p_c_neary@hotmail.com

It’s Mueller Time!

We’ve been waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report for some two years. I avoided commenting during the media speculation; now that we have the results, it’s time to form an opinion. Predictably, political hacks on both sides have manned their positions and resumed trench warfare. Sometimes they switched which trenches they occupied (see “Mueller, straight arrow and savior of the country” vs “Mueller, partisan hack and political coward”).

There are few real surprises in the report. It is not well-written, so I don’t suggest you read it all. I have done that for you (ahh, retirement)! Here are six key points to consider:

1) The Trump campaign was a clown show, totally unprepared to function before or after the election. At one point, the media noted that the campaign had no foreign policy advisers, so they quickly pulled together a team which included George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, hardly experts. The former bragged at a bar to a foreign diplomat the Russians were going to help Trump, the latter continued to exaggerate his access for personal gain even after he was fired! The report also relates the story of Putin calling together Russian business oligarchs with the mission to find someone who can establish contact with Trump’s transition team (hardly the action of a case officer running his agent!). Oh, and Mueller explains that Don Jr. was probably not savvy enough to know that accepting “oppo” research from a Russian might be illegal!

2) President Trump had no idea how to govern. He asked his Intelligence leaders to stop the Mueller investigation (they don’t do such investigations). Trump is quoted by his staff as saying he thought firing Flynn, or Comey, or even Mueller would stop it. The President and several senior officials thought they could lie anytime, about anything, without consequence. Oftentimes the lies were inconsequential, unnecessary,and easily detected, yet they continued.

3) Believe it or not, Mueller got the most ethically-challenged targets, even if none of it had anything to do with conspiring with the Russians. Paul Manafort was a grifter in it for the money: Mueller actually quotes Manafort warning others about dealing with the Russians! Michael Flynn talks to the Russian Ambassador, lies about it to the FBI, oh and forgot to register as a foreign agent for Turkey (he a former senior intelligence officer!). Don’t get too excited about the investigation’s thirty-seven indictments, because most of Mueller’s indictees (twenty-eight) will escape justice: they are Russians indicted for hacking, and will probably never see the inside of a US courtroom, let alone jail.

4) Mueller’s report clearly demonstrates the importance of professional civil servants, both civil service and political appointees. They are the people, like White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Deputy National Security Adviser KT Mcfarland, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who refused to enact the President’s whims. Without them, President Trump would have committed obstruction of justice or worse.

5) If you asked most people what the Special Counsel’s investigation was all about, they would say “whether Trump colluded with Russia.” Hours of speculation on cable channels connected every dot. The NY Times and Washington Post did major stories with elaborate charts of all the relationships. The Steele dossier detailed all the dirt. Mueller had all that and a crew of trained FBI agents, and over two years he found: nothing. Setting aside the legal-technical argument over collusion vs. conspiracy, Mueller didn’t find any. He even noted that some in the campaign did welcome Russian support, but they couldn’t figure out how to make it happen (see point one, above).

6) Presidential obstruction of justice is difficult to prove, absent intent. The President has many authorities and when using those authorities, it is hard to say he is obstructing justice unless he leaves a clear piece of evidence to that effect. President Trump publicly said all kids of outrageous things (which are admissible) but these were all ambiguous and Mueller found no smoking gun on intent. He did uncover a vast body of evidence.

6) Mueller admitted he was never going to indict the President, based on current Justice Department policy. However, he made a great point that the Congress can enact a change that certain laws (for example, obstruction of justice) do apply to the President, which would override the Justice Department policy for future cases. This is a reasonable recommendation, and should receive bipartisan support. Let’s learn from our current predicament.

The bottom line: there was Russian interference, but no Russian conspiracy. The President is an ego-maniac (shocking, that) who was willing to do anything–including obstruct justice–to end the investigation which he deemed baseless. FBI counterintelligence agents surveilled associates of a Presidential candidate during a campaign. There better be some hot-stuff intel implicating those associates or the first step in all this was a serious failure of judgment. A former UK intel officer (Christopher Steele) accessed Russian sources to create and share a dossier to affect the election (his stated intent in a defamation deposition in the UK): anybody ok with that?

