"To Kill a Mockingbird": A Curmudgeon's Guide

I love To Kill a Mockingbird. I love it so much that a little time ago I watched it several times in a short period. But like a lover in a rushed romance, I’ve started to have questions.

• Those hickory nuts that Atticus got from the farmer, Mr. Cunningham, as payment: Did Atticus declare them on his income tax return?
• If Atticus is so poor, now come he has a full-time housekeeper? And a car?
• In the middle of the night, when the neighbor shot at a "prowler" in his garden, who was really Atticus’s son, Jim, how come nothing happened to him? Like, what’s this lynching thing I hear so much about?
• Why does Judge Taylor come to Atticus’s house at night to appoint him on the Robinson case? Was Atticus's house half way between Judge Taylor's house and a brothel?
• How did Judge Taylor know that the grand jury was going to indict Tom Robinson in the morning? Did he also foresee the Kennedy assassination?
• How come child actors in modern films can’t be as dog-that-talks amazing as the child actors in this film?
• Who ever heard about spitting on a hinge to make it not squeak? Me, I would have urinated on it.
• If this is such a great film, how come nobody’s character has an arc of development, except for Boo Radley, who goes from father-stabber to savior for no apparent reason?
• In the time when this movie was set, did everybody back up a car by looking over their left shoulder?
• Does anybody believe that Tom Robinson died trying to "escape"? 
• Under what circumstances does Atticus take off his tie?
• What’s the point of the woman from across the street, who has breakfast in Atticus’s home? Do they get married in the sequel?
• What does the rabid dog do the whole time that Atticus is coming from work to home? Smoke a cigarette?
• If Atticus needs glasses to see distances, why does he take them off to shoot the rabid dog? If he needs them to read, why is he always wearing them?
• When did lawyers stop spending the night in front of jails, to keep angry mobs from lynching their clients? I assume that the Sheriff was too busy to guard the jail, because he was writing Atticus’s closing argument to the jury.
• Why was Atticus guarding the jail alone? Did everybody expect the "lynching mob" to be a sad poet with a cat?
• And, since he was alone, why was Atticus guarding the jail armed with only grave looks and a basso profundo voice?
• If the jail was made of bricks and bars, and it was locked, how was the lynching mob going to get in?
• How many men from the lynching mob ended up on the jury? As any criminal-defense attorney knows, that’s a genuine question.
• Not a question, but an observation. "Lynching", as a legal term, is the act of taking a person out of official custody. So Atticus faced down a "lynching" mob. But if the African American audience in the balconies of the courtroom had taken Tom Robinson out of the courtroom to freedom, that also would have been "lynching".
• Did the prosecutor need lessons and a license to be so arrogant?
• How did the judge know that Mr. Euel was left-handed, since Mr. Euel wrote with his back to the judge, and the judge’s bench was between them?
• Does anybody else think that the testimony of Tom Robinson was overacted?
• Why is it that when I lose a case, my client’s friends and relations don’t stand up as I leave the courtroom, in mute gratitude?
• I can't get past this "escape" thing. When Tom Robinson "escaped", did the deputies have to use their boots, or could they just push him out of the car? (By the way, technically, after the U.S Supreme Court decided Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), it might be that the deputies would have to chase him (this handcuffed prisoner) instead of shooting him in the back.)

And yet at the end of the film, I am moved.

And when furies whip me, after some provocation, to which I am subject, I tell myself, "Be Atticus."

Rick Perry: Ten Virtues

Make no mistake: some things about Rick Perry burn my beans. I’ve written about that before. ( http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-christians-are-assholes.html )

But I also know that people are complex. I look away from the world as it really is if I choose to see a man as a cartoonish villain or a shallow monster, when he’s really a person with good qualities and bad. And to know the truth is to possess something of high value.

So I take a new look at Rick Perry. Here are 10 virtues that I see in him without having to look too hard.

1. Perry knows that his position of allowing in-state college tuition to undocumented non-citizens will dismay his Republican base. I think his position is a good one and a compassionate one and a wise one; and I admire that he defends it without waffling.

2. Perry knows that his position that social security is a Ponzi scheme will frighten the voting elderly. I think that his position is misguided, but I admire that he doesn’t back down despite the detriments of that position to his campaign.

3. Jumping into a national campaign is intellectually hard. The range of national issues is wide and new to a man who before was focused on state issues. Therefore, to enter the race took courage, knowing that immediately he would have to answer questions on those issues in nationally-televised debates.

