Commentary – Page 17 – Pat the Expat

They call me . . . “Gramps”

Back in the States briefly to do some grand-parenty things, which brings a heavy dose of perspective. Bottom Line Up Front, as we used to say: all the things you endure as parents, when time and patience are limited, become luxuries to enjoy as grandparents.

I watched grandson Henry at basketball practice the other: ten six-year olds with one coach, trying to learn the fundamentals. That coach must have the patience of Job. It brings to mind the old joke about monkeys and a football (Google it; I can’t repeat it here).

Henry (#5, gold) looking all basketball player-y

We didn’t have such “youth sports” back in the day: sports started mostly around 5th grade, when the boys acquired sufficient motor skills–but not enough self-discipline–to play. I grew up in Indiana, where basketball is and remains king. You played basketball, or got beat up and called words which aren’t socially acceptable . . . today.

I recall practice being good preparation for the Military Academy: endless exhausting drills with much screaming and questioning of one’s manhood (remember, we were ten year olds). After enough berating, we could enjoy a little scrimmage, although there still was the terror of the coach blowing his whistle and yelling “freeze,” which induced a Pavlovian mixture of fight-or-flee. We had to stop exactly where we were, so the coach could point out some crime against humanity one–or occasionally all–of us had committed. Then it was back to the joy of the game.

Henry and his friends had no such experience: it was all joy. They travelled with abandon, shot when they should have passed (and vice versa), and sometimes wandered off into private flights of fancy. One young lad took a break from the action literally, heading to an empty space on the court to do a little break-dancing.

I recall taking my daughters to basketball practice so many years ago: a change in type and kind, since girls were left out back in my day. I knew they didn’t need the drill school I experienced, but what exactly were they doing? Team sports are an important part of growing up, but how much pressure to exert on skills versus fun? I over emphasized the former, but they had plenty of the latter. They couldn’t possibly imagine how much of an evolution that was!

Organized sports, especially Indiana basketball, was all seriousness growing up. We remembered the scores, the good and bad plays, the missed shots. In my case, especially the missed shots. I had what you would call substandard athletic skills. Okay, I had none. To borrow the Rudy quote, even in college I was ‘five feet nuthin’, one hundred and nuthin’, with barely a speck of athletic ability.’

I became adept at using my skinny lil’ bod to block out, because there was no other way I would ever get a rebound. I learned that if you ran fast enough, you would get a fast break leading to an uncontested lay-up, which I shot successfully around 50% of the time. Which was an improvement from any other shot I attempted, including free throws.

Basketball games were a mix of anticipation, adrenaline and pure fear at how I might screw things up this time, but still in some ways I enjoyed them. And it was a sport I was able to really enjoy when I finally grew into an adult body sometime in my twenties.

Was that high pressure approach wrong? Is today’s Let it Be better? I dunno. If you survive missing a tying free throw with a second on the clock in a crowded auditorium, life’s other strained circumstances are a little less apocalyptic. Still, screaming has never been an appropriate form of leadership (drill sergeants excepted), so why would it be for kids?

“What, me worry?”

Statistics are funny things. Done correctly, they have an unarguable standing, yet a clever person can use them to prove damn near anything. As Disraeli said, there are “lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

If I asked you to complete the sentence “the greatest threat to human life today is ________”, what would you say?

Based on the headlines, some might say gun violence. After all, there seems to be another mass shooting every thirteen days (a true statistic, depending on definitions) in the US. Despite the news coverage and the pathos of each of these attacks, the number of victims is still small (102 fatalities so far this year, another true statistic). Gun enthusiasts will remind all that the vast majority of guns are never used for a violent act (true), yet gun control proponents will counter that the most common use of a gun in your home (in the United States) is to kill yourself, a close friend, or family member, not a robber (also true).

Parents are buying bulletproof backpacks for fear of school shootings. These same parents blithely give their teenagers cars and smart phones, despite the fact that these two objects combine to kill ten teenagers every day (due to distracted driving).

Concerned for gun violence: quite valid. Worry? Maybe about the underlying causes.

People with a longer timeline might say climate change is the biggest threat. The violent weather and social disruption envisioned under most climate change scenarios is certainly a vivid threat, but sudden climate change remains a thing only in (bad) Hollywood movies. The imminent threat claim mouthed by politicians–you know, that we have only ten or twelve years left on the planet–has been rejected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

What their report states is we have no time, since climate change is already here. If you live in New York or LA, you’re already experiencing the +2 degree centigrade average temperature increase that is the benchmark for climate disaster. But the IPCC states that dramatic efforts to reduce carbon emissions could (by 2030, hence the ten-to-twelve years stat) save us from even worse effects, when the rest of the world catches up to +2. No one knows exactly how bad things will get, or when or where the worst effects will hit. Threatening indeed, but the imminence is a call to action, not despair.