Lost in all the posturing is the Mueller report’s confirmation of the extensive Russian effort to influence the 2016 election, and the late and ineffectual response by the Obama administration. Their explanation to date is that the administration felt anything they did would seem to be political in advance of the election, but that explanation is undermined by their admission that they expected Secretary Clinton to win. That is, they failed to act forcefully because they thought their actions would undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency. Reread that sentence and just think about it for a moment. It was more important to appear impartial than to dissuade or deter the Russians…after all, Clinton was going to win. I wonder if they would have felt the same way if they knew candidate Trump was going to win?

Where do we go from here? The House of Representatives has more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. I agree with Speaker Pelosi that they probably shouldn’t, since there is no chance the Senate will convict. Much as prosecutors sometimes decide against bringing a case to trial because they feel the judge or jury will never convict, impeachment should be reserved for the most extreme cases; President Trump may be extreme in his behavior, but this case is not. As the wise bumper sticker said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

I though President Clinton should have resigned rather than lying to a grand jury, which would have avoided his eventual impeachment. I think President Trump should resign, as he clearly does not know what he is doing. The fact he has some good ideas or nominees does not outweigh his overall incompetence.

Investigations by the federal Southern District of New York and State-level agencies can and should continue: justice must be done for any pre-election crimes committed. That justice should wait until the Trump presidency is over. In so doing, we must be careful what precedents we set. Actions taken to “get Trump” will set new standards for opposing future Presidents, whether we think they should or not. Can you imagine what a Republican-led Senate or House would investigate under “President” Biden (just google “Hunter Biden Ukraine” to get an idea)?

Do I think President Trump should remain in office? No, I thought he should have resigned when it became obvious he did not know how to govern. It seems clear his campaign was a stunt which he has been unable to develop into a meaningful administration. Do I think “The Resistance” should pack up and go home? Yes, they pursued a proven falsehood (Russia collusion) and they are discredited. It is fine and good to oppose the President’s policies and his objectionable tweets and blatant falsehoods. But he remains legitimate as President, even though he should have resigned.

There are serious issues like entitlement reform, the opioid crisis, immigration policy, and infrastructure investment that need to be addressed, rather than another obstruction investigation or impeachment proceedings. It is well past time to return to more normal politics, awaiting the next election cycle in just another 550-some days!

Passion

As I have noted before, we have a full-scale Passion Play here in Ajijic, as in many small Mexican pueblos. There is always a Palm Sunday procession with Jesus and the disciples welcomed, then non-stop action Maundy Thursday (Last Supper, Arrest at Gethsemane) Good Friday (Trial before Pilate, Herod’s palace, Via Dolorosa, Crucifixion, and laying Jesus in the Tomb. Saturday builds up to the midnight vigil of Easter, with Jesus rising and the fiesta beginning.

Given temperatures in the 90’s and a hot tropical sun, we decided to attend parts of the play each year, and this year, we made it to the crucifixion. Actually, we planned to attend the crucifixion last year, but somehow we missed it. We arrived around 3:00 pm, the time associated with Jesus’ death and everybody was gone! Seems that the crucifixion ends at 2:15 pm in Mexico…who knew?

This year, we headed up the hill to “Golgotha” around 1:15. There was a small crowd milling under the intense sun. Sure enough, around 1:40 I could see a larger group coming up the hill.

Notice the green shirts with a rope…crowd control

The many re-enactors played their roles as the three crosses were put in place.

Roman soldiers in full uniform along with Temple guards

A narrator set the scene in both Spanish and English, then the crosses went up and the thieves, soldiers, members of the Sanhedrin, and of course Jesus did their parts.

The crowd was silent throughout. The actors, all locals, take great pride in their roles, and you can see they spend a lot of time and effort on the pageantry.

We’ve seen the arrest, the trial before Pilate, Herod’s Palace, and now the crucifixion. Maybe next year we’ll stay up late for the resurrection (and the after-party)!

Who do you say that I Am?

The facts of His life are little in dispute. He was born under the reign of Augustus Caesar, and died under Tiberias, about 33 years later. He lived under the Roman occupation of Judea, within the political power of the Herodian dynasty, along the shores of the Sea of Galilee and around Jerusalem. He was an itinerant preacher/teacher who attracted and repulsed large groups, challenged the existing authorities (both religious and secular), and wound up crucified around the annual Passover celebration.

