***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?
Plenty of room in row “U”
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*$^&* was I thinking, goin’ so slow? Am I right?
One day, we went for a hike in a Maryland state park, and when we came back to our rental car, the back window was shot out with a BB-gun. We had “Massachusetts” plates, so maybe someone mistook us for a rival cartel. But who sells drugs in a state park? Eh, no problema, the rental car company gave us a Jaguar SUV to drive around in … but we were too scared to take it anywhere, ‘cuz we would get car-jacked.
See that little hole to the left?
This is what the rest of the window looked like
Everything goes so fast in El Norte! People move fast, talk fast, and no one better stand in their way. When we went hiking, we greeted people on the trail with “Good Morning!” and they looked at us like we were shouting “ehhhhhhh, puto!” Eventually they smiled, responded, and walked on, but they kept looking back at us as we walked away! Maybe it’s our accents?
Seems friendly enough!
We’ve been layin’ low, watching for la migra and the policía en general. I don’t know why we are watching for them, as we are legal visitors, but the news is full of stories about them, violent crime, random attacks, and general lawlessness. El Presidente Trump keeps talking about keeping out all the rapists and murderers, and it seems like they got plenty already, so maybe he’s right.
Here is my official travel warning: wait until the 2020 election to visit NOB. The people who aren’t high on oxycontin are wavin’ guns all around, and both groups seem to drive while drinkin’. Politics is an excuse for the very worst behavior…Americans haven’t learned to distrust all politicians like Mexicans do, so they start believing them, and then no end of trouble ensues. If you HAVE to travel, learn some basic phrases in English like “please don’t shoot me” “U-S-A, U-S-A” and “F$^*@ 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.
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?
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!
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.
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.”
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.
All ashed up, and no place to go
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.
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!
The never-ending immigration debate continues to shed more heat than light. I see more vague, heartless, and ill-informed opinions on this topic than just about anything else. As a pro-immigration conservative, I often feel like my views aren’t reflected in all the noise. Here they are; I hope they are specific, compassionate, and informed.
America is just different. I am not implying necessarily better, but no sane person can deny the core attractiveness of the concept of America. We are a creedal nation: one defined not by blood or religion or geography, but by an individual’s commitment to espousing a common set of beliefs. If you wonder what they are, re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. More people want to come to the United States and live there than anywhere else in the world, and the numbers are not even close. Some immigrants already espouse the American creed; others just want to get away from whatever ills plague them in their own country. All we ask of those who arrive in America is they (eventually) share our creed.
Alas, more people want to come and live in the United States than the United States can reasonable digest. It is not a matter of space or jobs: it is a matter of culture. Just as America changes everyone who comes to live in it, every immigrant (legal or not) changes America. The vast majority of immigrants make America better. A tiny minority make it worse, or even intend to do it harm. Regardless of good intent, cultural changes take time.
If you look throughout American history, the greatest anti-immigrant movements happen not during large swells in immigration, but just after, as the new immigrants settle down and spread throughout the country. Thus has it always been; thus it is today. Foreign-born residents made up 13.7% of the US population as of last year, the highest level since 1910 (14.7%). When the first foreign immigrant lands in your small town, he is a curiosity; when several hundred follow, you begin to wonder why you can’t find white bread at the corner “supermercado.”
Asking such a question is not inherently racist or anti-immigrant. Racism requires intent (I know some academics posit a whole different theory of implicit racism: I disagree, but let’s leave that for another post, another day). As an expat in Mexico, I often hear expats complaining that we as expats should not change the local culture. These same voices call people racists when Americans say immigrants should not change America’s culture. Consistency, anyone?
Since the wave of immigration has passed, a wall is not the solution, as I have previously noted. That said, a wall is neither moral or immoral, it is just an object of policy. A wall can trap innocent people in utter subjugation: see “Curtain, Iron.” A wall can keep sadistic murderers from harming innocents: see “Prison, SuperMax.” Some immigration proponents state that the existing US-Mexico border wall is immoral because it forces immigrants to the desert where they are more likely to perish. These same people claim the wall is ineffective. Logic, anyone?
