor does adding legislators! Could you imagine the chaos if we were amidst a national recount right now? And the Supreme Court has nine legitimate justices, quite capable of doing the job assigned by the Constitution. There is no constitutional provision they have to be liberal, they just have to be confirmed.* The urge to change the system every time one is unhappy with a candidate, a party, or a policy is immature. As The Beatles put it, “You say you’d change the constitution, welll-llll, you know, we all want to change your head.”
“Don’t you know it’s gonna be . . . alright”
We’re not out of the woods yet. President Trump could still be truculent in the months left in his administration, and his supporters could begin a “lost cause” mythology. Supporters of President Biden must resist the overwhelming urge to use the power of government to persecute former officials of the Trump administration: that is the stuff of banana republics, not our United States. All told, I’m optimistic the country can regain some normalcy and make divided government work again.
* To those who continue to claim the denial of Merrick Garland somehow invalidates the nomination of Justices Gorsuch or Barrett or both, let me put this argument to bed. Yes, it was completely hypocritical of Majority Leader McConnell to claim he was upholding some standard in denying Mr. Garland a vote. But, there would have been no difference in the Supreme Court. McConnell should have simply held the hearing, held the vote, and failed to confirm Mr. Gorsuch. There was ample historical precedent for this, including most recently Mr. Bork's nomination. If he had chosen this path, we would have ended up with the same court as today, but without this silly argument about non-existent precedent.
