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!
In my previous epistle (thanks for that line, Johnny Cool), I went on at length with what I thought was the main scandal facing the Catholic Church today: infidelity to its core teaching about human sexuality. I promised to move from diagnosis to prescription, so here it is.
First, the leadership of the Church (the Pope and the Bishops, world-wide) must commit to radical transparency with respect to the various sexual scandals of the past. While I understand their previous reticence and the importance of not confusing allegations with convictions, the grudging release of data or acknowledgment of wrong-doing has only made the situation worse. Leaders who were guilty must be laicized. Those who were complicit in abetting the abusers need to publicly confess and submit resignations, which the Pope can accept or reject based on the individual circumstances. Since this is not a legal proceeding, but rather a moral one, the default position must be suspicion: too many lies have been told for too long.
Turning to the various dioceses and orders, I would suggest a similar approach. Two years ago, Pope Francis suggested some Catholics might not be validly married, since it was unclear if they had a proper understanding of what marriage entailed. I would suggest (humbly) the Pope build off this approach by reconsidering whether priests have been validly ordained, given their understanding of the priesthood and its vows. This would enable the removal of priests who have failed to live up to, or adequately profess, the teaching of the Church with regard to human sexuality. Bishops and superiors (who have already survived the inquiry mentioned in the previous paragraph) should be directed to conduct comprehensive reviews of the clergy to this end: either ensuring adherence to the Church’s doctrine, or offering the option for removal from the priesthood.
Looking specifically at the United States, I have always opposed the intrusion of secular authorities into the Church’s inner workings. However, I believe the situation there is now so grave that law enforcement should use their authorities to enforce transparency, protect the public, and punish offenders and enablers. These authorities should not exceed established limits with respect to rights, evidence, and statutes of limitation, but should prosecute to the full extent of the law within those limits.
For the faithful in the pews, we must come to come to grips with our own complicity. All of us who winked at adultery, tolerated pornography, accepted contraception or even abortion played a part in this debacle. If you don’t see the connection, go back and read Humanae Vitae, then celebrate its 5oth anniversary by re-committing to its Truth. We need to confess our sins, accept responsibility, and do penance. I suggest committing to daily prayer and regular fasting; I am doing so and it is something anyone can do. Some argue the faithful don’t need to do penance in this matter, since the clergy are at fault; I disagree. The literal meaning of compassion is to “suffer with” and since the perpetrators and victims are our fellow Catholics, we must suffer with them. Even if none of the other things I suggest come to pass, we can do our part. Prayer and fasting are very powerful tools.
The entire Church militant (the Church in this world) should unite in a global act of penance. Perhaps a day-long fast, or a prayer novena for forgiveness, along with acts of collective and individual penance. I would like to see our clergy leading this effort, and especially the Princes of the Church joining in by relinquishing some of their luxuries: fine houses, travel, whatever.
Back in the early 2000s, American Catholics referred to the sexual abuse revelations as “the long Lent.” I would posit the long Lent has morphed into an extended Via Dolorosa. The only possible response to such a situation is to take up one’s cross and bear it. Some will turn away; always have, always will. It will be difficult, and embarrassing, and painful.
We are a Church of sinners, desperately trying to be a Church of saints. In the end, we are reassured by the admonition that “my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
As a cradle Catholic, you might imagine the last few months have been especially hard for me, and you would be right. I have felt a variety of emotions: deep compassion for the many victims of clerical abuse; sympathy for the vast majority of faithful priests; roiling, righteous anger at those who hid the abuse, attacked the victims, and perpetuated the sins; and charity towards anyone who finds faith shaken by the news.
One feeling I did not experience was shock. I admit, after I read the entire report from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s grand jury, I did feel sick to my stomach. It is 1,356 pages of non-stop perversion, lying, and cover-up, and while it is available here, for once I do NOT recommend reading it. Take my word, it is horrible. Horrible, but not shocking to me, because some fourteen years ago, I read another document which confirmed me in the suspicion that more was coming.
Near the end of the revelations coming out of the Boston Archdiocese about the sexual predation which occurred there, the US Catholic Bishops’ Conference chartered the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City College of New York, known for their investigative and forensic faculties, to gather the relevant data about the crisis in the United States. This report, known as the John Jay Report, was published in 2004. While it has none of the terrible specificity of the grand jury finding, it has three hundred pages of dispassionate and comprehensive analysis.