What I have in mind is a threat already lurking, with the possibility of sudden emergence. So let me give you something new to worry about (right, because that’s what we need, another existential threat!). I say new, but that is only true if you’re younger than ninety-one years old (That’s a hint).

Prior to 1928, the most common cause of death worldwide was . . . infectious disease. The most common cause of death among children, the most common cause of death among soldiers, the most common cause of death among any group of human beings. The average life expectancy in the industrialized world in the 1920’s was approaching forty-nine years. It had inched up due to cleaner water and public sanitation, but was still low by modern standards.

1928 was the year Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, the first antibiotic medical treatment. The antibiotic qualities of some substances had been known for hundreds of years, but Fleming’s discovery was a mass-producible treatment which went widespread among the Allied armies in Wold War II and then everywhere else after the war. Prior to modern antibiotics, a cut or abrasion gave you a distinct possibility of dying. Gathering in large groups with poor sanitation risked the same. Your grandparents or great grandparents thought of hospitals as places where injured people went to get fixed up, but often got sick and died there. This wasn’t superstition: it was lived experience.

If you’re ninety-one or younger, you have lived entirely in the antibiotic era, which was different in type from previous human history. Life expectancy in the developed world shot up after 1928, gaining upwards of 30+ years in the next six decades! Antibiotics (and a better understanding of the bacteria they fight) was a major cause of this improvement. Proof lies in the fact that infectious disease remains the scourge of developing countries where antibiotics are unavailable.

The bad news is that evolution still holds, and bacteria, having countless numbers with which to experiment, are winning. Antibiotic resistant bacteria are popping up with increasing frequency, all around the world. Most of our antibiotics were developed in or before the 1970’s, the so-called “golden age of antibiotics.” But we misused them, using them to treat viral diseases (they don’t work against viruses), to fatten up farm animals, to mass spray and protect crops, in inadequate dosages or after they were expired, washing them down the drain where (other species and) bacteria were exposed. And survived. And evolved. And grew stronger.

There are new antibiotics in development, but of only a few new types. We have learned that bacteria are most vulnerable when hit with several different classes of antibiotic approaches at the same time: this complicates their natural selection, and buys us more time. So the new antibiotics are just a delaying action, and we don’t know how long before some truly deadly, easily transmitted disease beats the current set of “last-ditch” antibiotics.

What is a post-antibiotic world like? For a recent example, read about life during the Great Flu Pandemic of 1918. Granted, that was a virus, not a bacteria, but still it shows how an unchecked disease completely shuts down a modern society, and how social norms dissolve in the process. And that was just a 10-20% mortality rate. For a slightly more troubling scenario, read about the Black Death in Europe in the 14th century, where mortality exceeded 50% and the surviving remnant society was totally changed.

Unfortunately, there is not much an average person can do about the bacterial threat. Don’t ask for antibiotics when you probably have a virus, don’t use them when expired (or flush them down the drain), oppose policies of mass use for livestock or agriculture. Pretty small potatoes, what? That is what makes it such a threat, and why I choose to highlight it: individuals can’t do much about, it is massively deadly, and we have come to rely on antibiotics almost unconsciously.

Now that I have unburdened myself of this worry, I think I’ll take a good siesta. Sweet dreams!

Win. Win. Win.

I saw an article in the New York Times yesterday that was interesting for several reasons. You can read it here. For those unwilling to click through, or who have used up their “five free articles” for the month, here’s the gist of the story. An American woman needing a knee replacement went to Cancun for the procedure, and the entire trip and all medical costs were less expensive than just the procedure stateside.

As far as that goes, it’s just another medical tourism story. But there are a few twists. First, the surgeon was a US doctor who was also flown down to Cancun just for this surgery. He was accompanied by a Mexican doctor and staff, including a bilingual nurse who helped translate the doctor’s instructions. Why did the doctor do it, on his day off? He was paid triple the US Medicare rate for his work, including expenses.

