p_c_neary@hotmail.com

Scenes seen around here

Whatever happened to my promise for more visuals in this blog? Oh, yeah, here they are:

This is a (drivable) north-south path leading up the mountain, but the last rain made it an arroyo

and of course, my beautiful dinner date!

They are funny things, those words. Anyone who travels to faraway places and has to live by gesturing instantly recognizes how critical they are. Sign language aside, words are critical to communication. It’s one thing to travel to Lithuania and see a sign you can’t quite understand; it’s something else to see a sign whose characters are not of your ken! Words are important. Edward Bulwer-Lytton wrote “the pen is mightier than the sword” and we nod, because a man armed with the latter can kill only one at a time, but a man armed with the former can kill en masse.

At the same time, words are so commonplace we take them for granted. Writing well takes time and effort, while writing a lot is easy. The French polymath Blaise Paschal once ended a letter thus: “I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter.” We downplay the effect of words: “Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is a great children’s rhyme and terrible psychology. “Deeds not words” clearly places the active life as more important. Any police detective (or teacher, or priest, or . . .) can tell you that when we want to dissemble, we become voluble. That is, our lies involve more words than our truths. “Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no’; anything more is from the Evil One.”–Matthew 5:34.

Modern technology even fills in words for us–mostly wrong ones, to much hilarity. The Internet is a source of unending streams of words, including this blog. Twitter will test whether the natural process of evolution continues. It has reduced communication to cue-less, clueless tweets, where words are replaced by emojis, and emotions are more highly-prized than thoughts. It remains to be seen whether this particular advance in communication will be naturally selected to survive.

The power of words depends upon their meaning. After all, words are just collections of letters representing sounds. If we agree what a word means, we can use that understanding to accomplish much: to barter, to pray, to argue, to convince, to plead, to congratulate, to joke, to love. But only if we understand the words themselves, and they–the words–are not static. I think I first realized I was a conservative of sorts when I felt the keen desire to stand athwart the highway of progress and say “No further!” to ever-worse grammar and usage. The other day, I saw a reference to the enormity of a baseball stadium (“Why, was it Yankee stadium?” I mused). But awful used to mean “worthy of awe” and to fathom was to measure (the distance of one’s arms outstretched).

Some suggest that the hidden power of the English language is its ability to adapt: to change meaning as necessary, to borrow words and phrases from other languages, to make new words easily. I agree. Yet in the end all the flexibility and nuance and versatility must yield to one thing: meaning. And the meaning of words is a two-party action; are you inferring what I’m implying? I have never forgotten the Washington DC story about a guy who lost his District government job for using the word “niggardly” which a co-worker thought was a racial slur. The there’s this New York Times piece (a very interesting one about the Defund the Police effort in Minneapolis) that ends quoting an activist who uses they/their pronouns: as a result, it is impossible to understand what they meant or to whom they were referring!

It goes way beyond simple homonyms or even words with new, changed meanings. We give words meaning based on how we feel about who says them. Check out these quotes:

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
FDR, First Inaugural address

“We are at war, . . . I ask you to be responsible all together and not to give in to any panic”
Emmanuel Macron

“Don’t panic, but don’t think for a moment that he or she doesn’t really matter. No one is expendable. Everyone counts, it takes all our efforts.”
Angela Merkel

“Don’t let it dominate you. Don’t be afraid of it.”
Donald Trump

“Don’t Fear the Reaper”
Blue Oyster Cult

Okay the last one was just an excuse for a video, but hey, oddly appropriate, no?

In the cold spacing of text on the page, the quotes are quite similar. But how we interpret those quotes comes through a lens of exactly who said just what and when. The words matter, but just so. When the meaning of words becomes a point of contention, democratic discussion becomes difficult. If we can’t communicate, we can’t argue, we can’t even discuss, and we can’t ever agree.

I noticed this recently in a social media discussion spurred on by the Amy Coney Barrett nomination for the Supreme Court. And it bears on the meaning of the word “handmaid.” Some of my friends knew the word primarily from Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, and they inferred a negative connotation of feminine submission. Which is accurate IF your point of view stems from Atwood’s dystopian novel. But the word has a historical association which is positive, connoting agency demonstrated by willingness to align one’s will with God’s Will (To be concise, Adams’s sin was to place his will over God’s, while Mary’s fiat reordered mankind’s relationship with God back to what He originally intended). I’m not asking you to believe any of that, but you must acknowledge this other interpretation was the primary understanding of the term handmaid from antiquity until, oh, say 1985. If you hear the word handmaid and recoil, while I hear it and mutter “thanks be to God,” we’ll have trouble discussing it further.