America has less physical border control than almost anywhere. I say almost anywhere, because contrary to FaceBook memes, the tiny Vatican state has none. Due to the amiability of our neighbors (and despite our occasional extra-territorial forays), America has few walls or fences, and only recently (post 2001) became interested in tracking people coming and going. America didn’t even have immigration laws until the late 19th century; our view was “if you can get here, good on you!”
See that gaping opening around the colonnade? Come and go as you please!
Today, America’s immigration system is designed to be difficult to pass. There is simply too much demand, from too many places, and Americans see no reason to to make it easier. We have to screen against drug smugglers, foreign terrorists, child-traffickers, routine criminals, and folks who just want to come to America despite not qualifying. We have to screen people from everywhere, with every language, dialect, religion, race, and culture. We have to move hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars of products across our borders instantly everyday to fuel our trade-based economy. And we have to do all this while remembering–in our creedal nation–you can’t spot a “real American” by how they talk, dress, pray, or behave. Some humility for the challenge facing our immigration and customs officials, por favor?
Some people think immigrants (legal or not) get a free ride of generous benefits at the cost of American taxpayers. Most immigrants would admit their material life is better in America, at least eventually. But immigrants qualify for only the most basic public services, such as the right to children’s education, emergency medical care, some anti-poverty programs, and various legal protections. Mostly they work multiple (lousy) jobs, have taxes and Social Security taken from their pay (which if not legal immigrants, they will never be able to file for and recover), and send as much of their paycheck home as possible to support a family.
I hope I never hear the phrase “We are a nation of immigrants” again. It is true and utterly specious. The phrase is trotted out as some kind of justification, but for what? The Native American peoples came to the hemisphere from elsewhere, and they were not uniformly welcoming of the newly arrived European settlers. Subsequent groups of migrants arrived in accordance with the few laws and limits on immigration, but were more often threatened than welcomed. Hardly a history anyone should cite to support any position in the current debate.
Just a plaque, folks
Likewise, spare me your tired, huddled masses of Statue of Liberty quotes. The statue, a gift from France in 1886, is a monument to the American ideal of Liberty (remember, our creed?). It’s official title is “Liberty Enlightening the World” and its design is based on the Roman goddess Libertas, calling to mind the connection between the Roman and American Republics. By coincidence only, it sits on Liberty island, not far from Ellis island, where millions of immigrants later processed to enter the United States. What about the famous “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?” It is inscribed on a plaque at the base, in the museum. Emma Lazarus wrote the poem to promote the acceptance of refugees as part of a fundraiser to pay for the base of the monument. The Statue is about why people would want to come, not whether they should be allowed to.
If overall immigration is at modern lows, why are we having a debate? For one reason, the time to solve any political issue is when there is no crisis. You fireproof the building when you can, not once the fire rages. There is a surge in the number of families and children from Central America arriving at the US-Mexico border. Some suggest it is the fruit of America’s long involvement in Latin American affairs. If that were the case, we would expect to see the greatest number of immigrants from the countries where America was most recently involved. Most of the immigrants come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. America supported several coups in Guatemala in the early 1980s. Yet America invaded Panama in 1989; where are those refugees? America supported a coup against Honduran President Zelaya when he suspended the constitution and tried to remain in office in 2009; so why did Honduran emigration increase ten years later?
The reality is all these countries are experiencing increasing violence and decreasing economic opportunity. The migrants who arrive at the American border frequently tell media sources they ‘just want a better future for their families’. Given the demand to immigrate to America, ‘wanting a better future’ is not going to get you into the country legally. Legal immigration is handled in the immigrant’s home country and strictly regulated by national quotas. These migrants are showing up at the border and claiming asylum as refugees from a “well-founded fear of persecution.” I’ll spare you the legal details surrounding this phrase and just note that high crime and no good jobs won’t qualify, meaning most of these asylum-seekers will be denied. But if that is so obvious, why did they risk so much? How do poor people from underdeveloped, violent nations suddenly decide to risk everything to walk with their children to the United States?
