Habemus Papam

And the bookies blew it.

The election yesterday of the very first Latin American pope left me stunned and hopeful and I've been eagerly scanning the Net for all the information I can find on this man who apparently came very close to becoming pope during the last papal election.  The 2013 election of the 266th pope is interesting on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin.

As I talked about a few days ago in this post, The Papal Election and the Nationality Question, country of origin is an important factor in the choice of a new pontiff.  It sends a message to the world and, yes, it is of general interest because this is the man who will be leading an international organization with over 1 billion followers.  In that context his nationality and cultural origins are not and probably never will be neutral attributes and this has an impact on global and local politics.

The new pope is from Argentina, a country in Latin America (a region that has a Roman Catholic majority.)    These countries, like the ones in North America, are what has been described as "settler colonies."  The modern nation-states in the Americas are the creation of immigration (colonization) from Europe.  The differences between them today can still be traced back to the cultures of the original sending countries. The United States became an English-speaking Protestant country while Argentina is a Spanish-speaking Catholic country.  Centuries after these countries became independent these differences cause cultural tensions.  When people in the U.S. think about immigration/integration in 2013, they are primarily focused on migrants from Latin America.  Language is one issue (Spanish speakers moving into an English speaking area) but so are religious differences.  I think it's less true today than it was in my youth but just see Samuel Huntington's recent book Who Are We?  for the argument that traditional American values are fundamentally Protestant and that is one reason why he thinks that America is a better place than Mexico (or Brazil).

Add to this the long history of U.S. intervention in Latin American affairs and you'll start getting a good idea why the reaction of the people of the Americas to the election of a Spanish speaking pope from Argentina might be framed a bit differently as you go from north to south.  This is not to say that North Americans aren't wildly enthusiastic about the election but the cultural and political contexts around the election of a Latin American pope is particular and I'm sure that Americans are wondering what the impact will be on domestic politics.   For the Hispanic community in the U.S.:  “Knowing that we have a new pope whose first language is Spanish is a source of pride” and “The College of Cardinals know that the hope of the Catholic Church is in the Hispanic Catholics, even here in Chicago.”

With that in mind will the new pope, for example, speak out on behalf of Latin American migrants in the U.S.?   It's entirely possible and Pope Francis is in a good position to do this since he is the child of immigrants himself.   Or what about his strong views on social justice and his criticism of globalization - the “demonic effects of the imperialism of money.”  That word "imperialism" is loaded with meaning in the context of the relations between the peoples and governments of North, South and Central America.

It's not just the people of Argentina who are thrilled by the news, it's all of Latin America.  Le Monde reports celebrations from Mexico to Cuba, Brazil, Ecuador.  The President of Mexico is said to have twittered his approval.  Again, the frame is important here.  This a region that has traditionally been Roman Catholic but has seen a rise in membership in evangelical Christian churches.  The Catholic Church has been accused of supporting authoritarian regimes in the region but it has also been instrumental in movements against them.  This area was the birthplace of a political movement called Liberation Theology which took the Christian message and applied it to poverty and social justice issues.  The new pope is not a supporter of that movement but he has made it crystal clear that social issues (poverty, development, human rights) are at the top of his agenda and not issues of doctrine.

The choice of a Latin American over North American, African and European candidates is being seen as a sign that the center of gravity in the Church has moved out of Europe and they have high expectations.  Here is a round-up from Le Monde of some the comments and reactions of people in the region:

Brazil: "Nous pouvons espérer beaucoup du fait qu'il soit latino-américain" (we are expecting a lot from that fact that he is a Latin American) from the "continent de l'espérance" (continent of hope).

Chili: "Le fait que l'Amérique a en François le premier pape de l'histoire de ce continent qui mène une vie chrétienne depuis plus de 500 ans, reflète la maturité de l'Eglise en Amérique Latine"(The fact that American has in Francis the first pope in history from this continent that has been Christian for over 500 years, shows the maturity of the Church in Latin America).

Cuba: "Le fait qu'il soit latino-américain signifie que l'Eglise est entrée dans un monde dont l'Europe n'est plus seulement le centre, l'axe, mais bien une société qui comprend tous les pays du monde" (The fact that he is Latin American shows that the Church has entered a world where Europe is not only not the center, the axis, but is now definitely an organization that includes all the countries of the world).