Words matter. They can inspire people to do amazing things, or strike fear into the innocent heart. But only if we know what they mean. “I do” is a memorable phrase only if it means something more than “I do, mostly.” I wonder: is our societal stress caused by misunderstanding (willful or unintentional), or is the lack of agreement over meaning the symptom of that stress?

“When in Rome, . . .

do as the Romans do.” You’ve heard the saying, no doubt, or used it yourself. The meaning is clear: as a visitor, act like the locals do. It goes all the way back to 5th century Rome, when Augustine of Hippo (later Saint Augustine) noticed the Romans practiced fasting on Saturday, while the Milanese did not. Bishop (later Saint) Ambrose explained that he abided by the local custom wherever he was, and the saying was born.

In that light, some cultural observations (note: there is more humor than truth here):

When in the States, time is money, appointments are moral commitments, and the only thing better than cheaper is faster. When in Mexico, time is relative, appointments are suggestions, and the only thing better than cheaper is cheapest.

When in Mexico, the Virgen (de Guadalupe) comes first, the bandera (flag) comes second, and (insert your favorite futbol club) comes third. When in the States, ME comes first, your home state comes second, and third place is for losers.

When in the States, drive fast on the left, park on the right, and turn left with a signal. When in Mexico, drive mostly on the road, park mostly off the road, and do whatever you want with a left turn signal.

When in Mexico, food is spiced to taste, while alcohol and clothing are apportioned by sex (more for men than women). When in the States, food is spiced like some kind of survival test, alcohol is apportioned by weight (the bigger you are, the more you drink), and clothing is the reverse (the more you weigh, the less you wear).

Upon meeting someone new, when in the States, first ask “what do you do?” then “where are you from?” before asking about politics. When in Mexico, first ask “what are you called?” then “how are you?” before asking about futbol.

When in Mexico, prices are a matter of debate, mandatory taxes are optional for everyone, and cash is king. When in the States, prices are set in stone, optional taxes are mandatory for everyone except the very rich, and plastic (money) is king.

When in the States, a leak in your roof is a major disaster, home insurance protects you from lawsuits, and you may legally defend yourself in your own home. When in Mexico, a roof leak necessitates a mop & Flex Seal©, ineffective courts protect you from the need for home insurance, and you can kill any intruder to your casa.

America has a separation of Church and State such that there is freedom of religion and no religious test for public office. Mexico has a separation of Church and State such that the government owns all religious properties and some religions are illegal.

Mexico has a right to bear arms but makes it difficult to buy or carry a weapon. America has a right to bear arms but makes it difficult to get a good site line on a target.

When in the States, mail is regular, bills are prompt, and property taxes are high. When in Mexico, mail is ocasional, bills eventual, and what exactly are property taxes, again?

When in Mexico, corruption is blatant, government is inefficient but unobtrusive, and pornography is private. When in the States, corruption is private, government is efficient and obtrusive, and pornography is blatant.

When in the States, the road is for driving, the shoulder is for stopping, and the median strip separates traffic going in different directions. When in Mexico, any flat surface will do for driving, shoulders are for retail activities, and the median strip is for cattle grazing.

When in Mexico, the menu is only a starting point for deciding what to order, and the offerings include anything the wait-staff can walk to within a block (even other restaurants and bars). When in the States, “items may not be available” can be a special of the day and your waiter may not be willing to ask the kitchen what the soup du jour is.

When in the States, the President is crazy, the government is not there to help you, but your family is. Wait a minute, that one’s the same in Mexico!

A Really Old Car

There was a news item the other day you might have missed, in all the to’ing and fro’ing over the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. By the by, I found the trolling over the death of this great American to be in bad taste. People on both sides immediately began arguing over her Supreme Court seat like greedy relatives clutching at jewelry. How about a moment of silent reflection or a prayer, in place of politics, calls for violence or virtue signalling?

But this is not about that. It’s about the news you missed. Seems they discovered the first automobile ever created. Intact. And still functioning, if by functioning you mean capable of moving its passengers forward under its own power, which was/is not much. Which is pretty amazing for a two-hundred and thirty-one year old piece of equipment.