There are two groups responsible for spreading the word: human-traffickers and pro-immigration activists. Agustin Gomez, the Guatemalan father of the young boy who died in ICE custody after crossing the border, said, “We heard rumors that they could pass (into the United States).They said they could pass with the children”. The coyotes who organize and move people across the border are actively recruiting and offering discounts for migrants who bring their children with them. One coyote told the foreign press, “Everyone took advantage and sent them (the children) over. Some coyotes charge less because they know if you turn yourself into immigration, there is no problem. You will always go through.”
Meanwhile, groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders) have been visiting communities in Central America for fifteen years, helping organize groups to reach the United States in protest of American immigration laws. Desperate people are told they will be welcomed; they are used: by the coyotes for profit, by others as political tools. The numbers of such immigrants are not yet a crisis, but they are taxing America’s ability to detain, care for, and process them. They are increasing, and there is no logical reason for them to stop coming.
If you care, I have covered my views on immigration previously here. I would only add that the problem of families with children showing up to request asylum will only grow worse. It got bad once before under the Obama administration, and it was only brought under control by a combination of carrots (foreign aid, direct support to Mexico, catch-n-release) and sticks (family detention, some child separations, threats to without foreign aid). Sound familiar? That administration was (I believe) embarrassed by what they did, but they still did it; the current administration seems proud of it. In any event, some of those policies have been ruled unconstitutional, so there are fewer tools to address the situation.
The plight of these refugees is horrific. Imagine how bad things must be to decide to walk hundreds of miles with your children to an uncertain future. It is immoral to separate children from families just to deter immigration; it is just as immoral to encourage families to take their children on such a trek without any reasonable hope of success. Those who simply say “welcome them” must answer the questions: what solution do you propose? how many will qualify? why favor those that can walk to the border (Latin America) over those who can’t (Africa and Asia)? how will we pay for it? and, where will they go? There is nothing compassionate about the moral hazard of encouraging poor people to undertake great risk neither they, nor their chosen host nation is prepared for.
Part of the reason the immigration debate is so nasty, is it isn’t just about the immigrants, but about who we as Americans are. The nature of the American creed is up for debate: what are we asking the immigrants to profess to believe in? Compassion or the rule of law? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Individual autonomy, diversity, and acceptance? Different views of who we are color how we approach the problem. Either way, the people who suffer most are those most vulnerable: the would-be immigrants themselves.
Few things are as satisfying as a roaring fire on a cold night, perhaps with a fine snifter of brandy and some great company, to boot. Why is that?
Check out the sweet fire grate!
After all, fire is pretty elementary and ordinary. Man’s conquest of fire is so ancient that we have no idea how or when it happened, although every society has a fire-mastery myth. And all fire does is provide light (not really that much) and heat (not very efficiently).
When we lived in northern climes, we had a wooded lot, full of pine, oak, and beech. Courtesy of Hurricane Isabel in 2003, we had a huge wall of logs which lapped the perimeter of our lot, and probably is still not entirely dissipated. The trees provided plenty of kindling, and we had a real, old-fashioned fireplace in the family room. Starting early in the fall, I would begin to gather and stack the wood closer to the house, and identify a great pile of kindling. Given the nearly unending supply of firewood, we had a fire most evenings. Later on, we had gas fireplaces, which look just fine and produce some heat, but just missed that “something.”
Fast forward to our life on Mexico, and I figured our nights of roaring fires were all behind us. We have a real fireplace (chimney but no flue), but it is gas-fed. Certainly it never gets cold enough to justify a fire. The last few weeks we have had overnight temperatures in the 40’s, but seriously, folks, that’s not fireplace weather.
Our fireplace looked odd with just a gas pipe sticking out. We looked at gas fireplace logs, but they were ugly, and crazy expensive (perhaps an import thing?) So after almost two years of staring at it, we finally decided to get a real firewood grate. We had a local ferretero (iron smith) come by and take down the measurements and design, and he delivered a custom one.
Since Mexicans like a good holiday fire as much as anyone–and they consider 50 degrees to be essentially freezing–this is the season for road-side stands selling all kinds of firewood. Now we are back in the business of roaring fires, if only for a few weeks.
Despite the past experience, I have no special skill when it comes to starting a fire. And I’m not opposed to twisting the gas handle if the fire is slow to take. After all, I’m not in fear of freezing to death, like the protagonist of Jack London’s great short story (go ahead, go read it now), from whom I borrowed the title of this post. I just know what I like: the crackle and the hiss, the warm glow, the wisp of aromatic wood.