4. Jumping into a national campaign, and being a front runner, is hard. You’re the person that rivals and others are eager to tear down and humiliate. That’s another reason that Perry’s leap into the presidential race shows courage.

5. Perry has ramrod-straight posture.

6. Perry is poised in debates.

7. Perry has run into trouble with his Republican base for ordering HPV vaccinations for pre-teen Texas schoolgirls. Michele Bachmann has blistered him on this issue. But his explanation is a compassionate one: he said that he knew a woman who was dying of cancer from the HPV virus; she convinced him to fight that fight, so others might not suffer as she did. (There is debate about when he met this woman; it might have been after he signed the executive order for vaccinations. But his invocation of this woman humanizes him and honors her.)

8. Rick Perry served his country honorably in the Air Force.

9. Rick Perry rose from growing up a tiny town to be the multi-term governor of a great state.

10. Rick Perry knows how to appeal to people on a gut level.

I do this exercise about Rick Perry because he’s now the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. At another time, I might do the same thing for another Republican candidate.

Does this mean that I want Perry to be president? I hate the idea. But this isn’t the time for me to count the ways. This is an exercise generosity toward a foe.

In being generous to Rick Perry, I believe that I’m being generous to my own soul.

Beggars

I feel stupid when I give money to a fat beggar.

And most of them are fat. Their food problem doesn’t seem to be hunger. It seems to be portion control.

So, I usually don’t give to beggars. Even though a person can be needy and overweight.

I don’t give to the beggars who come up to me in the Costco parking lot, neatly dressed, and announce that they’re out of gasoline.

I don’t give to the various beggars who approach me in San Francisco, up to three times in a single city block.

I don’t give to the beggar who wants bus fair to Torrance.

I don’t give to the beggar who wants a hotel room.

I don’t give to the beggar who drives up to me and tells me that her purse has just been stolen, and, as if on cue, breaks out into tearless sobs.

I didn’t give to a wizened old lady in Patzcuaro, Mexico, who was trawling tables in the outdoor café where I was having breakfast. Afterwards, I wondered: why the hell not? I’m not proud of that one.

I know what you’re thinking: "What about Luke 6:30?" ("Give to everyone who asks you . . ..") But if my eternal fate is waterless and warm, it'll be so for bigger reasons than Luke 6:30.

Sometimes I give. There was a woman outside my old office in San Bernardino. She never spoke. She just sat, day after day, outside a donut shop. Her sweat pants had a rip; unless she sat down, her butt was exposed to the wide world. She was mental. Sometimes I gave her a dollar.

Today, an old man came up to me and murmured for money. He wasn’t your stereotypical big-bellied beggar. He was scrawny. I don’t know if it was because he was too poor to buy food, or whether nothing passed his lips that had no alcohol in it. I really don’t know.

But I had no change, so I murmured back a greeting and walked into Trader Joe’s. There was another guy there, a guy I see hanging around the Redlands streets a lot; I don’t know what his story is. He made a hissing, derogatory sound as I walked past the old man. That kind of stung.

On the way out of Trader Joe’s, I saw the old man hitting up a young couple for money. The young guy was reaching for his coin-pocket, but he was hesitating. I gave the old guy my change: fifty-one cents. He took it, but he didn’t say much. I give small amounts, when I give, and expect beggars not to collect their charity from me alone.

At least he wasn’t like the strong young man who asked me for spare change in a gas station parking lot. I gave him a quarter. He gave me a tongue-lashing. But he kept the quarter.

I give a portion of my income to the Salvation Army; somewhat less to the church I sometimes go to. In a lean month, I have to defeat my reluctance to make myself to do that.

I’m no saint; my notion is that God seems to provide for me, so I’d better give a little back. I don’t think that I’m clinging to any so-called "prosperity gospel". I don’t expect God to reward me with riches. I think that he might allow me to get by; and I haven’t "earned" even that by my modest giving.

My modest contribution to the poor gives me a measure of psychic comfort when I pass up the chance to give money to a stranger.

I’m all for helping people. But I assume that most beggars are cons. I suppose I could use my cross-examination skills to test their stories. They’re probably not used to being closely questioned. But instead I just say no, and I remind myself that if they need help, they can go to the Salvation Army, which I regularly contribute to.