That we know this much about Him is startling: why would anyone care to notice or remember such a life? Why is He different? Why did eyewitnesses bother to record the events of His life, and historians and commentators note His passing? His claim to be the Jewish Messiah was hardly unique: as Tim Rice memorably put it “You Jews produce Messiahs by the sackful!” They came, they went, and their movements went with them.

Certainly not because of His religion. He practiced Judaism, an ethnically-based faith which rarely attracted converts, even if its precepts appeared laudable: circumcision for adult male converts is hardly an attractive selling point! Rome detested the Jews for their obstinant religious beliefs, even if they valued them for their commercial activities. No, this was not the reason for His prominence.

Two details of His life did court controversy: His birth and, ummm, re-birth. Some label the story of his Nazorean parents’ trip to Bethlehem a post-facto addition. Jews of his day circulated the story He was the product of the rape of His mother by a Roman soldier, which only seems to confirm the lingering issue: He was rarely referred to as “bar Yossef” (son of Joseph), so who really was His Father? And there’s that troublingly empty tomb. If that was a lie, it would have been easy for the authorities to counter. It was real, so the official line was “His disciples stole the body.”

Each age seeks to determine who He is, and then “discovers” He is…made in their image and likeness! Crusaders envisioned Him as a Warrior-King. The American Founding Fathers, mostly Deists, saw Him as a wise sage; Jefferson went so far as to correct the Bible by deciding which quotes were really His. Nineteenth century German historicists deconstructed stories about Him until He was a peaceful, romantic scholar, distrusting of organized religion…just like them. Baby boomers are quite familiar with His “surfer” personae (circa Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar): laid-back, groovy, not-at-all-uptight. Some militant fundamentalists see him, well, differently.

Hippie,
Cool dude, or
armed & riding a raptor

All, like the the fable of the blind men and the elephant, grasp a piece of the truth, but not the whole Truth.

Although very popular, His “sage” personae is easily debunked. His sayings are a mass of contradictions, which any debater could attack (‘peace be with you’ vs ‘I come not to bring peace, but the sword’, for example). He summed up all the teaching as a command to “love one another,” but then said “if you love me, you will keep all my commandments.” His actions were even more confusing. The same Man who counseled turning the other cheek took a whip to the money-changers in the Temple. He said ‘not a part of the letter of the law would pass way’ but replaced whole sections of it with ‘nothing that comes from outside a man renders him unclean’ and acted accordingly. Faced with an adulteress, He never excused the sin; He called it what it was, then extended mercy, which was only God’s to give. He called peacemakers “blessed,” but praised a centurion for his faith: the extremity of this act is lost on us today, but put in the context of occupied Judea, it was like a concentration camp prisoner praising a guard!

If He cannot be passed off as one of many sages, there are no easy compromises about Him. On more than one occasion He publicly claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the living God: blasphemy to the Jews, treason to the Romans. This was madness or Truth. He died, never recanting the claim, even when a simple “I was misunderstood” would have spared Him.

Even today, You can’t ignore Him. Some Nones want to develop their own version of Him, complete with all-the-things-He-never-said-anything about, as if you could sanitize Him into a non-judgmental, peaceful, person of color: Jefferson smirks! No, even the way we count years (starting with BC and AD)* underlies His importance, not to mention His teaching is critical to the development of Western Civilization.

Ultimately, whether you are a believer, non-believer, spiritual-but-not-religious, or none, you still must answer “who do you say that I Am?”

Is He:

(1) a charlatan who pulled off the greatest hoax in the history of the world,

(2) a fool, manipulated into claims beyond His understanding, or

(2) the Almighty, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Choose carefully, and Felices Pascuas!

*I am amused that archaeologists and others seek to rebrand our measure of the years as BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). Note that the counting system still holds to His birth (more or less). I tell my friends we should embrace the change: just refer to it as Before the Christian Era and Christian Era. Problem solved.

Death & Taxes

It is true that Benjamin Franklin wrote about the two certainties in life (death and taxes), but he probably borrowed the phrase from Christopher Bullock, who wrote n 1716 “Tis impossible to be sure of any thing but Death and Taxes.” While the former is true for all, the latter is particularly true for an American expat.

The US of A is one of a handful of countries which tax your income regardless where you live; others are North Korea, Libya, Eritrea…how many expats do they have? Nearly all Americans face an annual deadline of April 15th, while expats can receive an automatic two month extension. But the taxes (and the interest, and the penalties) all must still be paid.