Second, the woman and her husband are middle class folks from Mississippi, and her care came under her husband’s coverage through his employer, Ashley Furniture of Wisconsin. So this isn’t some ridiculously rich patient, nor a gold-plated health plan. Yet the health insurance provider paid all the expenses for the patient and her husband to stay at a resort attached to the hospital for the day before the surgery and ten days after. Oh, and she got a $5,000 bonus for agreeing to participate in the program. How? The total cost for everything was less than 40% that of doing the same procedure in the States. So Ashley furniture has saved millions in the last three years by offering this option to its employees.

Third, the care team consciously exceeded the health and care standards of US hospitals, using extra sterilization equipment and accelerating the physical therapy regimen. Why? the entire program is managed by a US firm called North American Specialty Hospital or NASH, who makes all the arrangements for the travel (even passports), connects the doctors and patients, and even provides malpractice insurance for the American doctor in case of complications. NASH insists on exceeding US standards to mitigate patient concerns; it’s the same reason they arrange for a US doctor. NASH is a for-profit business that gets a flat rate from the insurers for its work.

Last, why a private, upscale Mexican hospital? The cost per night is only $300 USD, and the care staff was excellent. As the patient related in closing, she would gladly come back and pay, as she was treated “like family.”

What we have here is a wining situation. Average couple gets high quality medical care: win. Company saves millions of dollars on said care: win. Upstart firm makes money ingeniously by putting consumers and providers together in an innovative way: win. Mexico gets credit for the quality of its care: win. Even the American doctor made out well.

Granted, this is not the solution to America’s health care challenges, if only because some people won’t accept it just because it is different. But it does show how there are ways out of the health care mess which don’t destroy the system as it exists. We need more innovative thought–and less sloganeering–on health care.

Dogz in the Dellz

We’re attending my annual college reunion (the BrewDogs), hosted this year in the Wisconsin Dells. Our trip got off to a sputtering start courtesy of AeroMexico airlines and an unannounced, last minute flight change.

We had reserved a non-stop flight from Guadalajara to Chicago O’ Hare, a four hour trip arriving just after midnight. We were going to clear customs & immigration and stay at the airport Hilton, which is adjacent to the terminal. Three days before the flight, I checked our seat assignments and noticed most of the plane was empty. Judy asked me “they wouldn’t cancel the flight, would they?” “No,” I opined, “they probably have connections to make, and this flight does not show a history of being cancelled.” Just by chance (or the intervention of the Holy Spirit), Judy checked the next day, and informed me we now had a morning flight, twelve hours earlier!

No e-mail, no notice of change on the Delta App (their partner). A Delta rep on the phone tried to tell me they sent both of us e-mails on June 30th (neither of us received such an e-mail), and oh-by-the-way, why did the App still show the original flight on July 29th? What can you do?

We were able to make the necessary changes to take the earlier flight, and make lemonade out of the lemons by staying the day at the airport Hilton, enjoying the gym and the pool and turning a hectic travel day into something more pacific.

Panoramic view of ORD from the top floor of the Hilton

While we enjoyed ourselves, the costs were shocking. Now I know we’re talking airport prices, but $77 USD for a shrimp Caesar salad, a bolognese pasta bowl, and two glasses of house wine? Not to mention service with an attitude. The waiter approached, stood facing away from our table, and asked “what can I get you?” We weren’t sure he was even talking to us!

But that’s travel now, especially in overcrowded US airports. The better portion was spending time with old friends (a term I mean literally these days) in the picturesque Wisconsin Dells, catching up on life and just enjoying each other’s company. Yes, there was too much bacon and too much custard (a Wisconsin specialty), too much wine and too much beer, too much loud music and too much raucous laughter. How else would a gathering of BrewDogs be?

Catching up means hearing of bad news as well as good. There were stories of friends and family passing, illnesses discovered and jobs lost, all the things that inevitably confront us as the years and decades pile up. And the stories were related in the frank manner only possible among good friends, who have shared hardship in the past, and can quickly revert to a level of intimacy only reserved for those you trust absolutely.

As the tally of empty beer bottles mounted, conversation veered to the deep end of the pool, and more than one time we confronted the same question: “what the h#&*! is going on out there?” Liberal & conservative, politically active and un-involved, all agreed that there is something fundamentally wrong in the country. We didn’t come to any brilliant conclusions; there simply wasn’t enough to beer to reach that level of performance!

Yet we noted that while the world we grew up in was fundamentally flawed in many ways, it was collectively far superior to today’s environment. Furthermore, those past failings hadn’t been resolved or even traded for new ones: many were still in place, adding to our woes.