If somebody out there has better information about the real neediness of people who come up to you in the street, please share it.

There was a young couple in Pasadena decades ago. The young man would come up to you, dripping with contrition and shame. He said that he was a student at Fuller Theological Seminary, and that his wife was pregnant, and that they’d run out of gas. He asked for help. I knew of this couple by reputation only.

They were prosecuted for fraud. He wasn’t a student. She wasn’t pregnant. They weren’t out of gas. He’d come up with a story that was so good that he figured people would give him money rather than feel guilty by turning him down.

I don’t know what happened with their case.

What does all of this add up to? Maybe nothing. Sometimes I give; usually I don’t. I’ve probably given when I shouldn’t have. I’ve certainly held on to my change when I should have been generous. I hope that my regular giving to the Salvation Army and the church counts for something. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.

America's Come-from-Behind Victories

Where’s the good story in an early or an easy victory? (Answer: it’s not a good story.) Better stories are reversals of fortune.

So American history is a good story, because good reversals of fortune rise at intervals. Maybe even today.

1. Reversal of Fortune: World War II.

I like the story of the Normandy Invasion in World War II. I like to read about the strong cooperation between FDR and Winston Churchill. I’m intrigued by the infighting about the timing and the location of the invasion of Europe. It’s thrilling to read about the role weather played - the invasion almost didn’t happen because of storms. I admire the courage and strength of those who launched this must-win battle, knowing that some of the men they sent across the channel would never again in this world greet their families. My head is bare before the sacrifice of these brave soldiers, sailors, and marines.

But what makes the story even more special is that it’s outcome wasn’t inevitable. Before the Normandy Invasion came the Battle of Dunkirk, near the beginning of World War II. At Dunkirk, the German forces crushed the Allies. The saving grace was the miracle in which the British evacuated their soldiers from the beachhead over four days, while the Germans planned the final obliteration.

The Normandy Invasion is a great story. It wouldn’t be as great without Dunkirk.

2. Reversal of Fortune: The Civil War.

Civil War: same thing. The Union Army under General George McClellan was wasted. Wily Confederate General Robert E. Lee would watch McClellan build his attack. McClellan built his attacks with the precision of the engineer that he was. Lee knew McClellan, and he knew that McClellan would not launch a battle until it was mathematically impossible for him to lose. Lee knew when that moment came as well as McClellan did. And just before that moment came, Lee’s army would slip away. Sometimes the Union soldiers would come to the former enemy lines and find "Quaker cannons" - logs painted to look like cannons, pointed at the Union positions.

Abraham Lincoln once stood in the midst of McClellan’s army and asked his companion if he knew what surrounded them. His companion answered that it was the Army of the Potomac. Lincoln answered that, no, it was "General McClellan’s bodyguard." The Union almost lost the Civil War by not fighting as the Union’s debt to pay for the war flowed into foreign banks.

And usually when the Union did fight, it got beaten.

Ulysses S. Grant took command of Union forces and won.His victories were all the more remarkable because the Union commanders before him had proved how easy it was to lose.

3. Reversal of Fortune: The War of Independence.

So with the War of Independence. America lost the Battle of Long Island. The British out-generaled us, and Washington blundered. The British took New York City.

After we were humiliated in New York, one thing that restored patriotic confidence in the revolution was a booklet written by Thomas Paine called The Crisis. The Crisis begins with these gleaming words:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

These words strengthened the spirits of discouraged patriots. But also, there was Washington’s surprise Christmas victory over Hessian soldiers at Trenton, New Jersey, and there was Washington’s victory a few days later, after the New Year, at Princeton. These boosted patriot courage and resolve.

They were a needed reversal of fortune.

4. Today: Barack Obama.

Is this Barack Obama’s arc?

Make no mistake: Obama has had his victories. The passage of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare" to its detractors) and the repeal of "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" are the most high-flying examples of legislative triumphs for Obama’s administration. Then Obama sent special forces into Pakistan to pluck Osama bin Laden out of this world. These were great victories.

But many of Obama’s early supporters are downhearted. The Congressional mid-term elections were a rout. Special elections to fill Congressional vacancies have gone badly. People perceived Obama as caving to Congressional Repubicans in the budget-ceiling debacle. They saw House Speaker Boehner humiliate Obama by turning down Obama’s choice for the day to address a joint session of Congress. The New York Times started to speak of Obama as a "weak" president. Former Vice President Dick Cheney started a conversation about how much better it would be with Hillary Clinton as president.