Now most cars don’t last a decade, but back in the day, they built them to last. Its longevity stems from the fact the owning family kept up with the maintenance, periodically making small changes here and there, but mostly because the family still had the original owner’s manual–on parchment!

The car ran on burning logs, but was eventually upgraded to charcoal & steam. There was that time a nephew decided to pour ethanol into the water pipes in a misguided attempt to “supercharge” performance. That explosion precipitated a replacement, gas-powered engine for the car and a trip to reform school for the nephew.

The family likes to tell the story about the odd shaped device near the driver’s seat: it easily held a Big Gulp, so it must be a cup-holder, or so they thought. But upon consulting the manual, they realized it was originally a spitoon which had transformed into an ashtray before settling on its current usage.

Of course the car had to change with the times: pulling into a gas station and asking for fireplace logs is a drag. Replacing the solid tires with inflatable ones was very popular, but then there were those annoying flats. But the family kept returning to the manual to see what was what, and why things were the way they were. And to understand how all the various moving parts worked together to create a functioning . . . car.

When Uncle Rico got a little tipsy and tried to drive it into the lake, claiming it would float, the car did not behave like a boat, because it was a car. The manual helped explain how to dry it out, and if the family had wanted, they could have used the manual to figure out how to seal the undercarriage and make it float. But then it would be a floating car, not a boat.

What’s the point, you ask (if you haven’t been checking the links above)? Well, obviously, it pays to know something about a device, a vehicle, heck even a recipe before changing it. Not just what it says, but what did the people who originally designed it mean when they wrote the manual. If you’ve stayed with me this far, but still haven’t caught on, you just received a brief parable on the judicial concept of originalism.

Why? That goes back to my original lede, about the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. When I heard she had lost her battle with cancer, the first thing (after a brief prayer) I thought of was how happy she would be to see her good friend Antonin Scalia again. When I first mentioned their friendship (upon Scalia’s death), I was scolded by some progressive friends saying “the notorious RBG” was only being polite if she did indeed say anything nice about Scalia. Au contraire, they were close friends whose families spent New Year’s Eve together.

Scalia was the chief proponent of originalism, and he was so successful that he changed the nature of the argument over constitutional law. Justice Elena Kagan, no conservative herself, famously said “we are all textualists now” (textualism being almost identical to originalism), not suggesting she agreed with Scalia but that because of the Scalia’s influence, all justices had to contend with this judicial philosophy in the future. And they do. Which is a good reason to understand the concept–even if you don’t agree–and even at the cost of reading my tongue-in-cheek car story. And no, there was no “oldest car” found.

Finally, if there was anybody Justice Ginsburg should have loathed, it was Antonin Scalia. He skewered her opinions and reasoning, and she returned the favor. I imagine their debates in the afterlife would be standing room only, except they must agree on everything now. Few of us can aspire to the greatness of these two figures, but in their personal friendship despite professional differences, we can see a model to emulate, and one sadly in great need today.

Something to Smile about

We’re told this year’s American election is “the most important in our lifetime” and the electorate is divided like never before. A literal plague stalks the land, ravaging the old, the ill, and the weak. Life’s little pleasures (whether a block party, a child’s birthday, a student’s graduation, or a football game) are cancelled. Unprecedented (ooooh, that word) fires burn out of control in the west, hurricanes hammer the Gulf, and derechos bear down upon the heartland. You aren’t safe at home, but going out means more risk, and no one wants you to visit, anyway. Jobs are uncertain, schools are uncertain, and no one know when certainty will be a thing again. *Sigh*

When you see someone on the corner with a sandwich board proclaiming “The End Is Near” it’s enough to make you say “welcome the the party, pal!”

There are glimmers of hope and moments of grace all around us, if we want to see them.

Organized religion found itself off the list of essential activities, and this most likely accelerated the trend toward fewer faithful in the future. Yet the pandemic presented numerous opportunities for the faithful to witness their vocations and tend to the sick or feed the hungry, even if they could not attend to worship. Churches may be more empty, but for those returning, there is a palpable relief at what was lost and now is found.

America’s endless racial discussion has returned with a vengeance, but at least the current round has focused attention on our police forces: the ridiculous tasks we give them, the cynicism of the courts, the corrosive effects of dealing with mindless violence every day, the inapplicability of military-style solutions. Perhaps when the race-baiting recedes, local leaders will spark the reforms desperately needed.