Was it the inevitable finale of the age of Aquarius, since doing you own thing usually ends in destructive individualism? Was it unfettered commercialism, turning citizens into consumers and changing all human relationships into a contractual zero-sum game? Did we get too tired and cynical to believe in self-sacrifice and the common good? Or were we led on by politicians, manipulated into warring camps more interested in power and might than in duty and right.

We have to face it: America has always been a violent, individualistic place. But once upon a time, other peoples looked on that as something a touch quaint, a little odd, perhaps even useful. We seem to have passed from character to caricature. Maybe I’m just ruminating in a virtually empty O’Hare airport at midnight, waiting for a flight home. But my college friends come from all over the country, from backgrounds as different as can be. We all seem to be ruminating alone at midnight.

A Tale Told Three Ways

Is there any more contentious issue in America today than immigration? One side talks of “murderers, drug-dealers, and rapists” while the other talks of “concentrations camps” and “kids in cages.” Even in an age of gross overstatement, it’s a bit much. Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum, could we agree that we need less heat and more light on the issue? Good journalism could really play a role here. Here’s a story in three different points of view. See if you spot the better journalism.

Version 1: Francisco’s story

Francisco was out for a drive with his buddies. He was a rising high school senior in south Texas, and he and some friends were trying out for a local soccer team, so they were going on a little road trip. When they rolled up to the immigration checkpoint, they weren’t concerned. After all, they had driven through without any problem many times before, and such checkpoints are a fact-of-life in south Texas. Francisco thought nothing of it, as he was an American citizen, born and raised in there. But some of his family was undocumented, and one of them–his brother–was in the car, too.

The Border Patrol officer seemed a little too concerned about this carload of Hispanic teenagers, but Francisco knew he didn’t have to answer his questions, and they had nothing to hide, so probably the officers would inspect from outside the vehicle and soon they would be on their way.

Unfortunately, the right to remain silent doesn’t always include the ability to do so. The officer kept questioning his brother, and instead of ignoring him, his brother admitted to not being a citizen, and soon the entire group was on the way to a CBP processing station.

Now Francisco was a little concerned. He always carried his Texas state ID, a US Social Security card, and his Texas birth certificate, so he felt certain things would work out. But the CBP officers were suspicious, as he was travelling with an admitted undocumented person (his brother), so they were questioning the validity of his credentials!

After being processed and fingerprinted, all-hell broke loose. The CBP officers called him in and asked him why he was lying. When he tried to explain that he was a American, they cut him short and asked “why did you apply for an American visa as a Mexican national?” He had no idea what they were talking about, but next he found himself in a crowded cell with hundreds of recently apprehended people seeking asylum.

The CBP personnel were completely swamped by the numbers, and Francisco quickly realized he had no way to gain their attention to explain his situation, or call his parents. Two days later, his brother was voluntarily deported back to Mexico, where they had family. Francisco refused to go, insisting he was an American, and he was only going home.

The days ran into weeks as the government tried to confirm his papers, contact his family, and come to some definitive conclusion about his status. After three weeks, Francisco was transferred to an ICE facility, and was able to call his mother, when he learned the family had retained an attorney and was working to get him released. A week later, as removal proceedings against him continued, ICE finally released him to his mother and his family’s attorney. Francisco was just what he had always said: an average American kid. But now he was also an innocent victim of a cruel government bureaucracy.

Version 2: Duty Log, South Texas Region, 27 June-23 July 2019 (excerpts)

27 June. Border Patrol delivered four Hispanic youth for processing, after collecting them at a checkpoint. Officer stated some had Texas and/or US identification, but one admitted to not being a US citizen and had no documentation. As result, officer was suspicious of all the identification provided, and brought the individuals to station for processing. The group was assigned daily processing numbers 78-81.

29 June. Update: Marlon ________, previously admitted to being in the country illegally, and agreed to voluntary deportation back to Mexico. His brother Francisco _________ refused to participate in the removal proceeding.

06 July. Update: Suspect national Francisco _________ had previously provided a Social Security card and other Texas State ID which checked out as valid. However, his fingerprints came back as identical with a Mexican national (same name, DOB) who applied for a US visitor visa. When confronted, suspect denied any knowledge of application, without further explanation. Attempting to resolve contradiction by contacting family.

13 July. Update: Station was contacted by an attorney representing the family of Francisco _______. Attorney indicated Francisco’s mother, Sanjuanna ________ , could confirm his status as an American citizen. ICE officers asked why this woman’s name was different than the name of the mother on Francisco’s birth certificate; attorney indicated the mother had given a different name on that document, as she is undocumented (no further information). Woman further clarified that she had applied for the visa for her son because she could not get him a US passport due to the discrepancy on his birth certificate (no further information).