I was not surprised that the institutional Church tried to avoid bad publicity: this is classic institutional behavior, even if the institution in question claims to be holy. What jumped out at me from that report was the simple fact that so many Church leaders at all levels avoided punishing even the most unrepentant repeat offenders. At the time, some clerics offered the defense that they followed the reigning psychological treatment which emphasized therapy. That was true, and for a one-time event even defensible. But many of the offenders came out of therapy and re-offended, and the Church leaders just kept repeating their original mistake. It seemed clear something else was going on here. What it was, was an appalling lack of fidelity among Catholic clergy.
That lack of fidelity was to the Church’s teaching on sex. Which has been very simple and consistent: sex is a gift from God for the procreation of mankind and the bonding of married couples, two inseparable conditions. Period. End of sentence. Exclamation point. Which means it is (1) only between a man and a woman, (2) only permitted when those two are married, and (3) only allowable when the act is open to the possibility of new life.
This was always a hard teaching, and Jesus doubled down on it when he added that even thinking about sex with someone else, when married, was adultery! Of course, human history was rife with transgressions of this hard teaching, but all Christian denominations held to it as true, even as they practiced mercy when the faithful inevitably sinned.
That all changed during the sexual revolution. The notion that anybody could live without sex, or should do so for even a period of time, was stood on its head. Now, everybody should have as much sex, with anybody/anything/nobody as they want, without any consequences. Abstaining from sex in any way is considered unnatural and perverse. The only sin is to deny oneself sexual pleasure.
The Catholic Church maintained its original teaching, most famously in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humane Vitae. This is one I do suggest you read, as it is only thirty-one paragraphs and has some of the most amazing predictions of what would (and did) happen as a result of the sexual revolution. The teaching was not well received, including by yours truly. Like many Catholics, I didn’t read the encyclical even when I became an adult, and I rejected the teaching as old fashioned and incoherent…without ever reading it. Many Catholic clergy had to deal with Catholics (like me) in the pews who were openly hostile to the Church’s doctrine. In fact, some of those same clergy that hoped for a change in Church teaching were themselves engaging in sexual acts, and excusing themselves by the same reasoning that the sexual revolution provided.
Now mind you, I know many otherwise intelligent people who have told me that the Catholic Church’s problem is that it is obsessed with sex. Funny thing is, I have been going to Mass more than once a week for over fifty years, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard sex mentioned in Church. Of the roughly 300 Papal Encyclicals written in the last 300 or so years, sex is the subject of only a handful. Sex is mentioned in 33 paragraphs of the 900 pages of the Catechism, and most of those references are to the “fact of” two different sexes. I challenge anyone to watch one evening’s worth of cable TV and count the number of sexual ads, comments, situations, and graphic acts, then tell me who is obsessed with sex.
If you read the John Jay report, and the recent report by the German Catholic episcopate, you will see some data ignored by the press coverage. Most of the victims were adolescents older than twelve, indicating ephebophilia rather than pedophilia as the predominant problem.* Between 70 and 80% of the victims were adolescent boys; all the perpetrators were men. This indicates, as the German report points out, that the formation process for Catholic clergy attracted an unusual number of men who have same-sex attraction and underdeveloped sexual maturity. These are just data.
These same men, corrupted by their own lust, proved unable to defend or even explain the Church’s traditional teaching. They emphasized excuses, extenuating circumstances, and mercy without repentance, because that is what they themselves desired. Some continued to rise into positions of power, and looked out for those who were like-minded. Some Bishops looked the other way, either because they were implicated or they lacked the courage to profess the Church’s teaching in the face of ridicule. And the scandal spread. All this was clear back in the early 2000s, yet ignored.
The problem was not the Church’s teaching, which proved to be best for all concerned in the long run. Once I finally read Humane Vitae, I saw its logic and reason and self-evident holiness, which contrasted remarkably with the state of society after the sexual revolution. The problem was not clericalism, that is the treatment of those ordained as somehow better than others, for in fact the clergy was behaving exactly like most of the people. The problem was infidelity. And infidelity should rarely surprise us.
Among the original Apostles, one was a betrayer complicit in murder. Another had so little faith he responded to the Good News of the resurrection with a literal “habeus corpus?” Two counselled calling fire down on one’s enemies, and were overly concerned with having choice seats at the heavenly feast. All but one ran away when the going got tough. Their first-among-equals was called Satan by the Lord Himself, denied Jesus thrice, and even at the end had to be reminded to have faith (“quo vadis?”).