Right now you’re probably in the middle of the annual Thanksgiving gathering of friends and family. If you’re reading this, you probably should PUT DOWN THE DEVICE AND TALK TO REAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE TRAVELED FAR JUST TO BE WITH YOU. Or perhaps you’re hiding in the bedroom or bathroom just to get away from the same people (yes, everyone does it).
If so, you’ve certainly run into that dear old friend or distant relation who holds, shall we say, unorthodox views, and always finds a way to start talking about them. “You know they faked (the moon landing/9-11 attack/Kennedy assassination)?” he says out of nowhere, or she opines “(Trump/Pence/Clinton/Obama) is really the President because (bogus political website) said the election was illegitimate.” Maybe even “I heard (current scam product) can cure (cancer/erectile dysfunction/baldness).”
And the gathering is off to the races, rarely for the better.
Sorry, I have no suggestions for dealing with them. But I do have a plea: don’t be that person. “What!?!”–you say–you would never BE that person. And I admit, my friends (and I) would NEVER be the kind of dreadful bore who engages in such behavior in person.
But online, well, that’s another story, eh?
We all know people who are perfectly normal in the real world, but go all Jekyll-n-Hyde online. Yet the same norms of behavior apply. DHS rolled out the slogan “if you see something, say something” a few years back. When you’re online, it should be “if you see something, (think about it before you) say something.” So many otherwise reasonable people, with sharp minds and pleasant personalities, post/share/retweet the most ridiculous nonsense without ever checking it.
This is no less harmful than your crazy uncle who annually ruins your Thanksgiving ritual. You may think its different, because your online friends either do it, too, or just ignore you when you do it, but that’s what happens in person also!
Beside just complaining, I do have some suggestions.
First, ALWAYS remember that your online content is curated, that is, someone or something is feeding it to you. Facebook, Google, Instagram, whatever, all are designed to gather information about you (YOU are the product) and use that information to get you to use their service more, providing ever more information. They share things with you that they know you like or dislike, sometimes intensely. They will determine where your views are more extreme (on a relative spectrum) and feed you those “news items” just a little more extreme than yours. So remember, you’re being fed with a purpose. If you don’t believe me, give up all social media for a week and compare your blood pressure before and after.
Second, its OK to be partisan and visit nakedly partisan websites. It can be fun to read/see/hear your views put in their most strident and argumentative form. But unless every single person you know feels the same way (and if they do, you have a whole ‘nother, bigger problem), don’t share the content you find there. If you want to spend time on Breitbart or Occupy Democrats (to name but two), do so in the privacy of your home. Think of such visits as, ahem, self-stimulation: best if done in private and not to be mentioned at your next social gathering.
Third, whenever and wherever you see that fact/point/opinion that is so good/cool/convincing that you just have to share it, stop and check it out. Even if it comes from conventional media sources that you trust, check it out. There’s a reason every newspaper posts corrections every day. There are a wealth of websites to help you: Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org,RealClearPolitics, Poynter, AmericanPressInstitute, WaPo’s Fact Checker and Fact Check @ NYT (all links provided).
Don’t just accept what you see there, either. I caught Snopes doing back-flips to defend an obviously anti-Christian/anti-Semitic video of grave desecration in Libya, and I read Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post claiming to be objective about euthanasia in the Netherlands while citing an uncle who was euthanized there! In general, fact check sites do a good job of objective fact-checking: did someone actually say the words in this quote, or are these data valid? On more nuanced issues, you must read between the lines.
Sounds like a lot of trouble, no? Why not just happily hit share and move on? Two reasons. First, remember your crazy uncle, the one we started out talking about? That’s what he does, only in person. You don’t want to be like him, even if it being online gives you the freedom to misbehave. Second, think of your friends. When you post things that are untrue, or ridiculous, or just inflammatory, you’re saying you don’t care enough to check first; it’s more important to get that fleeting sense of “aha!”
To borrow another slogan, “Just (don’t) do it!”
Thus ends my annual plea for online civility.
No go back and argue with your family, and enjoy every minute of it!