23 July. Update: After further clarification provided by his attorney, suspect Francisco _________ was released to his family.

Version 3: The story you didn’t find.

The sad tale of a American teenager named Francisco dramatically demonstrates the pitfalls of how the United States controls its southern border. Francisco, born in Dallas and raised in south Texas, was caught in an inland immigration checkpoint. These checkpoints, which have been challenged in court but remain legal, are an odd fact of life up to one hundred miles from the border.

Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, has the authority to stop vehicles and check for the presence of undocumented persons. US courts have held that drivers and passengers so stopped do not have to answer any questions, and can only be taken into custody for probable cause, but their vehicles may be visually searched from the outside. It is the closest America comes to the uncomfortable notion of “papers, please.”

People like Francisco are used to this, and he carried several forms of ID that day, including a Texas birth certificate. But his brother did not: his brother was undocumented, born in Mexico, and in the United States illegally. This caused the CBP officers to question the legitimacy of all the people in the car, leading to their apprehension.

Francisco’s brother agreed to a voluntary deportation back to his extended family in Mexico, but Francisco rightly refused: he was an America after all, and that was that. His IDs quickly checked out, which should have been the end of the story, but instead was the beginning of the ordeal.

When CBP ran his fingerprints, they matched a person of the same name, age and date of birth, who was born in Mexico and applied for a US visitor visa. Francisco denied knowing anything about it, but the match was undeniable: he was either a Mexican with fraudulent US identification, or an American with a bogus visitor visa. Either way, someone had some explaining to do.

Weeks passed as CBP pressured Francisco to come clean, while his family learned of his plight and retained an attorney. Their initial efforts came to naught: when they contacted ICE, his mother’s name did not match the name on his Texas birth certificate, which only raised more suspicion. His mother, also undocumented, admitted she had given a different name at the hospital when he was born. She later explained that because of this discrepancy, Francisco could not get a US passport, so she applied for the fraudulent US visitor visa for him, indicating he was Mexican, so he could travel back and forth to Mexico and visit family.

Another week of continuing communication between the government, his family, and their attorney led the government officials to release Francisco after almost a month in custody.

What separates these stories? Point of view. All three are factually true. The first takes a sympathetic view of the poor lad, who after all deserves the sympathy. Imagine being caught in such a situation! It’s a story echoing a lot of opinion writing on the border, long on emotion, but lacking the facts which are essential.

The second is strictly business. It shows what happens when resources are strained and laws flagrantly ignored: the business of law enforcement becomes problematic. Note how about a week transpires between each new disclosure. Are ICE and CBP officials supposed to ignore such a fantastic story as it dribbles out? Yet this version lacks any empathy.

The third tries to steer a middle road, letting the reader feel the pain of the innocent but also recognizing the ridiculous nature of the facts as they gradually appeared to the responsible officials. That would be journalism, at least as I learned it editing my high school newspaper.

If you want to know why I wrote all this, read how the Washington Post covered this story, here: WaPo link

Be careful, the online version has changed subtly over time, and even I only captured the third or fourth version of it. The original story serves one major purpose: to inflame readers about the immigration issue. There is no mention of how routine such checkpoints are (author’s note: I have been stopped at them every time I transit Texas). The allegation that border officials were suspicious comes out in paragraph five, but the basis for that suspicion is left to paragraph ten. The length of his detention is in the headline and lead paragraph; the explanation show up in paragraphs eleven-to-thirteen.

Next time your blood pressure spikes while reading a purportedly responsible new source, recall this exercise and ask: what are they trying to make me feel? What are the other possible explanations? Where is the other side of the story?

There is so much wrong about our immigration policies and border controls right now. It is a shame journalists are going the easy route and fanning the flames rather than shedding some light.

“Americans” : get used to it!

Maybe it was the annual 4th of July celebrations. Maybe it was the “USA-USA-USA” chants as the American Women’s team won the World Cup. Maybe it was the hyper-patriotism evinced by President Trump (I think this is certainly the case). Whatever the cause, I noticed the return of an unfortunate and misguided meme: “Don’t call them Americans.”

Damn the CIA…even they forgot to put the “of America”

The meme is usually accompanied by a map of the Western Hemisphere, clearly labeling the two continents, and the accompanying text patronizingly explains that since all residents of said hemisphere are Americans, it is incorrect to call the citizens of just one country in that hemisphere “Americans.” Sometimes it is someone trying desperately to be clever. Sometimes it is a washed over Latin American Marxist seeking redemption. Sometimes it is just someone “Trumped.”