If you’re earning income from a foreign source as an expat, there is a sizable exclusion, and you can (depending on reciprocity with the country where you live) get credit for foreign taxes paid on your US tax return. If you have a foreign bank or investment account, there is the requirement to notify the Treasury of that account if it (or any combination of assets) exceeds $10,000 USD at any time. That is colloquially called FBAR, an acronym referring to the law which sought to eliminate offshore banking as a means of hiding income. Oh, and if you receive interest on such instruments, there is (of course) another law (FATCA) which the IRS uses to ensure foreign banks report back to them on you!

All this before even considering state taxes. Many expats don’t realize it, but even if you leave to be an expat and never plan to–or just never do–return, you have a US domicile for tax purposes. This is the place you would intend to return IF you ever did: it can be where you left from, where you established residence before you left, where you vote, etc. Your domicile determines whether you owe any state taxes (remember, your federal taxes are a given).

It is true that if you have no property in the US, no connections to same (voting registration, driver’s license), no taxable income, no intent to return, and no real goods that require a will for probate, you may not need to worry about your tax domicile. Yet I know some expats who do have these things, yet think they will somehow escape. Remember, death & taxes!

State governments watch for citizens who receive income in their state but don’t file a return, or who once filed a return and then years later their heirs try to probate a will. Some states will try to claim back taxes and penalties, so be wary.

It is true that some expats fall under the radar and simply go along, not paying taxes, not filing forms, and never get caught. But like so many things, expat taxes are a complicated subject, and one you ignore at your peril. By the way, tax deadline is tomorrow!

Why baseball is great

We don’t have seasons in the literal sense down here in the tropics. Oh, the Jacaranda are blooming, making everything purple and beautiful and sneezy, but that happens several times a year. We’re still in the dry season, and we await the coming of the blessed rains (cue Don Henley):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SjpNISroXw

But back NOB, Spring has sprung, and baseball has returned. And that’s great, because baseball is great. I played every sport as a youth, but baseball was my first love. Now I know football is more popular in the States, and basketball has a greater global following, but baseball is America’s national pastime. Because it’s great.

Baseball is great because it has a rhythm while remaining timeless. The game is not over until it’s over. How long will it last? Who knows? Like life, it has a normal age but can suffer extremes. Yet it divides into distinct innings which have an identifiable start and finish. You can breathe during a baseball game, relax during a baseball game, heck even nap during a baseball game. You can also focus as each pitch commences, then refocus away in between. You can attend and watch a baseball game and NOT ignore the family and friends who accompany you.

Baseball is great because it is so diverse, and not in that legalistic let’s-measure-the-color-of-the-players way. There are pitchers and fielders. But there are sub-genres within each that are not interchangeable. You don’t start your relief pitcher, or put a novice behind the plate. Infielders and outfielders have different skill sets, and there are huge differences between right- and left-handers and the ambidextrous. And don’t even get me started on individual hitters. Baseball is the only sport where a crafty, overweight pitcher can develop a knuckle-ball and keep being a successful starter into his grand-parentage.

Baseball is great because statistics. Baseball was the genesis of all the crazy statistics you see in sports today. Why? Because in baseball (as in life) most of the time you fail. A solid hitter gets a hit every fourth at bat, a good one every third, a hall-of-famer slightly more often. Everyone searches for the keys to success, which leads to ever-more-detailed stats. It was no accident that sabermetrics began in baseball.

Baseball is great because there are play-offs, but no plays off. If you’re a weak-side receiver on a strong-side sweep in football, you’re mostly just there to run away: it doesn’t really matter. You might just go through the motions. But in baseball, you don’t know where the ball is going when it leaves the pitcher’s hand. Every pitch, every fielder has a distinct responsibility, and it changes with the runners on base and type of pitch. In the field, baseball is the ultimate team sport. At bat, it is the time for individual achievement (cue Al Capone):

Trigger warning: this does not end well!

Baseball is great because almost anyone can play, but very few can play well (it resembles golf in this way). Some deride the relative athleticism of baseball players because there are some niche spots where a less (ahem) fit player can still contribute. But baseball remains unique in the degree of athleticism, intellect, and fine motor skills required to excel. Remember that the greatest basketball player of all time (Michael Jordan) never made it past the minor leagues in baseball. While performance enhancing drugs influenced baseball, there was nothing akin to Lawrence Taylor’s drug fueled reign of terror in the NFL.