Everybody I knew in my working life agreed that we all spent too much time and effort at work and not enough at home. My oh my, how that chicken has come home to roost! It might make even a committed atheist wonder about the Lord’s “mysterious ways” when suddenly everybody is forced to “work” from home. And when all the distractions (sports, parties, shopping, etc.) are removed, what we have left are ourselves and our families. What matters most becomes pretty clear, no?

Those same parents are learning what a difficult job teachers have; perhaps they’ll also realize how much parental responsibilities have been shuffled off to schools. Teaching the difference between numerators and denominators is hard enough; make schools responsible for ethics and morals and you’ll get the least common denominator.

Random acts of kindness abound: kids raising money to feed the homeless, landlords telling renters not to worry, parents organizing drive-by birthday parties. There is a great story to be told about how everyday people took action to help each other in the face of a pandemic which stalled our globally-connected economy while politics paralyzed our governments.

Polls suggest political divisiveness will lead to a surge in voting: talk about a silver lining to a storm cloud! I would prefer a surge in voter education about the issues leading to a surge in voting, but let’s keep to the positive side of the equation.

Science and the medical arts have shined. Oh, not for those who forget why it’s called a medical “practice,” or for those who confuse science with scientism (the latter a term for those who believe–note that word–science can explain all things). In the end, the worst predictions will prove exaggerated, and the researchers, doctors and nurses on the front line will be exonerated and honored.

There seems to be a resurgence in interest in healthy lifestyles. Exercise equipment flies off the shelves and people seek ways to shed those few extra pounds that came with enforced inactivity. Perhaps the spectre of obesity as comorbidity can–like the ghost of Christmas future–spur us to change.

Speaking of change, pets are getting unforseen amounts of attention. More people are seeking them and spending time with time; what else is there to do? It is not all good news: my daughter’s dog had a bout of nervous hair-loss resulting from not being alone all day! And animal behaviorists (yes, there are such things) say pets will undergo more stress when schedules return to normal.

But who’s to say what’s normal? Why should we accept the sixty-hour work weeks, the hours-long daily commutes, the absences from home or games or family? As a God-fearing man, I’m always looking for signs of what God’s will for me is. All should consider the challenge: is this all there is? Like a bicycle racer churning up a steep hill, we pedal ever harder and faster, afraid of stalling and sliding back down. This pandemic, this election, these climate events, like all the other “important” things going on right now, are an invitation to just stop . . . and realize we aren’t on a steep hill. We’re on level ground, and it is only our endless list of wants and needs which makes it appear to be an ascent.

Politics will not make you happy. Change will not make you happy. Success will not make you happy. I had to learn long ago that I am not responsible for anyone else’s happiness: just my own. You can be happy. It’s a choice. Need proof? Happiness can be found among the poor, the deprived, even the suddenly afflicted by disease or catastrophe. You can tell those who have learned this lesson: they are the ones smiling.

Messy Elections

A group called the Transition Integrity Project just held a series of “serious games” simulating a variety of catastrophic outcomes for the impending US presidential election. You might have seen the headlines “What if Trump refuses to leave the White House?” or “The Dangers of the Red Mirage.” They also considered the delays inherent in large mail-in voting or what-if Joe Biden were to pass way shortly before or after the election. If you don’t have enough keeping you awake at night, I highly recommend you read the link!

Seriously, there are several factors combining a la “The Perfect Storm” to make this a particularly contentious election in terms of public confidence. But how unusual is that? Consider the history:

The standing record-holder for most contentious election is the 1824 John Quincy Adams’ victory. How bad was it? Well, for starters, there was only one political party at the time (The Democratic-Republicans), so the nominee was guaranteed the Presidency. Several states didn’t hold votes; they so distrusted democracy that the state government simply named electors (which was and still is constitutional!). However, the party leadership was fragmented, and ended up with four different nominees splitting the electoral college so that no one got a majority. This threw the Presidential election to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation casts a single vote. Adams, who had come in second in the electoral college, cut a deal with Henry Clay, who had come in fourth, to secure the state delegation votes of Ohio and Kentucky, thus defeating Andrew Jackson (who had the most electoral votes) thirteen states to seven. The deal became known as “the corrupt bargain” (Clay was named Adams’ Secretary of State) and set the stage for Jackson establishing the new Democratic Party and whipping Adams in 1828.