Let’s finish this pedantic argument off once and for all, shall we? It is entirely correct to refer to all inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere as Americans, when differentiating them from other continentals. When referring to groups as Europeans or Asians or Africans, it would make sense to refer to Americans, too. However, it would not make sense for a European to argue that they should be called “humans” instead of Europeans, not because it isn’t true (probably, not sure about the French), but because “human” is part of a different classification and does not distinguish by continent. Clear so far?

What about the particular use of the term American to designate citizens of one country, the US of A? Peoples the world over adopt naming conventions for themselves; they are not assigned by others. Sometimes these conventions make sense, other times they don’t. Canadians are not from Canadia (despite my then-young daughter’s claim) but from Canada. People from New Zealand choose to be called Kiwis after a native, flightless bird…ok? In Naples they’re Neapolitans not Niples, in Liverpool, Liverpudlians not Liverpoodles, and DC is filled with Washingtonians, not swamp creatures.

As the peoples of the Western Hemisphere became independent nations, they each chose a national title. Only one chose a title with the term “America.” Perhaps it was something of a early-adopter advantage for the US, which dissuaded others from so choosing, but that is the history, cut and dried. It’s not like the USA was a behemoth striding the globe in 1776! As a result, people from the USA call themselves Americans, as does the rest of the world. It is not at all confusing, which might be a valid reason for suggesting an alternative.

I read where someone suggested people from the United States should be called “United States-ians” which IS the official term used in Spanish (estadounidenses). Now for some real irony: there is another country in the hemisphere with the moniker United States–Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, or Mexico. Anyway, estadounidenses is a bureaucratic term; even Mexicans refer to “americanos,” “norteamericanos” (wait, isn’t Mexico in North America?) or “gringos” (¡smile when you say that, amigo!)

Brazilians are free to call themselves Americans, when it makes sense. And you can call an Egyptian an African, if you’re trying to distinguish them from a Asian, like from Israel (really).There are no Argentinians, just Argentines, Berliners are something you eat (still), Czechs come from Czechia (betcha’ didn’t know that one!), and Bolivians come from the Plurinational State of Bolivia (Nobody knows that one!).

The argument against calling people from the United States “Americans” is not technically correct, is not clever, and is not worth repeating. It is tendentious at best, simply a way to trigger some of the worst chest-thumping responses from average Americans.

And anyway, it’s pronounced ” ‘Muracan. “

American Travel Advisory

***SATIRE. This post is intended as SATIRE. If you don’t understand SATIRE, look it up in the urban dictionary (more SATIRE).***

I wanted to report back to all my amigos on my recent visit to El Norte (NOB, chant with me, “U-S-A, YEW-ESS-AY, YEEWWW-ESSSS-AAAAY…”). Putting the bottom line up front, it’s not safe up there, and I do recommend you postpone any travel there until it calms down, which could be several decades.

First off, while we were in Cincinnati, there were all these terrible storms that dumped rain all day, every day…what’s with that? The Ohio river started to climb its banks, but did that deter the locals from parking along the river? Not at all! And the TV weathermen kept interrupting the local broadcast to tell us it was a “Code Red” day and unsafe to breathe outdoors. Now I don’t know about you, but where I live, the air indoors comes from outdoors, so what am I supposed to do?

We survived that leg of the trip, but then we went to … South Bend, Indiana. Apparently the mayor of South Bend is running for Presidente de los Estados Unidos (does the Presidente of Chapala ever run for Presidente de los Estados Unidos Méxicanos?). Anyway, the Mayor is not at home, and the policía shot down an African American man (this happens a lot, apparently) and there were protests and shouting and generally bad behavior (not like a Chivas-Atlas match, but pretty close).

The night before we left South Bend, I was sitting in my hotel room, when my phone started buzzing, then my computer started alerting, then the TV weathermen interrupted the game, then the hotel management called my room to tell me to take shelter in the hallway because there was a tornado warning! Now I am a South Bend homeboy, so I know that you don’t hide in a bathtub/basement/crawlspace until you hear the train (el tornado) coming. So I was like “Guey, que pedo?” and waited for the weathermen to give up and get back to the game. Back in the day, we found out about the tornadoes when we read about them the next morning in the newspaper… “Cool, we didn’t die!”