So how are the Europeans taking the breaking of their monopoly on the papacy?  Quite well.  You could see him a kind of bridge between Europe and the Americas.  He was born in Latin America but his parents were immigrants from Italy. Everything I've read in the French press has been pretty positive.  The media seem to really like his stand on globalization and social justice issues.  Criticism has been pretty mild and limited to pointing out that he is not a "progressive."  It will be interesting to see if his election has any impact on the "mariage pour tous" (gay marriage) debate still raging here in France  Given that the leaders of the French church have mobilized against it, will he publicly give them his support?

I spent the entire morning thinking about the election (and writing this post) and my conclusion is that the choice of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) was absolutely brilliant.  I don't think they could have done better.

My only disappointment so far?   He's a soccer fan. 

Ah, well, "De gustibus non est disputandum."

  

Immigration and Internet Proxy Marriages

“Technique has taken over the whole of civilization. Death, procreation, birth all submit to technical efficiency and systemization.”
― Jacques Ellul

To Jacques Ellul's list we can now add a technology-enabled technique around the institution of marriage. According to this recent article, You May Now Kiss the Computer Screen, in the New York Times, some immigrant communities in the U.S. are turning to modern technology to conduct marriages by proxy via Skype.

This is the conjunction of something old and something new.  Proxy marriages where either the bride and groom are not physically present for the ceremony have a long and noble history. It's been used for centuries - the wedding of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, for example. In Europe the practice goes back to the Roman era though at that time there were different rules for men and women. The bride had to be residing in the husband's place of residence while the groom could be anywhere. The Harvard Law Review article I found on this said it was because of the legal requirement that the bride be led to her husband's home but I strongly suspect that the reason behind it was to make it easy for soldiers or other men who travelled outside their home regions to contract marriages with women back in the home town.

Proxy marriages were also used in settler colonies like the U.S. or Australia where there were very few women from the home country and in the Old American West where ladies from "back East" married men (miners, farmers...) by proxy and then made the long journey west across the country to join their husbands. Before Americans dismiss this practice, they might want to check their family histories since it's quite possible that they have ancestors that did this.

The new part is the use of technologies like Skype to conduct these marriages.  Are modern proxy marriages via Internet legal? And more importantly can a couple marry this way and benefit from immigration laws that allow for a citizen to legally bring in his or her spouse? The answer is that it depends on the country and, in the case of a bi-national couple, how each one referees the conflict between the domestic laws of the nationals concerned.

France, for example, is a country that does not allow "mariage par procuration." Though the question has been raised often enough that the Minister of Justice added a few words about it to their FAQ. They say that it is not permitted for the following reasons:

C’est l’article 184 du code civil qui sanctionne le défaut de comparution personnelle d’un ou des futurs époux. L’officier de l’état civil doit s’assurer de l’identité des futurs époux et surtout du consentement de chacun des futurs époux.
(Article 184 of the Civil Code does not permit the non-presence of one or other of the future spouses. The civil status officer must be assured both of the identity of the future spouses and their agreement to the marriage.)

In the United States four states still have proxy marriage laws on their books:  California, Colorado, Texas and Montana.  The last allows for what's called "double-proxy marriage" which means that neither the bride nor groom have to be present for the ceremony.  Who is taking advantage of this?  People in the U.S. military where a soldier has been posted abroad but still wishes to get married to his or her sweetie back in the States.  I have to concur with Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason Drew who said "It's not very romantic" but it got the job done and it's perfectly legal according to American domestic law.  

The two examples above cite what domestic (national) law has to say about proxy marriage but what happens when it's a citizen marrying a non-citizen and the marriage ceremony is conducted in another country where proxy marriage is perfectly legal?  And what is the status of the non-citizen spouse for immigration purposes?

In general nations recognize marriages conducted under the laws of other countries even if those laws are not the same.  The principle is called lex loci celebrationis (the law of the place where the marriage is celebrated).  Let's say, for example that my French husband and I had decided to get married in the U.S. instead of France and under the laws of my home state (State of Washington marriage law) we got married by the priest in the local Catholic Church.  That is not the way it works in France which only recognizes a legal marriage conducted at the mayor's office.  Nevertheless, France would have recognized that American marriage and I would still have benefitted from family reunification immigration laws before the French authorities provided that we respected the procedure (a dossier to be sent to the French consulate, banns to be published beforehand and so on).      