“Put not your trust in princes” (Psalm 146:3), even Princes of the Church, apparently.
I’ll posit what all this leads me to believe in a future post.
*In case the terms are unfamiliar, pedophilia is a sexual crime of power where the perpetrator sees the victim as an object to control; ephebophilia is a sexual crime where the perpetrator sees himself as sexually equal to an immature victim. In the first case the attackers rarely show remorse or awareness of the victims; in the latter case, the perpetrators often express their “true attachment” to the victims.
Today we descend into the morass that is individual rights. You can’t get far in today’s news without running into alleged right’s issues. NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. Restaurateurs denying customers service based on politics. Neo-Nazis marching in the Capital. Talking heads often serve up these incidents as right’s issues; Face Book is full of smarmy posts claiming “rights” and directing those who disagree to get over it and shut up. Here is a dose of reality.
The rights in question are those in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. These rights limit the ability of the federal government to do things (“make a law respecting an establishment of religion”, for instance). Most of them deal with the rights of the accused (Forth through Eighth Amendments), while the Ninth is a catch-all stating there are more rights than those listed, and the Tenth indicates those powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the States and the people. An interesting point: these rights have nothing to do with citizenship. They are negative, in that they tell the government what NOT to do, or the amendments refer to persons, not citizens. Thus the Supreme Court has held that anybody on the territory of the United States has such rights (including terrorists, Nazis, and those here illegally)! The Fourteenth Amendment directed that the existing rights may be incorporated to the States, meaning (on a case-by-case basis) state governments (and local ones too) have the same limits when it comes to individual rights. So the federal (or state, or local) government cannot deny neo-Nazis a permit to march (“peaceably assemble” according to the First Amendment) despite the fact they are neo-Nazis. The government can regulate how and when, and place certain restrictions (e.g., no baseball bats), but that is all.
So the first question you have to ask is “is a government trying to deny someone something?” If the answer is no, then there generally is no right’s issue, right? Not so fast, my friends. The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act articulated rights protecting individuals from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These protected classes of people cannot be discriminated against not just by government, but also by those offering public accommodation (bars, restaurants, taxis, etc). So now you have to look at whether the individual claiming a right’s issue is a member of a protected class, and was singled out on that basis, and was there a public accommodation. Thus it is okay to have a dress code requiring men to wear a tie in your establishment, as long as ALL men have to wear a tie (not just Asians, for example). Can you throw someone out of your restaurant because they are working for the White House? Yes, since political party is not a protected class. If you throw out only women from a certain political party, now you’ve done it, you have (arguably) violated their civil rights (sex is a protected class).
What about NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem? There is a Supreme Court case holding that the government cannot make persons participate in patriotic rituals (such as the Pledge of Allegiance), but that only applies to the government. Contrary to a certain President’s tweets, there is no government activity here. No one is coming to arrest the players, and they are free to kneel. Likewise, their managers or owners may decide to take action against them for doing so. Player contracts contain all kinds of behavior and teamwork clauses which let managers/owners fire them for all kinds of off-the-field issues. If the owners only disciplined African-American players, that might constitute a civil rights violation. As it stands now, there is no rights’ issue here. Want to make this issue really hard? What if you went to a game with a sideline pass, and you decided to join in by kneeling during the Anthem? You are a customer, not a player, but your ticket has terms and conditions which might enable the owner to throw you out for misbehavior. I doubt they would ever do this, as it would be needlessly antagonizing their own fans. Just showing how complicated this can be!
Finally, people with disabilities have similar protections, and during the Obama administration, the federal government argued that the protections afforded to sex also extend to sexual orientation and gender, although this contention was never determined in court and has been abandoned by the current administration. Not to mention, states cannot reduce or constrain individual rights, but they are free to add to them, so in some cases actions which are permissible under federal law are deemed illegal discrimination under state law. Clear as mud?