So we decided to head to Baltimore to visit our nietos, and we had to drive a bunch of cuotas. They were really expensive, but we had this thing called EZPass (translates as easy-pass, but inglés, what the heck!) and so we should have been able to drive through the casetas without even slowing down. Except the Man was watching, and he didn’ want no permanentes driving through, so we had to stop at each toll-booth and hand our “EZPass” to the attendant, who ‘read’ it an handed it back and sent us on our way. What is “E-Z” about that?

We thought we would be safe near the ‘nation’s capital’ but there were four homicides and many more shootings in the DC-Baltimore area while we visited. I think the gringos need to practice more, because there seem to be many more wounded than killed. Back in Mexico, we get reports of someone killed with thirty-seven bullet wounds; in the States, there is “one person killed and thirty-six wounded.” Very poor gun control, indeed.

We were driving around, doing the American thing (driving around) in the middle of the day, in the middle of the week, and there was all this traffic! And people were hurryin’ … we know, because they were beeping at my driving, because I was only going fifteen miles OVER the speed limit pulling into the shopping center at 2:00 pm on a Thursday, and what the f*$^&* was I thinking, goin’ so slow? Am I right?

One day, we went for a hike in a Maryland state park, and when we came back to our rental car, the back window was shot out with a BB-gun. We had “Massachusetts” plates, so maybe someone mistook us for a rival cartel. But who sells drugs in a state park? Eh, no problema, the rental car company gave us a Jaguar SUV to drive around in … but we were too scared to take it anywhere, ‘cuz we would get car-jacked.

See that little hole to the left?
This is what the rest of the window looked like

Everything goes so fast in El Norte! People move fast, talk fast, and no one better stand in their way. When we went hiking, we greeted people on the trail with “Good Morning!” and they looked at us like we were shouting “ehhhhhhh, puto!” Eventually they smiled, responded, and walked on, but they kept looking back at us as we walked away! Maybe it’s our accents?

We’ve been layin’ low, watching for la migra and the policía en general. I don’t know why we are watching for them, as we are legal visitors, but the news is full of stories about them, violent crime, random attacks, and general lawlessness. El Presidente Trump keeps talking about keeping out all the rapists and murderers, and it seems like they got plenty already, so maybe he’s right.

Here is my official travel warning: wait until the 2020 election to visit NOB. The people who aren’t high on oxycontin are wavin’ guns all around, and both groups seem to drive while drinkin’. Politics is an excuse for the very worst behavior…Americans haven’t learned to distrust all politicians like Mexicans do, so they start believing them, and then no end of trouble ensues. If you HAVE to travel, learn some basic phrases in English like “please don’t shoot me” “U-S-A, U-S-A” and “F$^*@ Trump” or”Make America Great Again” (be sure NOT to use the latter two unless you know which political cartel’s territory you are in!).

Above all, try to fit in: Drive very fast, talk very fast, only use plastic money, don’t greet strangers or make eye-contact. Americans are actually very friendly. When in doubt, compliment Americans on the size and cleanliness of their handguns; it never fails to break the ice.

Did I mention this is SATIRE?

Is college broken?

I began this post with the title “College is broken,” which is more definitive and alarming. I amended it after a dose of humility (I know, I need more) and the realization several family and friends work in academe, and perhaps they would chime in to a more inclusive invitation.

Don’t even get me started on “student-athletes”!

My concerns about the university system in the United States go all the way back to my daughters’ experience. Both of my daughters attended public universities, graduated in four years with some (but not extensive) debt, learned a lot, enjoyed their college years, and departed with good jobs. My wife and I paid for some of the expenses, but insisted each daughter incur some combination of scholarship/work-study/student loans (skin in the game). So what’s not to like?

It started with the application process. I distinctly recall a high school guidance counselor explaining how she could only write a letter of recommendation to one school for early admission (or was it early acceptance? Early enrollment? It doesn’t matter). When I asked why, since each university is independent (and would not know) and a student could only attend one, she told me they share information, and if she was found to be writing more than one letter, the schools would “blackball” her or the high school! “And no one has sued them for this behavior?” I asked. “Sure, you could, but your daughter won’t get into any decent school while the suit runs,” she told me.

This was my introduction to the organized crime of university admissions. Perhaps you have heard of the lawsuits which have followed, demonstrating collusion in the Ivy League admissions process, and of course the more recent pay-to-attend scandal among wealthy parents nationwide (no surprise to me).

But there was more. Early on for each of my daughters, they were advised by admissions counselors that they really needed to strongly consider taking five years to graduate. We strongly advised them to really consider graduating in four years, because the universities they were attending had to offer four-year degrees in the majors they were attempting. Our daughters made the right choice.