Baseball is great because on any given day, the worst team in the league can defeat the world champions. Win two out of three in each series for the entire regular season, and you’ll be in the play-offs. So much can go wrong, you can’t ever guarantee success. Which also means you can cheer for lovable losers, and they’ll win against the odds. As a player or fan, you must learn to win or lose gracefully, and be thankful either way.

Baseball is great because it is still a family game. While the game-day experience is expensive, there are 162 opportunities a year, special events, and family prices. You can attend a game and NOT be afraid of the fan behavior your kids will witness (try that in an NFL stadium). There are even real minor leagues, affiliated with your favorite club, where you can watch excellent baseball at bargain rates. Basketball and football continue to lease college teams filled with “student-athletes,” but that is a rant for another time!

Finally, baseball is great because it starts in Spring, just as life returns to the northern hemisphere, and ends in Fall, just as we close the windows and gather firewood. Like the vernal equinox, it calls to mind warmer and longer days and time spent outside. Baseball is the home of fresh starts, where “there’s always next year!” is a perennial optimistic fan’s cry. Basketball is the urban game, full of trash talk and “posterization.” Football, like war, is all-hell. Football is Lucy always pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown. Baseball is that hopeful sense that “this could be the year.”

Baseball is great; play ball!

…there would be no geography

The volcano called el Popo (short for Popocatépetl) is on the verge of erupting, and the government is issuing warnings to keep folks from wandering too close. No doubt it will erupt soon, a not uncommon event here in Mexico, which has about 3,000 inactive and 14 active volcanoes. (FYI, we are 654 road kilometers from el Popo.)

I especially like the camera shaking at the beginning

Whenever a natural disaster–or a tragic crime–strikes Mexico, it is completely natural for friends and family to wonder if we’re alright. Many Americans have only a cursory understanding of the size and diversity of their southern neighbor; worse still, most only have experience visiting a few, very similar tourist destinations. I was certainly in that boat before becoming an expat and living here year-round.

Since most Americans visit the tourist resorts on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, they know Mexico to be a tropical climate with sandy beaches and warm (Carib Sea or Sea of Cortes) or cool (Pacific) water. Go a few meters inland and you hit tropical jungle or steep mountains. Which is all true. Yet Mexico is also the thirteenth largest (by size) state in the world (2,000,000 sq kms) and the eleventh by population (over 130 million). It’s the largest Spanish-speaking state in the world (gotcha! Brazil, though larger, speaks Portuguese, and Spain has only 46 million people).

Mexico has vast deserts, temperate midlands and plains (where did you think all those vegetables come from?), large canyons (Barranca del Cobre compares favorably with the Grand Canyon), major mountain ranges, high sierra, and of course those aforementioned tropical jungles and beaches. It is roughly shaped like a parallelogram that is hottest and driest in the uppermost, left-hand corner, traversing to hot and wet in the lowermost right-hand corner. Except for the Sierra Madre mountain ranges which run like a spine down the middle, accounting for micro-climates throughout the country.

Culturally, Mexico is literally a mixed bag. It is a blend of Spanish Catholic culture, indigenous ways, and a heavy dose of imported Americana. Today we tried to order papas ralladas with breakfast. Our waitress informed us they call them “papas hash browns.” Whatever. Mexico has gone through enormous changes in the past twenty-five years, much of it related to the NAFTA agreement. Like China, Mexico industrialized in a single generation. It is now the fifteenth largest state in Gross Domestic Product, ranked eleventh considering Purchasing Power Parity, and economists label it a “upper middle income” country. It was once a classic Third World nation; now it has a large manufacturing base and a middle class, alongside pre-existing elite wealth and poverty.

Many of the aspects which immediately come to mind when an American thinks of Mexican culture are in reality the cultural heritage of just one of Mexico’s thirty-two states: Jalisco. Mariachi bands: check. Tequila: check. Caballos Bailadores (dancing horses): check. Sombreros (some debate on this one). Vaqueros or cowboys (a lot of debate on this one). All claimed by Jalisco. In fact, the state government seizes on these associations with a tourist slogan that says “Jalisco ES Mexico,” literally Jalisco IS Mexico. Which is OK, since the rest of Mexico has adopted these customs, and you are not safe from a Mariachi band ANYWHERE in Mexico.