So what happens if the marriage is by proxy instead?  If I'd been in the U.S. in Montana and my future spouse had been in Paris, France and the ceremony had been conducted in the States?   I found the answer to my question in a rather indirect way in this note published by the French consulate in Brazil (a country that does allow proxy marriages):

Il est important de noter que conformément aux dispositions de la loi française, le mariage entre Français et entre Français et étranger, contracté en pays étranger, dans les conditions précitées, est valable, s'il a été célébré dans les formes usitées dans ledit pays et si le conjoint français a personnellement comparu lors de la célébration (le mariage par procuration n’est pas reconnu en France). 

(It is important to note that in conformity with French law, a marriage between French nationals and between a French national and a foreigner, contracted in a foreign country, under the aforementioned conditions, is valid if it was celebrated under the forms of that country and if the French spouse was personally present during the ceremony (proxy marriage not being recognized in France).

So from that one can conclude that the French authorities will not be troubled by Internet proxy marriages anytime soon and any Franco-American couple who might wish to benefit from Montana's marriage laws are out of luck as far as the French are concerned.

Just for fun, let's turn it around and look at what would happen if a marriage by proxy had taken place between me and my French spouse and we had decided to live in the U.S.?  According to the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual that marriage would be valid in the U.S. (in all 50 states) and acceptable for immigration purposes provided that the marriage is consummated (i.e. "marital relations" had commenced, or to be very direct about it - the couple has sex). 

A proxy marriage, that has not been subsequently consummated, does not create or confer the status of “spouse” for immigration purposes pursuant to INA 101(a)(35). A party to an unconsummated proxy marriage may be processed as a nonimmigrant fiancé(e). 

Isn't that interesting?  I just had to wonder after reading this what proof of consummation would have been required of me and my spouse if we had gone the proxy marriage route in the U.S.    Cyrus Mehta at ILW.com says:

The immigration authorities do not require definitive proof of consummation, and proof of the two parties being together physically after the celebration of their proxy marriage, along with a statement affirming consummation, ought to suffice. 

Internet marriages are potentially a problem for the U.S. authorities and other countries that recognize proxy marriage.  It's not just about marriage fraud for the purposes of immigration (les mariages blancs) but also about forced marriages and the potential for sex-traffickers to use these laws to more easily bring women into a country to work in the sex trade.  All that was true before the advent of  "Skype marriage" but where technology makes it a little more efficient to do this, it's probably wise to keep a close eye on it.  

May I add another consideration as well?  Some Americans perceive all this as a fine business opportunity and for a fee there are companies that offer to facilitate these kind of marriages. I also saw at least one site on the Net as I was doing the research for this post that offered "proxy marriage services." But are these people reliable and are they well enough informed about different marriage regimes around the world to be offering "expert" advice on it?  I think not because the site I saw implied that U.S. proxy marriages are valid everywhere in the world which is not true.

My take on it is that if you are in a bi-national relationship that you wish to formalize according to the laws of one or the other of your respective countries take nothing for granted and don't get your information off the Internet.  At the very least head down to the consulate and ask. 

The Papal Election and the Nationality Question

Lot of speculation out there right now about who the Church will tap to be the next pope.  For a good round-up of articles about the resignation and election check out Father Stephen Wang's blog, Bridges and Tangents.

Alongside the spiritual/theological/doctrinal questions and the overall direction of the Church as we slide deeper into the 21st century is (surprise) the question of nationality.  The Roman Catholic Church is an international organization with about 1.1 billion members scattered all over the globe.  HQ may be in Rome but there is a fair amount of circulation of "middle management" - expatriate priests who are called from one country to serve parishes in another.  When I was growing up in the U.S. my parish priest was Irish.  In the church I attend today my local priest is French but my confessor is from Madagascar.  My brother's church in California recently welcomed yet another priest from France (they have had several over the past few years).  This is likely to become even more common in the future since some regions like Europe are seeing a decline in vocations while Africa, the Americas and Asia are seeing growth.