A pro-Jackson political cartoon from the 1824 election that attacks Republicans, the press, blacks, Indians, the US Treasury, you name it.

The runner-up for messiest election has to be 1876. Samuel Tilden, a Democrat from New York, easily beat the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes from Ohio, winning an actual majority (not just plurality) of the popular vote. Tilden also held an electoral college victory of 184-165, but twenty uncounted electors from four states were in dispute. Congress created an Electoral Commission to resolve the controversial twenty votes. This body developed a compromise whereby all twenty votes and the Presidency went to Hayes (!) in exchange for (1) his commitment to serve only one term, (2) the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, and (3) the end of Reconstruction. This might be the most consequential messy-election, but for:

Third place, one with which you might be more familiar: 1860. Jackson’s dominant Democratic Party broke in half over the issue of slavery, and the new Republican Party ran a little known Illinois legislator: Abraham Lincoln. Southern states left Lincoln off the ballot, but he still got an electoral college majority. The possibility of a President who would prohibit the extension of slavery (the Republicans were not then against the continuation of slavery in the South) was enough for seven states to secede before Lincoln took office: the ultimate denial of legitimacy is open warfare.

Fourth place in my rankings goes to the little known vote tabulations after the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon contest. Everyone knows who won, and that Kennedy did so with a sizeable electoral college advantage: 303 to 219. You may have heard Kennedy’s electoral advantage belied the popular vote, which historians originally thought Kennedy won by just .17%! But subsequent review of contested Alabama votes shows that Nixon probably won the popular vote by 50,000 even though he still lost the election. Nixon’s resentment at pro-Kennedy political shenanigans and favorable press treatment led to his early retirement from politics (He famously said, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more!”). This was of course short-lived, but the lessons he learned in 1960 (i.e., do whatever it takes to win, and take nothing for granted) would tarnish his later landslide victories.

Finally there is the disputed 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote 48% to 47% for Bush, but Bush won the electoral college 271-266. Most everyone here remembers the drama of the “hanging chads” and lawsuits contesting the results of one key state: Florida. Bush originally won Florida by only 537 votes out of six million cast. The popular story is the Democrats pushed for a Florida recount, which would have given Gore the state’s electoral votes and the Presidency. This effort was halted by the US Supreme Court, in effect giving the victory to Bush. There is one small problem with this story. Long after the election, the Florida Ballots Project, a consortium of the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and the National Opinion Research Center from the University of Chicago did a deep dive into Florida’s ballots. Over ten months, they had 153 specialists examine 175,000 disputed ballots at a cost of one million dollars. All the results, with one exception, show Bush won Florida. The exception? If one counts the overvotes (ballots where more than one candidate is indicated) and assumes all were actually Gore votes, then Gore wins. Of course, candidate Gore never requested a recount of overvotes–nor does anyone–as assuming which of two (or more!) candidates marked was the final choice is impossible. Most people only know the popular story, since the results of the Florida Ballots Project weren’t released until two months after the 9/11 attacks, and were thus immediately forgotten.

Hope you enjoyed (?) this rundown. Here’s hoping this year’s outcome doesn’t merit inclusion in this list! It is (a little) reassuring to see what the country has been through before. I would note that in most cases short of violence, the biggest effect of a messy election has been to cause change in the parties or processes of the election, showing a system capable of changing to correct past errors.

Mexico is open for . . .

well, anything you like. Business? yes. Tourism? Yes. Just because you can’t stand to be locked down in your house another day? Yes.

Wait, you say, isn’t the US-Mexican border closed to non-essential travel? Yes. The United States, Canada, and Mexico initiated this lockdown back in March, and extended it as recently as late August (text at the link). You can close the US-Mexican border for a few days, you can even close a specific border crossing for weeks. But, one can’t simply shut down the the US- Mexican border.

Why? It’s the most crossed border in the world. Europeans make much of the freedom of travel within the EU under the Schengen agreement, and yes, it’s great. But a million people a day cross the US-Mexico international border, not to mention world record amounts of commercial products. And it has stayed open. The announced restrictions exempted workers crossing the border and business/goods. And US citizens have always been allowed “to return home.” There have been verified problems for Canadians trying to drive home from Mexico, but otherwise the border still hums.