The best word to describe Mexico is diverse. The people include fair-skinned descendants of Spain and dark-skinned indigenous. Spanish is everywhere, except where one of the three hundred and sixty-four indigenous languages reign. There is no single Mexican cuisine: Oaxaca’s differs from Jalisco’s, which is different from Sonora, and none of them are Tex-Mex. The land has all the varied looks one recalls NOB, but with the addition of real tropical jungles. While it occasionally exceeds its fellow North American neighbor, it routinely rivals it in many ways. Not that one would notice that sipping margaritas on the way to the all-inclusive resort. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

Working Together

This past Monday was the official birthday (and a federal holiday) for former Presidente Benito Juárez. Much like President’s Day in the States, Mexico moves some holidays to Monday to create long weekends. We had a unique opportunity to put the free day to good use.

Of course, the colors chosen were bright orange,
bright green,
bright tourquoise!

The Rotary clubs of Lincoln and Novato, California, had a 15 person delegation visiting our Chapala Sunrise Rotary club this week. We arranged for the group to head to Ojo de Agua, the small town we have been working with the past several years. Since the men of the town had the day off, they agreed to join us fixing up the town plaza, and several of the women made a feast. The Presidente (mayor) of the municipal seat, Poncitlán, even showed up with his spouse!

My job: give a brief tour and describe our work providing water. The tank made a great stage.

The Rotary clubs provided paint, brushes, and ladders, while the townsfolk quickly dove in. We also bought terracotta tiles to repair the gazebo, installed some benches, and sent a mixed team of Rotarians and locals to take a census of the houses to identify which areas have fresh- and waste-water pipes inside their homes.

The Presidente flanked by Rotarians (and note the large, purple wall in the background)

The plaza was a pretty dull affair originally: mostly gray or dirty white walls, with some old advertisements painted on them and a gazebo with a broken down roof (see this “before” pic). The local children had a blast running wild with the brushes and left over paint: they painted themselves, individual bricks on the “town building,” and the lower reaches of several walls outside the plaza. The event was a classic case of doing good while doing well. Everybody had a great time. And we got a delicious bowl of homemade pozolé to boot!

Pozolé fresh from the stock pot (again, note the fine paint job in the background!)

Es México

Sometimes my wife and I run into a situation that can only happen in Mexico. When that happens, we simply turn to each other and repeat “¡Es México!”, and smile and continue on. Like:

The local government just passed some new traffic laws. One of them was a prohibition on reserving parking spaces. This was a common aspect of daily life in Mexico: much like folks NOB reserve a parking space when they shoveled the snow out of it, people here put traffic cones, or buckets, or folding chairs to reserve a space. No more: the law states the traffic police may remove the offending object wherever they find it. They could fine the responsible party, but no one would ever be stupid enough to label their objects.

There are good reasons to reserve a space in Mexico: for handicapped residents, for business’s loading/unloading, or just for access to a garage on a narrow street! But this requires an application, and a fee, and some curb work. Easier to place a bucket. But now you could lose your bucket, and no one wants to lose a bucket. One simply can’t go through the administrative hassle, and there is no guarantee of success, so what’s an innovative Mexican to do?

Dirt. Piles of it.

Where did I put my dirt?
How would you EVER get into that garage?

Works especially well if you just don’t want ANYBODY parking there. It’s anonymous. It’s not easy for the police to remove. And if they take it, well, you can just get more. ¡Es México!

Some economists estimate 25% of the Mexican gross domestic product is in the informal sector, meaning small businesses without licenses that do not collect the VAT (i.e., they are off the government’s books). These things pop-up everywhere, and offer convenience. If you have ever driven across the US-Mexico border, you have no doubt been approached by people selling trinkets, newspapers, CDs/DVDs, food, drinks, car washes, vacation rentals, insurance, anything! Some of this is pirated junk, but much is legitimate, if not legal, merchandise. Mexicans learn to spot the good and bad tiendas and readily shop at the former.

Need some fresh fruit?
Or floaties?
or a smoothie?

Shops appear in regular spots roadside, and often disappear each night. Some are only there on weekends. Some last for years, or until they grow too profitable and someone steps in to take a cut or ask for their paperwork. I saw a New York Times piece on the phenomenon of pop-up stores in the States…Mexico has always done this. “¡Es México!”