If you look at the raw numbers three of the top five Roman Catholic populations are in the Americas:  Brazil, Mexico and the the United States.  The Philippines comes in third place and the first European country (Italy) is in fifth place just ahead of France.   And yet you might have noticed that popes tend to be European by origin.  Pope John Paul II was, as we all know, Polish and the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is German but most popes in the recent past have come from Italy.

So what are the chances that the conclave will elect a pope from North or South America, Asia or Africa?  That is one of the burning questions being discussed among the faithful all over the world in every country.  The next pope will be elected by a conclave of 117 cardinals of which the majority are from Europe.  What will they be looking for in a new pope?  Here is a nice summary:

Each cardinal looks for three things. First, he looks for someone who would be a good pope, which means someone who agrees with the cardinal’s values and vision for the church.
Second, he looks for someone with whom he can have a good relationship. Ideally, he wants one of his cardinal friends as pope, someone who will listen to him. Personal relationships matter.
Third, he wants someone who will be well received in his home country, or at least someone who will not cause problems in the cardinal’s county. For example, U.S. cardinals would not want a pope who does not understand the sexual abuse crisis and says stupid things like “it is a creation of the media.” Nor do cardinals from countries with lots of Muslims want a pope who says stupid things about Islam. As Tip O’Neil said, “All politics is local.” This also applies to the Catholic Church.

I don't disagree with the last but in an worldwide organization the global dimension matters a lot:  global politics and the larger context of this multi-lingual, multi-national, (dare say it?) multi-cultural organization.  Country of origin, linguistic skills, and the ability to cross cultures matters in this context.  And will the cardinals take this into account?  You bet they will.

An American pope?  Recently there has been a very open discussion about what it would mean to have a pope from the United States and why some think it wouldn't be a good idea.  Cardinal George Pell of Australia in this video was very frank about the implications of such an election:



This was followed by an interview with the American cardinal Donald Wuerl who seemed to concur that it would not be wise to have a pope from the U.S. because "I think the conventional wisdom, which I think is correct, is a pope from the superpower would probably have a lot going against him when he's trying to present a spiritual message to the rest of the world."

So if I follow this argument correctly they are basically saying that just by virtue of nationality and their connection to a "super-puissance"  the American cardinals are out of the race even before it begins.

A South American Pope?  What about a pope from South America?  One candidate who is getting a lot of attention is  Cardinal Leonardo Sandri from Argentina.   He was born in Buenos Aires but his parents were Italian and he speaks 5 languages and is known for his skills as a diplomat.  But spite of the large numbers of Catholics in Latin America that region does not have a lot of representation in the conclave (only 19 out of 117).  So the election of a Latin American pope rests on the decision of the European cardinals to consider (or not) a non-European to the papacy and their choosing a Latin American over an African.

An African pope?  Two solid candidates in the running according to the bookies:  Cardinal Peter Turkson from Ghana and Cardinal Francis Arinze from Nigeria.  Cardinal Turkson seems more likely because he is younger but who knows?  If the cardinals do choose an African it would be the first one in 1500 years - the last pope from that continent was Pope Gelasius (492-496).

All of the above (and so many more) are possibilities and but clearly some are more "papabile" than others.  Nothing I've said above should give any of you the idea that country of origin is the primary consideration in the election but it is important and it appears to be a deal breaker in at least one case (the U.S.) and probably others as well.

Do I have a preference?  Well, clearly I don't have a vote in this and honestly that doesn't bother me one whit.  I'm simply not qualified to make that judgement and I'm perfectly OK leaving that burden (and what a burden it is) firmly in the hands of the conclave.  There are so many different considerations that the cardinals must weigh that one can only hope that divine inspiration will heavily inform their votes.

But may I simply say that there are three qualities that I would like to see in the next Holy Father?  The first is that the new pope be truly global - multi-lingual with deep experience and contacts with cultures outside of his own.  The second is that hard to define quality (but you-know-it-when-you-see-it) called charisma - an inspirational leader with eloquence, persuasive power, and likability. The third is the power to heal - lot of open wounds right now in the Church and there is no hiding that fact.

As the conclave prepares to meet (and I believe it opens tomorrow) these are the things I hope and pray for in the soon to be elected 266th spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

Footnoting History

I have found yet another "time sink" on the Net but this is a good one and it's one that does feed the mind.