All of that just goes to my personal bias that something was rotten at the university of Denmark, to paraphrase Marcellus in Hamlet. So I began to research it (here comes trouble). Among my findings:

I think everyone knows there is a strong statistical relationship between attending/graduating college and lifetime earnings (the more of the former, the more of the latter). Many people have come to believe this is a credentialing phenomenon: it doesn’t matter what happens at college, you just get the sheepskin, you make mo’ money. The strongest correlation is between education and earnings. Those who have a passion for some topic and the requisite skills to address it do very well, either rounding our their knowledge (classical liberal arts) or specializing (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, or STEM). Those who either lack or mis-match passion and skills do poorly, diploma-be-damned. Which means college is not for everyone, or certainty not for everyone graduating high school; some may be far better served doing something else at that point!
What about the “free universal college” movement? If the students can attend for free, there is no risk in terms of debt, and maybe they will discover their talents and passion while at university? Setting aside the issue of cost (for the moment), creating a broad new entitlement in the hope of something good happening for some subset of the attendees is a poor gambit. There are unintended consequences lurking about: how many otherwise strong students will be lured away from academics by the party atmosphere of a multitude of “student-attendees?” It is like prescribing antibiotics for every cough: what could go wrong, until we experience antibiotic resistant diseases?
Other countries seem to do it well (free university education), why not the US? There are examples of countries which do it well, but none has a system amenable to the US. Some control the overall cost by simply limiting the number of universities (reduced demand equals limited cost). Others track students: in Germany, a test determines which high-school track you attend, which then determines your tertiary education opportunities. I would not want to attend the school board meeting in the United States where such a system was proposed.
But perhaps the rigorous nature of the university system and its selfless commitment to professional education will affect that wave of “student-attendees.” It is to laugh (cue Johnny Carson)! Sometime in the last thirty years, the academy became big business. Average college tuition is up 260% over that time as enrollments sky-rocketed (supply and demand still rules). The one-hundred richest universities have endowments above one-billion dollars (Harvard tops the list at $36b USD). The federal government abetted this wealth, first by guaranteeing student loan debt, then by directly providing the loans, and then by raising the amounts students could borrow. And since the federal government has no profit motive, even sham schools and non-productive majors (those would be value judgments, tsk-tsk) are eligible.
How bad did it get? A recent NYT article outlines the for-profit Art Academy University in San Francisco charging $100k tuition for a Masters in something called “design and applied arts.” Surely this is just a for-profit phenomenon? No, most everybody does it, and don’t call me Shirley. USC has an online Masters in Social Work that comes in at a cool $110k in tuition. Pure profit, baby! Since I have social workers in the family (wife and niece), here’s a little joke: how long does it take a social worker to earn enough to pay back such student debt? Never, a social worker doesn’t earn enough to eat, let alone pay back student debt! Check out the article for more astounding examples.
Worse still, once the cash-cow of new students started flooding into the university system, academe responded not by strengthening standards and tightening requirements, but rather by catering to the masses. I have to admit that I have nothing but envy for the culinary experiences I witnessed at my daughters’ schools: for college, I was “institutionalized” at a place that serve boiled beef. I hold no grudge for the air conditioning, drone-provided snacks, or comfort animals of today’s university system, but the catering extended to the curriculum! Out went mandatory classes in the classics (dead white men, after all). Core curricula became less core and more a la carte: you could replace Western History with, say, “Film, Fiction, and Female in Israel” (University of Michigan course catalog). Not to pick on UM: go to your favorite university or alma mater and you’ll find an equally valid example. Even ten years ago, when I was interviewing new hires, I noticed an increasingly apparent lack of historical knowledge, and this was in the national security field, one which assumes employees have a basic historical knowledge-base!

Now the disclaimer: the US university system is still a global standard. Any list of the best universities in the world is dominated by the usual suspects from the US. Which is to say that some students attending these institutions and getting an excellent education. However, the combination of a huge increase in demand for college, the unlimited supply of debt resources, and the tendency to treat students as customers to be satisfied has resulted in a large number of drop-outs and graduates with huge debt and little education. Worse still, it created a huge disconnect: young people who had been told attendance is as rewarded as performance, and that truth can be personal rather than absolute, now find themselves unprepared in a harsh world, where little matters beyond the bottom line.

I invite others with recent experience in higher education to chime in: crisis or not? Are these problems real, or am I just the guy yelling “get off my grass” on the quad?

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!

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.