One final example is: the “viene-viene.” These are waiters who double as human advertisements for their establishments. There’s a restaurant row just down the road: it includes a series of all-you-can-eat seafood places alongside the lake. Some have a theme-park quality to them; most have bands on weekends, and are especially favored by tapatíos who want to get away from the city with the family for the weekend. But which to choose? Every place has several employees out front waving flags, rags, and menus, whistling and gesturing wildly at the cars as they slow to cross the inevitable topés. They seem intimidating at first, but are harmless, if a little aggressive. When you enter or leave the restaurant, they will halt all traffic and assist you on your way. Once you become accustomed to them, a simple smile and a wave as you pass is all that is required. After all “¡Es México!”

Giving UP

A neighbor asked if we were going to any of the Carnaval parades, especially the one yesterday. I said we were more “Ash Wednesday” people than “Mardi Gras” people. So welcome to Lent!

Carnaval is a big deal all over Latin America. Gringos are most familiar with Mardi Gras, French for Fat Tuesday (called “Shrove Tuesday” in English) which is the last day before the Christian season of fasting and penitence known as Lent. Here in Mexico there are a series of sponsored parades and fiestas throughout the Carnaval season, including people dressed up as Sayacos (spirits or crazy people) who throw confetti or flour on the unsuspecting parade watchers. The entire concept of Carnaval and the term itself comes from Latin, literally meaning a “farewell to meat.”

You’ll see some histories that trace Carnival traditions back to pagan Rome or even earlier, but these are fictions. Yes, pagan societies held grand festivals in springtime, near an equinox or around a solstice. They even sometimes fasted for periods. Yet these are common human activities, and there is no other direct relationship between those activities and the Christian season of Lent. It would be like suggesting the Chicago Bears football games are actually based on the dinosaurs, because long ago the dinosaurs engaged in mortal combat on the part of Pangea which is now Chicago. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Even when a majority of Americans were practicing Christians, Lent was something that stuck out. I can recall showing up for work in the morning and having the guard at the entrance say “Sir, there’s something on your face!” to which I’d rely “Yes, yes there is, and thanks for noticing.” Wearing ashes on your forehead, abstaining from meat, fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday were things that set Catholics (and Anglicans) apart. Now many Protestant groups are reclaiming their Lenten traditions. Meanwhile, Catholics relaxed the requirement* to abstain from meat, which used to be a year-round practice, so now it’s only a Lenten one. Few people know that the McDonald’s Fillet-o-Fish sandwich was created by a franchise in Cincinnati that suffered lagging hamburger sales every Friday!

Many people ask “what’s the point?” of giving up meat or wearing ashes. Some quote Jesus saying “when you fast…(do) not appear to be fasting…” (Matthew 6:16), which we read today in the Gospel. Giving something up just to give it up IS pointless. We give things up because we follow Jesus’ example, who fasted in the desert. We also give things up as a sign of obedience and trustworthiness, doing what we said we would do. A higher form of this practice is to take what you save (time, money) in your self-denial and give it away to those in need. These actions ennoble an otherwise pointless exercise in self-denial. Likewise, committing to doing something positive (in place of giving something up) is laudable. I recall a nun explaining it as “giving UP” with the emphasis on the direction of the intention (up as to God) as opposed to the notion of just denial; I like that way of thinking.

We wear ashes as a symbol. If it were a symbol which gained us respect, it would be something to do in private. If it marks us as someone to be ridiculed, we should wear it in public. “Blessed are you when they revile you…for my sake” says the Lord (Matthew 5:11). I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether being marked as a practicing Christian gains you respect today!

So we begin another Lent, a season of denial and mindfulness, but also a season of taking stock. If you believe we are all here for a purpose (I do), are we accomplishing it or avoiding it? If we are on the way to another world, what path are we on? When a cross falls from the sky directly in front of us, do we pick it up and embrace it, or look away and skirt it? Lent is a chance for a mid-(faith)-life crisis: who am I, and where am I going? Everyone answers that question in one way or another, regardless of beliefs. Embrace Lent: don’t give up, give UP.

*When the Roman Catholic Church changed, it made abstaining from meat every Friday optional, to be replaced with another penitential act at each believer’s choice. As is often the case, the practice was entirely forgotten. If you ever want to play “stump the Catholic”, ask them what voluntary penance they do in place of meatless Fridays, and you’ll get a blank stare. For our part, we gave up (see what I did there?) and returned to meatless Fridays year-round.