Let’s review. If you come to my house for a party and crack a Notre Dame football joke, I can order you out, and if you do not comply, I can call the police and have you arrested (for the sake of this example, pretend I am in the United States, as we would all have a good laugh at the idea of calling the Mexican police under such circumstances). My house is not a public accommodation, and your freedom of speech goes just as far within my walls as I say it does. Move my party to a public venue as a ticketed event, and I may still be able to throw you out for the joke, but I better not do so only to people of color, or women, or Hispanics, or Methodists, or Canadians. Or especially dark-skinned, Hispanic, Methodist women from Canada. Change this event to an official recognition ceremony at the White House honoring Notre Dame’s next football national championship (I know, I know, I should live so long), and I (or really the White House) cannot even prohibit you from wearing a “Notre LAME” sweatshirt to the event.
Your rights are inalienable, to borrow Thomas Jefferson’s original phrase. They come from “your Creator” according to the Declaration of Independence, they pre-date all government, and all legitimate government must abide by them. Many of the right’s issue today are really civility issues, as people try to get noticed, send a message, or stake out a position. That does not make those messages or positions invalid, but it also doesn’t make them right’s issues.
By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.
AMLO came from a middle class Mexican background. Like any politician in Mexico, he began as a member of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled the country as a single party state for most of the 20th century. In 1988 he left the PRI for a left-wing splinter party which became the PRD, and it was as a PRD candidate he rose to national prominence as the ‘mayor’ of the federal district, Mexico City. He won in the 2000 wave election that turned out the PRI for the first time. Then called the Distrito Federal or DF, the Mexico City region (now CDMX) is the largest metropolitan area in the Western Hemisphere and dominates Mexican politics. For comparison, Mexico City has 21 million inhabitants; Guadalajara is the second city with about 4 million. While AMLO espoused many socialist programs, he governed as a pragmatic leader. He was budget conscious, increased social spending for the most vulnerable, partnered with business leaders to renovate major areas of the city, and reduced crime.
Coming off a successful audition in Mexico City and a 70% approval rate, AMLO ran for the federal presidency in 2006 as a coalition PRD candidate; he received about 35% of the vote but lost by one-half of one percent to the PAN candidate, in an election many thought was manipulated to defeat him. He subsequently protested the result, and lost much of his popularity for appearing to be a sore loser.
AMLO ran again in the 2012 Presidential election and finished second, as Enrique Peña Nieto brought the PRI back to power. Sensing that party politics was part of the problem, AMLO split from the PRD and formed MORENA, a non-party Movement for National Regeneration. MORENA swept to power on a populist wave in the recently completed 2018 election, leaving all other parties in tatters.
López Obrador moderated some of his earlier positions, supporting NAFTA, allowing for some de-nationalization of the oil monopoly (PEMEX), while continuing to argue for higher minimum wages, increased social spending, an end to the war on drugs, and an end to endemic corruption. He remains a fiery orator, easily offended, and enjoys staking out maximalist positions without explaining how he will implement them. For instance, he suggests that corruption will end based on his personal example as a man of modest means (he will not live in the presidential palace, flies commercial, and declined police protection as a candidate).
Many have speculated on how the populist leaders north and south of the Río Grande will get along. President Trump has used Mexico and Mexicans as a handy foil to blame. Surprisingly, his attacks made little difference down here, and the historic election results were mainly due to popular discontent over drug violence, political corruption, and the main parties inability to do anything about either. Presidente López Obrador will have his hands full with his mandates on corruption and violence. There is actually much the two leaders can agree on, if they can look past the need to play to nationalist memes (easier south of the border than north).
There will be tough language and occasional flare-ups, for sure. However, there are important areas where the two Presidents’ interests coincide. Presidente López Obrador wants a stronger Mexican economy that keeps Mexicans home, which would be good news to President Trump, who also argued that Mexican auto workers get paid too little, which fits neatly with Presidente López Obrador’s support for higher domestic wages. Both men want stronger national economies and may be more willing to cut a bilateral trade deal as a result. If they can rise above “the wall” rhetoric, US approval for a guest worker program might be a good quid pro quo for better Mexican control of its southern border.
The last time US- Mexican relations seemed headed for a major positive change was when President George W. Bush (former Texas Governor) teamed up with newly elected Presidente Vincente Fox (conservative PAN party leader and former Governor of Guanajuato). That progress was sidetracked within a year by the terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001.
Perhaps the time is ripe now: stranger things have happened!
By now you have no doubt heard about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known as AMLO (“ahm-low”) the President-elect of Mexico who will take office on December 1st. He is an interesting character, and worth getting to know better, as he portends major changes in Mexico.