And, the restrictions mentioned above only applied to the land border. US tourists remain welcome in Mexico’s many resorts. So if you wish to fly or cruise (are any ships cruising?) to Mexico, it’s still there waiting. And it is one of the few places welcoming Americans these days!

Green is go for American travel: “pickens is mighty slim”

But should you travel now? That is a complicated question which involves your personal willingness to accept risk. How healthy are you? How vulnerable are you to the coronavirus? What comorbidities do you have? Can you effectively quarantine before/after travel and how vulnerable are your family/friends? Do you know what to do if you get sick while travelling? Only you can answer these questions. Personal and tourist travel is continuing today–even picking back up–along with travel-shaming (“how dare you endanger . . . “).

On the plus side, travel deals are pretty good. Mexico is friendly, welcoming, and familiar for the American tourist. Your dollars will greatly help workers in the tourism sector, who generally work for tips and have little savings and little help from the federal government. They will also assist Mexico’s ailing tourism industry, which is an essential part of the nation’s economy.

On the negative side, there is that whole Covid19 thingy. Resorts are going to great lengths to ensure sanitary conditions. Some attractions are closed, or less enjoyable. Your favorite buffet is probably not going to be there. You may get a tan line around a face mask. Is the pandemic better or worse in Mexico? Yes. Here is the most current data on new cases. Mexico has plateaued, but its case count is suspect due to limited testing. My best guess is it is about the same as the US.

I don’t make this recommendation lightly. I canceled a college reunion I was going to host in August here at Lake Chapala because at that time, it was unclear where the pandemic was headed and how the government in Mexico City would respond. That is no longer the case. I have travelled back and forth to the US recently and it was simple and safe; we will do so again soon. Given everything else going on, just realize getting away to Mexico remains an option, if you so choose. And no, I don’t get a cut from anybody!

“Watch your mouth, . . . “

I’ll wash it out with soap!”

I don’t recall ever hearing this threat from my parents (correct me if I’m wrong, Dad). But it was commonplace back when, what you’d call a meme today. And I think it’s a good self-admonition, due to the growth and increasing acceptance of polemic language. Polemic language degrades communication, demeans both the speaker and recipient, and generally poisons the atmosphere. You may infer that I don’t like it.

What, you say, is polemic language? Let’s consider a hypothetical example rather than a cold definition. Imagine you’re sitting in a bar and strike up a conversation with the person on the next stool. After a few (too many) drinks, you’re debating religion, and your drinking buddy says “God? Oh, I don’t believe in God.”

As a Christian, this is an opportunity to spread the Good News; there are so many ways the conversation could go! You might ask whether your friend EVER believed, or what do they believe now, or even were they familiar with the thinking of Friedrich Nietzsche (an atheist who hasn’t read Nietzsche is like a Christian who hasn’t read the Bible). But imagine the same situation, only this time your drinking buddy says “religion is just the opiate of the masses.” This phrase, which doubtless rings some bells, is a bit of Marxist drivel, and is polemic language. It marks the speaker as someone not interested in discourse, only domination. You can argue religion with an atheist influenced by Nietzsche, but not a Marxist.

What does polemic language do? It replaces thought with slogans, and not only slogans, but slogans designed to enforce an orthodoxy of belief. George Orwell’s 1984 captured the nature of polemic language in slogans like “War is Peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.”

In today’s America, polemic language exists all along the political spectrum. On the right it is superficial and less well-developed, mostly revolving around invoking the terms “deep-state” and “swamp.” Even the latter term is borrowed, as it long predates the Trump administration, and was earlier invoked by Ronald Reagan to identify the cozy relationship between publicly antagonistic Washington politicians, who (along with their families and friends) seemed to thrive despite animosity or even the economic conditions of the country writ large. Progressives originated the term decades earlier as “drain the swamp of capitalism.” Since I previously remonstrated on the deep-state, let’s look at the other side.

Polemic language on the left is far more well-developed, primarily due to decades of work in academia. Theories of race, power, and sex developed into academic studies which generated an alternate language. And as any linguist will tell you, language in turn constrains thought. All this goes back to post-World War II academic debates over post-modernism: the notion that there are no moral certainties — or even truth–and that what we believe to be modern morals or systems are just the remnants of past power struggles. These debates matured into current theories of patriarchy, intersectionality, heteronormativity, anti-racism and the like. Click on the links if you’re unfamiliar, but be warned: like Alice, you may find yourself “through the looking glass.”