Everything you know is wrong (V)

Today we take on the Electoral College, one of the most misunderstood pieces of our government. It is much in the news recently, as an initiative is afoot to undo it without amending the Constitution. The idea is to get enough states to commit their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the votes in a particular state go. So, for example in the last election, if the people of Colorado voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump (they didn’t), the electors from Colorado would still have cast their votes for President for Hillary Clinton, based on the fact she received more votes in the national vote totals. If enough states pass similar rules, the electoral college becomes irrelevant, and the winner of the national popular vote becomes President.* Simple, yes?

Now if you were shocked (everyone was) and appalled (some were, some weren’t) by the results of the November 2016 election, it is entirely understandable why you might blame the Electoral College. But should we change it on that basis, and why do we even have this (very unique) institution? You be the judge!

Seven electors got a little crazy and voted for…whomever!

A quick review of the Electoral College: you don’t vote for President. You vote for a name associated with a slate of state electors who then convene and award the electoral votes from your state to a candidate. Sounds redundant, and it is. Each state determines how its electoral votes are awarded. The most common method is “winner-take-all,” although Maine and Nebraska use more elaborate methods which apportion their votes by congressional districts. The number of state electors is equal to the number of the state’s federal representation (House & Senate) meaning every state gets at least three (two senators and one representative), and more populous states then get more.

One reason the founders created the college was to balance against the tyranny of very large states. At the time, the founders feared Virginia and New York, the two largest states, might get together and trade votes between each other, ensuring the President always came from one or the other. While this threat seems quaint now, it is paralleled in the notion today that absent the Electoral College, a candidate might only campaign in New York city, Los Angeles, and Chicago (for example) in hopes of running up such a large vote advantage in metropolitan areas they could ignore large portions of the country.

Critics say this already happens: they charge that Democratic party voters are disenfranchised in red states as their votes don’t count, and it makes no sense to campaign in such states. First I would note that of course all the votes count, just some people voted for a winner and others voted for the loser. Second, Virginia was once one of those wasted-vote states until enough Democratic party voters moved there, turning it purple and now (perhaps) blue. So electoral reality changes, as it should. Finally, the difference between not needing to campaign (i.e., being able to ignore a state) and not wanting to campaign (because it is a lost cause) is an important one. No system which intentionally ignores large sections of the country can long endure.

Which leads to the chief criticism of the Electoral College: it is anti-democratic. This is 100% correct. As I noted before, the founders were very suspicious of the simple voting majority, and one of the reasons for creating the concept of electors was to have a group of reasoned, thoughtful citizens second-guess the popular vote: you can’t get much more anti-democratic than that! Doesn’t this ignore the wishes of “large sections of the country,” the claim I just described as unsustainable? No. Even in the last election, the country was evenly divided, and the electoral college less so. The national popular vote majority collected by Senator Clinton (three million votes) was dwarfed by the majorities she achieved in California and New York (six million votes). Stated another way, absent those states, candidate Trump “won” a majority of the popular vote in the other forty-eight!

So is the Electoral College just an unnecessary anachronism which gets in the way of our democratic process? We won’t know how necessary it is until we change it, which is always a hard way to learn (see constitutional amendments 17, 18, and 21). It is no more an anachronism than our constitution is: both are old, both still work. Does the electoral college get in the way of our democratic process: Yes, just as the founders intended.

There have been critics of the college from the very beginning. They surge in number and volume after any election when the winning candidate did not win the popular vote, which has happened five times out of fifty-eight elections. Consider the following question: is the drive to eliminate the college a principled effort to fix a longstanding problem, or an emotional reaction to a shocking election result?

Recall that prior to the 2016 election, it was then-candidate Trump who opined he might lose due to the “rigged system.” And it was then-candidate Clinton (and then-President Obama, among others) who rightly criticized him for attacking the system simply because he didn’t like the probable outcome. That debate was not specifically about the electoral college, but the principle holds: we don’t make drastic, summary changes to a system which has worked so well for so long, simply because we don’t win.

*Eagle-eyed observers may note that the movement to circumvent the electoral college has not been ruled on in the courts. If someone from a state adopting the approach sues for relief, the Supreme Court would have to rule whether the entire concept is an unconstitutional route to amending the existing constitutional system. ¡Ay Caramba!