Who are those they's?

I have friends on both sides of the health care debate. They hate each other, with blood-curdling passion. Each says, about the other, at least these five things: "they" are (1) stupid, (2) hypocritical, (3) dishonest, (4) violent, and (5) cynical about the poor. The insults diverge (Socialists, Limbaugh ...), but not right away. I won't hide my position; it's the same as the USCCB's.

This kind of angry polarization is destructive for everybody. I think of pro-lifers, who usually aim for 51%. You can make short-term tactical gains with 51%, but long-term strategic changes require 68%. Divisive rhetoric will never get there.

Every legislator and activist in the nation should examine Kevin Durant's approach. I don't mean his lay-ups, although that's good too. He manages to be incredibly ambitious, and still be a gentleman, even facing LeBron James.

So what's the impact of today's Supreme Court's decision on the Dream Act? No direct impact. But when anger and bitterness and hatred go up, the chances for the Dream Act go down. Generosity and curiosity lead to hospitality; fear and greed lead to hostility. Tone matters.

Which way would you go?

I have a classmate who devoted her life to development work in a village in Mexico. About ten years ago, I asked her what she thought about NAFTA, a trade agreement that made it easier to trade between participating nations. I expected her to support it, but her response was cautious.

John, she said, I did not follow the debate carefully. I can only tell you what happened in my little village. Most of my neighbors are subsistence farmers. They raise their food, make their own clothes, build their own homes. They grow some corn that is not their own food. They used to sell it, and that was almost the only cash in the community. But NAFTA meant that corn from Iowa and other Midwest states was available here. They could not compete with that. They still raise almost everything they need. But if they need a new tool, a new hammer, that requires cash. There isn't any cash here. So everyone between age 15 and 50 left the village. Every one. We have young people and old people, but no one of working age.

They all left, to get work. Almost all of them went north.

Where else could they go?

Lesson from Prohibition?

Opponents of immigration often refer to their reasonable and legitimate concern about criminals making their way into an open society -- OUR proud and open society. I understand the concern, but perhaps I am missing something obvious here. To me, it to seems obvious that when 12 million good people are treated as criminals, it gets harder, not easier, to catch real criminals. Wasn't that one of the lessons of Prohibition? What am I missing here?

Gen Grant responds to Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural

In his oft-quoted 2nd Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln said that we cannot criticize the justice of God if a drop of blood is spilled in war for every drop of blood spilled in slavery. Not many theologians today would make that point that way. But some years after Lincoln's speech, Gen/Pres Grant said something similar in his Memoirs. He said that the war that he won was caused by the evil of the Mexican War. Lincoln said the war was a just punishment for what the nation did to black slaves; Grant said it was punishment for what the nation did to Mexico. Grant had fought in Mexico ("in the halls of Montezuma"), and had a right to his opinion. But he thought the war was unjustifiable -- was a greedy theft.

In several steps over several years, we took the land that later became TX, NM, AZ, CA, NV, and parts of CO and UT. Of course, they (Mexicans) weren't using the land much. We saw work/opportunity there, and we took it. Was that justifiable?

health care and immigration

In the dusty corners of history ... Most people did not notice and/or do not remember why the Catholic bishops opposed the health care reform bill a couple of years ago. It was not because they oppose the idea of universal health care; the bishops have pressed hard for that longer than any other party around. They opposed this version because it had three flaws they considered critical. (1) It pays for some abortions; (2) it does not have a conscience clause; and (3) IT DOES NOT COVER 12,000,000 IMMIGRANTS.

Why the passion?

Why is the Bible so passionate about welcoming strangers/immigrants? I was slow to catch on, but the reason is simple. The portable take-away lesson from the Holocaust was: "Never again!" Portable take-away from slavery in Egypt: "Welcome strangers and never abuse them!"

Let them eat banana bread

Aunt Mary again

My Aunt Mary worked for the CIA, and had friends who worked for the State Department. One of her friends -- call him Gerald so we have a name to use -- was stationed in Colombia at the beginning of his career in the 1950s. He loved Bogota, and went for long walks through the city, talking to people. Part of his job was to understand Colombia, and sometimes he found it hard to tell the difference between work and play. He loved what he was doing, whichever it was.

One beautiful day, there was a demonstration in the streets, and protesters marched past the American Embassy on the way to government offices. All the staff watched, and chatted a bit. At one point, there was some kind of incident that made the march stop for a while, and so it was easy for the American spectators to hear the chanting and singing. They didn’t hear a snatch from this group and a scrap from that group; they only heard the demonstrators stalled in front of the embassy, singing clearly. “Listen!” said the military attache. “They’re singing the Internationale!” (The “Internationale” was a French protest song that became the anthem of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union. If the Colombian protesters were singing Communist songs, that would be interesting during the Cold War.)

But Gerald spoke up. “No, that’s not the Internationale. That’s the Colombian national anthem!” Everybody turned around to stare at him.

Young Gerald, the junior member of the staff, was the only person in the embassy who recognized the national anthem of their hosts.

Sometimes you listen to Americans fussing about Latino immigrants, and you realize that the fussers have no idea why there is any emigration going on. Why are all these people moving, anyway? There is a Marie Antoinette “let them eat cake” feeling about it. (Sometimes.) But when I watch Latino friends, I don’t see them get angry about it. They are used to it. After all, if you want to explain it to an American (an Anglo Norte Americano, that is -- “Latinos” are Americans), where do you start?

The Self-righteous Banana Appeal

Aunt Mary was a proper Bostonian. She was very funny, very smart, very sophisticated -- and more than a little intimidating. So I remember things she said even when they made no sense to me at the time. She was a liberal Democrat who worked for the CIA, focused on Latin America. I guess that many people would consider that impossible, but she lived with the apparent contradictions for decades. She said that there were analysts and there were decision-makers, and sometimes they talked to each other. She did not attack her superiors, but she did not defend them either. I had the impression that she -- like my father, a pioneering astrophysicist who defended some controversial theories -- believed firmly that facts triumph in the end, and collecting solid data was worthwhile even when most people ignored it for a time.

I remember a story she told that made her laugh and shake her head. I did not understand the story when she told it, but I did understand from her tone that the story was true, but hard to believe. When she was studying law (at Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy), there was a case about Latin America that they read. It was an anti-trust case, and the statement of facts (the stipulations) that both sides accepted was startling. An American company wanted more land in Central America. They had trouble getting it, so they started a war between two nations. When the war was over, the national boundaries had shifted to accommodate the company. The case before the court did NOT ask whether it was legal to start wars to get rich, nor whether it was legal for Americans to start wars between two sovereign nations. Just: was this a violation of anti-trust laws?

I do not know whether Aunt Mary was permanently amazed by the insanity of law, the weirdness of the court, or the stunning arrogance of the company.

I think that the case was American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347 (1909). But I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know how many times American companies have started wars elsewhere and then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide the right and wrong of a boundary dispute between two sovereign nations. 

I do understand why some Latinos find it hard to swallow an American demand that they must respect our sacred borders. Squabbling about borders is one thing, but invoking God to condemn law-breakers who dare to cross our line in the sand -- well, I think Aunt Mary would laugh at the ignorance and foolishness of it.