So what’s the problem with using such language? Don’t you (I) respect academic theory? Of course, I am a big fan of the theory of gravity, for example, because it has proven itself a useful way to look at how objects behave everywhere and always (except at the quantum level!). But these other theories are not proven, and in some cases are unprovable. Their polemic language blurs the discussion, and that is never good. Let’s take a recent example.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) opined on the statue of Father Damien in the Capitol building, tweeting this is “what patriarchy and white supremacist culture looks [sic] like.” The statue is one of two representing the state of Hawaii (the other is King Kamehameha). Now it is true Father Damien was a Belgian, a man, and a white one to boot. By the theories of patriarchy, colonization, and white supremacy, he is guilty as AOC charged.

Father Damien seems unconcerned about the controversy

Unfortunately for the theories, the Hawaiian people chose to put his statue there, because this white, Belgian, Catholic priest chose to come to minister to the Hawaiian lepers in their colony on Molokai. He lived among them, cared for them, caught their (then) incurable disease and died among them. To Hawaiians, he was more Hawaiian than Haole.

AOC later amended her complaint to say she objected to the fact that Hawaii has no female memorialized in Capitol statuary. Assuming this is what she originally meant, she is correct. But that is not what she said. She used polemic language that was inaccurate and unfortunate. Had she tweeted, rather, “why doesn’t Hawaii have Queen Lili’uokalani as one of its statues in DC?” she might have initiated an interesting debate.

Now, if I were a Hawaiian, I might thank the Representative for her interest in Hawaiian affairs, and point out her own great state of New York has two dead white males (Robert Livingston and George Clinton) as its statuary representatives, and suggest she should perhaps turn her attention to getting her own house in order, so to speak.

But I am not Hawaiian. And this is not about statues.

If you see famous people using polemic language, beware. Don’t use it. If you think there are not enough statues of women, say so. Or that police stop too many African-americans. Or that television doesn’t show enough same-sex relationships. Those are arguments to be made. Slipping into polemic language doesn’t help. It marks the speaker as uninterested in the truth. Or maybe just as uninteresting.

And it gives credence to academic theories of little weight.

The American Virus

I haven’t been writing much about the coronavirus or Covid19 lately, as there is not much new to say.

What about the upsurge in cases in the US? Predictable, and in fact predicted by all the relevant authorities. Remember that the lockdown was designed to flatten the curve, meaning everybody is eventually exposed, just not at the same time. It worked, but that didn’t mean there would not be a continuing series of local outbreaks as the virus continued its unrelenting spread.
No breakthrough on a treatment or vaccine? Plasma is the latest hope, but it is likely not a miracle treatment. And a vaccine will come in due time, if at all. Yes, a nation like Russia can rush to announce a vaccine, but that doesn’t make it so. The world record time for vaccine development (for mumps) was four years; we’ll break that if (big if) we find one for the coronavirus.
Immunity remains unproven but real. A recent report from Hong Kong apparently confirmed the first case of re-infection. So while we don’t understand the virus very well, the millions of infected and recovered and the highly infectious nature of the virus point to only one conclusion: there is sustained immunity.
Media continue to play the “which nation is doing better or worse” game. Partisan media only grab select stories and feed them like red meat to the gullible. The EU is currently trending worse, the US better, and their lines will probably soon cross. South Korea has another outbreak, as does New Zealand. Germany restarted schools and is stopping them as each new outbreak occurs. France is on the edge, again. It’s a pandemic people, without significant treatment or a vaccine. It will continue to spread, until everyone has had it or is vaccinated. Those are the only two outcomes.

So really not much new here, despite all the breathless news coverage. After my recent visit to the States, I will go out on a limb and make one prediction. When the history of this event is written, historians will point out how uniquely suited this virus was to attack the United States. Now put down your tinfoil hats; I am making no conspiracy argument here, just an observation. Based on . . .