The site is called Footnoting History and it has a series of short podcasts about some of the more esoteric topics that might rate only a footnote in a serious history book or an academic paper but are interesting in and of themselves.  I can't vouch for the reliability of the information since I am not a historian but it sure was fun to listen to.  They have great suggestions for further reading, too.  Here are a few of the podcasts I listened to this weekend and really enjoyed:

Papal Abdication:  When the pope resigned recently a lot of us scratched our heads and said, "Hey, I didn't know he could do that."  This podcast puts Benedict XVI's resignation in historical context.

Hungry Heretics and Hoarding Homosexuals:  Medieval conspiracy theories.  Cathars, Templars, Iron Maiden....

Zombies in Thietmar of Merseberg:  Had to listen to this one twice because it's pretty strange.  Dead people walking around in 11th century Germany?  Have to wonder about that bishop and substance abuse when he wrote all this down....

Bon dimanche, everyone!

Free Movement within the EU

"The United States of Europe" is a work in progress.  Critics abound.  There are some who say that what is being created is nothing more than a huge, anti-democratic, opaque bureaucracy.  Almost every day I hear complaints about those "technocrats in Bruxelles."  There is some truth in that criticism.  But personally I am awed by the sheer scope of the project and how ambitious it is.  It's worth recalling that within living memory Europe was a world of sanguinary conflict with her countries at odds with each other to an extent that is inconceivable today.   This is progress and if anyone out there thinks otherwise, I would be highly interested in knowing why.

Is it perfect?  Of course not.  "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." Are Europeans better off because of this project?  On the balance, I would say "yes" though the benefits are not spread equally among the people here.  If you are older, mono-lingual and not blessed with useful (marketable) training or good diplomas, then chances are good that you feel a bit left behind and that is a serious problem.  But if you are young and talented and mobile then Europe has a great deal to offer.

For those who believe in open borders, Europe is the place to look since it is something of a laboratory  for seeing what really happens when countries within a zone drop the barriers to migration.  Free movement is at the heart of the European project.  Where adjacent countries have interesting opportunities and fewer bureaucratic hurdles to overcome in establishing residency, one would think that Europeans would take advantage of that.  Today I would argue that EU citizenship is probably one of the most valuable citizenships to possess since it facilitates access to a huge market where opportunities abound. And for someone from the UK or France or Italy or Eastern Europe, it's still close enough so that going "home" is a simple matter of a few hours of travel via train or plane.

But as we watch this grand experiment unfold, there are issues.  There are the low-skilled that I mentioned above but there are also questions about other impacts of this migration on the different countries.  What does this increased mobility means for social welfare programs, for example?  Or taxation?  Or the defense of local culture and language?  Assessing that impact is important in order to mitigate some of the less desirable consequences of increased regional mobility.

This month the Migration Policy Institute published a very interesting report called How free is free movement? Dynamics and drivers of mobility within the European Union.  It's not long (about 25 pages) and is a lovely synthesis of the major trends in inter-EU mobility, the impact of the financial crisis on that mobility, the major drivers behind EU migration, and the impacts on the receiving and sending countries (and how public services are affected).  There is also a fine list at the end of the report to other articles and reports that might be of interest.

A few things of note in the analysis.

Trends:  In the section on Trends in Intra-EU mobility, the report said that in spite of facilitated access for EU nationals, Third-Country National (non-EU) migration is still more important than regional European migration.  What?

While 4.1 percent of EU residents are from outside the European Union (‘third-country nationals’), only 2.5 percent are EU nationals living in another Member State (see Table 1).  Most foreign nationals reside in the ‘old’ European Union, the so-called EU-15. 

Some of this, they say, may be because EU citizens may work in other countries temporarily but don't necessarily bother to establish residency.  I still found these numbers to be surprising because it seems to fly in the face of the principle that most migration tends to be regional.

The figures for France were very interesting.  Using data from the Labor Force Survey (LFS) they say that in 2011 France had only 3% of the mobile EU-12 nationals (about 117,000 people).  This is very low compared to other Western European countries like Germany which had 667,000.   Looking at the table on page 3,  the total number of foreign nationals in France in the same year was 5.9% of the population of which only 2.1% were EU and 3.8% were third-country nationals.