This virus leaves most healthy people unscathed, but ravages vulnerable populations. According to the best data, eighty percent of Americans who contract Covid19 will suffer no symptoms (forty percent) or flu-like (another forty percent) symptoms. The elderly and overweight and otherwise sickly are endangered; the healthy and young not so much. This strikes directly at America’s libertarian streak, meaning we were never going to keep people locked down or under quarantine or even wearing masks for very long. With predictable results.
America is a world leader in the comorbidities which lead to death from the coronavirus. Not to mention, our fragmented healthcare system meant those with the worst or no care–and no paid sick leave–were most likely to have to work, either to put food on the table, avoid being fired, or because they were essential to the rest.
As a nation, we are more likely to place our elderly or infirm in institutional settings (whether old-age homes, nursing homes, or continuing-care facilities). Yet the staff work at multiple locations for profit-seeking firms unwilling to spend on personal protective gear, meaning we built giant petri dishes of infection for the most vulnerable.
Our politics were already so poisoned that simple health matters became political red lines. Some people take pride in not wearing a mask, others try to excuse participation in large protests. Expert medical opinion is solicited or rejected based on how it comports with previous political positions. Early on, the virus hit blue states on both coasts, and you didn’t need to search hard to find people blaming it on their politics. When the virus moved to the red state heartland, it was just as easy to find the reverse. AND . . .
Our constitutional republic meant persuading states to behave in a coordinated fashion, which wasn’t going to happen as long as political leaders treated this as another red/blue state issue. Democratic nominee Joe Biden just said if he is President and the virus breaks out again, he will “shut the country down.” Amazingly, the press didn’t ask how he would do that or with what authority. Were that it was so easy. BUT . . .
President Trump bears special responsibility for the debacle that is national messaging during this crisis. One role for the President in such events is to be reassuring, calm, consistent, and authoritative. He was 0 for 4 in that regard.

Despite good messaging, a quick response, and bipartisan support, the US experienced the greatest number of deaths (worldwide) during the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic. We didn’t do very well during the 1918 Spanish flu, either. Maybe some things never change. We appear to be somewhat more vulnerable-as a society and polity–than other nations. And the coronavirus hit the sweet spot.

An Analytic Test

Back when I was a supervisor of analysts (last millennium, when dinosaurs roamed the National Mall), I had a weathered, paper copy of a Washington Post article in my desk drawer. The article was a summary of data developed about income percentiles in America (who makes how much, from the 1990s). There was little dispute about the data itself, and the article appeared with little fanfare and quickly passed into oblivion except for my faded copy. Sometimes when I wanted to test a potential (or aspiring) analyst, I would pass them the chart and ask them what were the strongest analytic judgments they could draw from it. I made it clear “just use this data, don’t try to add to it or fight it.”

The Brookings Institute has kindly updated that data (here), and the Washington Post covered it again. Here’s the key chart:

If you want to go back to the commentary or data, please do so, but go ahead and take this test (mentally): what judgments can you draw from this data? Again, don’t fight it; the answer is staring at you!

Middling analysts would focus on the point that the middle class is disappearing. Well, the median segment did drop from 47% down to 36%. Yet all three “middle class” segments went from 84% to 85%. Some analysts wanted to argue inequality was growing since the rich segment rose from 0% to 2%; while inequality may be growing (Brookings suggests it is), it is not evident from just this chart. The lowest two segments fell from 47% down to 29%. The bottom three fell from 94% to 65%. The best analysts honed in on the most dramatic change in any single group: the 450% rise in the upper middle class, from 6% up to 33%. So the most telling analytic line is: more Americans moved from the poor, lower, or middle class into the upper middle class.

The data can tell no other story. Why? Simply put, for every person who fell from a higher category, more than one person had to rise, in order for the numbers to hold up.

Three additional points. First, this data is longitudinal, that is, it covers the same people over an extended period of time. This eliminates the possibility the changes in outcome resulted from different people in the study at different times. Second, it does not include government transfers such as welfare, family assistance, etc., so it underreports the actual level of income for the poorest segment. Also, other charts displaying the data in the same study point out that the number of people moving from one income group to another increased (both up and down), meaning these groups are not static. While movement down the income chart grew more, movement up by more than one level also increased. Which is a long-winded way of saying there is still considerable movement between the income groups, and more variability with smaller numbers of big winners.

This does not mean there are not people who have suffered economically over this same time period: by sex, race, ethnicity, undereducation, technology change, and a myriad other reasons. But for every such case, the overall data still improved, which is quite remarkable. Brookings made much of the loss of the middle/middle class, the growth (as they see it) in inequality, and the increased number of people moving “down” the spectrum. But the overall movement into the upper middle class is just as telling. And that’s a little good news.