A possible explanation for this is that France applied ‘transitional provisions’ (restrictions on the free movement of EU-8 workers) until 2008, which was relatively late compared to other major EU destinations. It also has a relatively rigid labour market, thus dampening demand for labour migration. In addition, France’s deportations of Roma communities to Bulgaria and Romania may have made it appear a hostile destination to Eastern Europeans.

Public Services:  The impact on public services in different EU countries is unclear.  The big question concerning migrants (be they EU or third-country nationals) is whether or not they are a drain on the public welfare systems. Anecdotal stories abound in my host country of how migrants are responsible for the public healthcare system deficit.  What is the reality?  Hard to know because it depends on the country, the age of the migrants, and other factors.  Where migrants are young, mobile and have yet to start families, the impact seems to be minimal (in fact these migrants tend to be net contributors - they put in more than they get out of these systems).  

In the United Kingdom (which has the largest evidence base on this question), studies have found that EU-8 migrants who have resided in the country long enough to become eligible for benefits are net contributors to the public purse and low users of public services. Evidence also points to a parsimonious use of health care among EU citizens, in part because many of them are young, single, and move frequently.

The picture is very different however in areas that welcome many retirement migrants.  In general, older people use more healthcare and this can be a big problem where there is also an exodus of the young who are no longer paying into these systems.  But it is difficult to measure this impact precisely.  On one hand retirement migrants with national pensions (Americans on Social Security or Brits on a state pension) living in the south of France are bringing money into that country and spending it locally. In general countries tend to welcome this kind of migration.  However, where some retirement migrants do not ever register as permanent residents, the host countries are unsure how much funding is needed to cover them in case of a medical emergency.  Some  retirement migrants even maintain nominal residency in the home country in order to access home country benefits if needed.  

In fact, the practice of making fraudulent claims for benefits in the sending country is so common that it has been given a name:  ‘grey abuse.’ In the United Kingdom, fraudulent claims for pension credits are thought to exceed the cost of fraud committed by people working while claiming unemployment benefits.

The Future:   What does the future hold for European mobility?  The report is direct and honest in saying that they really have no idea where this is going but it would be a good idea if someone was looking into it.

The authors of the report concluded (and I think they are safe in saying this) that the migration of the young and highly-skilled is likely to continue but it's also equally likely that the flows from Eastern Europe will drop even more as their populations age and the local economies improve.

(It should be noted as well that this is also an issue for the United States.  The major sending countries to the US are also undergoing demographic change and will probably not have the surplus population to send in the near future.  This puts an interesting spin on the immigration debate in the US.  Are US lawmakers actually taking this into account?  I very much doubt it.)

A good report overall with a lot of useful information.  Some might find its refusal to say too much about the future to be disappointing.  I personally found it rather refreshing and I was satisfied by the areas of research they recommended.

The questions that I would have at this point are:  Why is there not more mobility in Europe today given the relatively open borders?  What is stopping the movement?  Most discussions around immigration/emigration tend to revolve around the laws and procedures and whether they should be easier or harder.  Well, here is case where things were made much easier (closest thing we have right now to an open border experiment) and mass migration did not happen as a result.  Why is that?  The reports cites very briefly language and family ties as the most important barriers to mobility but this is based on public opinion surveys.  Is this true or are there other factors?  And does the EU have an interest in addressing them and making mobility within Europe more of a reality or is everyone content with the status quo?

Checkpoints USA

This video was recently posted on the excellent site States Without Nations.  It was hard for me to watch until the end because it shows an America that I no longer know or understand.  When I left the country in 1989 such a thing would have been inconceivable.  How things have changed in a post 9-11 era.

It concerns internal checkpoints where people circulating within U.S. territory are stopped, asked their immigration or citizenship status and, in some cases, detained.  To be clear this is not about border security because these checkpoints are inside the United States.  It is also not about people doing things which might lead the American authorities to believe that they have a reasonable suspicion that someone might be up to no good.  It is simply stopping people who are otherwise going about their business and refusing to let them leave until they have answered a series of questions to the satisfaction of the agents of Homeland Security.

Where are these checkpoints located?  According to the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) the Department of Homeland Security has created this "Constitution Free" 100 mile zone and placed checkpoints along all these zones, including my hometown of Seattle, Washington:

Is this legal?  Is it constitutional?  I am less interested in the answers to those questions than I am in trying to figure out what changed in the American mentality in the last 10 years to make this sort of thing acceptable to the American people.  There have been demonstrations, editorials and, of course, the ACLU which is fighting this in court.  However, from what I can tell the most common reaction to these checkpoints is a kind of passive acceptance - a sense that this a necessary evil in a world where the United States is threatened by evil people.

Do these checkpoints actually make Americans safer?  Does Homeland Security actually have any metrics by which they measure the success or failure of these checkpoints?  How many terrorists have they caught? How many plots have they foiled?  It would be interesting to know these things.  Or is this just "security theater"?  I suspect that it is.  Just look at the map for a moment and those huge borders, the thousands of miles of roads, and the sheer number of people (millions of them) circulating in these areas and it becomes quite clear that, even with an army of men and women stopping people every morning and every evening, this is mission impossible.  Or do Americans really think that a terrorist is going to be tootling down one of these roads and will meekly pull over and submit to questioning when he sees the uniform?  Think about it - there are plenty of ways around these checkpoints if one really is interested in evading the authorities.  It's a big country, folks, and there simply aren't enough people to make this work.  That is my take on it - feel free to disagree.

What it does do is cause a great deal of annoyance for the average person and here we come to the second flaw in the logic behind the checkpoints - to make the checkpoints work smoothly, they rely on the cooperation of the people being pulled over and questioned.  And what if people do not cooperate?  That is what you will see in this video.  A few very brave people simply refusing to play their part in this play and asking their own questions about why this is necessary and by what right this is being done to them.   And what I see as I watch each scene play out is the sheer impotence of the authorities when the script does not go as expected.



Americans have always resisted the implementation of a national identity card and the idea that the authorities can simply stop people willy-nilly and ask for their papers.  In my youth I was taught that the fact that these things didn't exist in the U.S. was a point in my nation's favor.  We are free, I was told, and we are not like those evil totalitarian "papers, please"  societies.  And now some Americans seem to think that perhaps those totalitarian societies were on to something.  Good to know.

Fragile

Been a few weeks, folks.  To all who sent notes - thank you so much.  

Not long after I posted my updated reading list I came down with a very bad cold which rapidly turned into something a bit more disturbing.  I spent the better part of a week in bed and am slowly coming back.

I'm not sure why something so simple as a common cold laid me low but I suspect that I'm living a very fine line these days between "sick" and "well."  I feel mentally and physically fragile .  Since I stopped active cancer treatment and went on parole I've had some terrible bouts of anxiety and depression.   No desire to do anything - not even to get out of bed in the morning.  Physically I was having odd symptoms like joint and muscle pain if I walked or gardened too much.  The medication I'm taking also has some side effects that are rather interesting - I'm taking an estrogen blocker called tamoxifene which is wreaking havoc with my body and my head.  I'm cold most of the time except for these moments when I have hot flashes and then I'm stripping down to my underwear because I'm way too warm.  The cold that laid me low finally was nothing in the beginning - a few sniffles and a sore throat- but I went downhill with a rapidity that scared the living daylights out of me.

Is this my "new normal" or is this just a post-treatment period that I have to get through?  I really don't know.  I've been looking for answers in some very fine blogs that I've found recently.   One that I would heartily recommend is called Journeying Beyond Breast Cancer which delves deeply and thoughtfully into the issues that survivors face.  This post in particular (and the discussion it started) is a must-read, Establishing Your New Normal:  Life After Cancer.

The message that I am getting from this and other blogs is simply that what I'm going through is not at all unusual.  Just because active treatment is over doesn't mean that I can put parentheses around the past year and call it a "petite pause' or  a "minor blip" in my life.

So how to face this?  Well, it sure helps to have a program (AA), to have friends and family and to have faith.  In the middle of all this I received a package from some friends in the U.S. and in it was something they called a "God Box."  When I'm worried or depressed or just feeling awful, I write down on a piece of paper what's going on, put in the box, and turn it over to God.  It's a way of saying, "Look I can't seem to fix what's wrong here (in fact it's beyond my power to fix) and I'm all out of ideas so I'm going to give it to You and I'm going to trust that You will take care of it for me."

Pretty powerful and, believe me, it works.  Not in the sense that that suddenly everything is suddenly going my way but in the sense of regaining serenity - accepting the things I cannot change - and courage to go on and do the very best I can with what I do have.