Then something happened.

Today, September 19, 2011, Obama drew his sword and scratched a line before his adversaries. He announced a plan to trim three-billion dollars from the deficit with a combination of cuts and tax increases. The tax increases fall almost entirely on big corporations and on the very, very rich.

Obama is playing a strong hand. The very rich have not suffered in this recession like the middle-class and the poor have. I think people think that it’s fare that our present suffering be shared by all. I think that people, or most people, think that the very rich should pay their fair share. Deep down, we think it’s wrong for a billionaire to pay taxes at a lower rate than his secretary.

So Obama proposes to lay extra tax on The Big. And he has said that he won't cut the deficit only by cuts. He won't only alter Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and not also raise new revenue by higher taxes on big corporations and the very rich.

The Republicans have drawn their own line in the sand. They won’t raise revenue, even from the very, very rich. Tax loopholes on corporate jets are, to them, sacred promises of government to the wealthy. All savings must come from cuts - like cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

And Obama has sworn to use his veto pen.

Obama has launched his ships. The battle’s just begun. But I’m hopeful. I’m hopeful that Obama knows that he has a winning hand in the eyes of the only ones who count in this controversy - the American people. I expect him to keep his focus like Atticus Finch aiming his rifle at a rabid dog.

And like the Allies in World War II, like the Union in the Civil War, and like the patriots in the American War of Independence, I expect Barack Obama to fight back to win.

Do Liberals Resemble Jesus? (Yes, but Very Imperfectly.)

In The Whites of their Eyes, historian Jill Lepore tells of her experience with the Tea Party. Her book is in no danger of being sold at Tea Party rallies, but Lepore sometimes speaks warmly of the people she met, and she credits their sincerity.

But at one point, she writes, a Tea Party woman asked her if she was a liberal. Before she could fully answer, the woman grabbed her and demanded fifty dollars. This was because, according to that woman, liberals give money to everyone who asks for it.

Ms. Lepore didn’t say what she said back. But she might have said, "You’re thinking of Christians". (See Luke 6:30.)

In what ways do liberals imitate Christ? I can think of ten ways.

1. Liberals care about the poor.

When someone takes up the cause of the poor, it's usually a liberal.

See Matthew 25:40,45. ("[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.") See also the story of poor Lazarus and the rich man. (Starting at Luke 16:19) The story ends happily for Lazarus, not for the rich man:

"Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.’"

2. Liberals sit down with sinners.

Republicans agitate and foment about Bill Ayers. Their claims about Ayers and Obama are greatly exaggerated. But this guilt by association is a uniquely Republican argument, like what the Pharisees said about Jesus. And, of course, conservatives, more than liberals, berate criminals and those who defend them. Criminal-defense attorneys skew liberal.

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" [Luke 5:29-30.]

3. Liberals care about health care, even health care for the poor.

I can hunt down many, many cases in the Gospels of Jesus healing - the blind, the leprous, the paralyzed, the chronically bleeding. Jesus might have performed healing miracles more than any other kind.

Liberals passed health-care reform, with help from Democratic moderates. Health care reform will mean that sick will not die because they are poor.

4. Liberals believe in paying taxes.

Conservatives seem to want to throttle government by cutting off revenue to it. Liberals typically believe in paying for programs through funding that includes taxes.

Jesus approved paying taxes, and he paid taxes. Matthew 22:16-21:

“Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.  Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?  Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,  and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

  “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Also Matthew 17:27: Jesus pays the temple tax with a coin from a fish’s mouth.

5. Liberals believe in reasonable restraint on business.

Under the rubric of "free enterprise", conservatives beat the drum of repealing virtually all regulation of business. Liberals believe that reasonable regulation is necessary.

Jesus didn’t have an idolatrous regard for free enterprise. See, Matthew 21:12:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

6. Some liberals are rich, but, like Jesus, they don’t adulate the rich.

Jesus wasn’t real crazy about the rich. I referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man already. Also Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."

And Matthew 19:30: "[M]any who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

7. Liberals believe that the poor, if they contribute little, are equal to the rich who contribute much.

Liberals believe in the progressive income tax. Conservatives often want a flat tax.

Jesus believed that the poor who contributed little were entitled to more honor than the rich who contributed much.

Luke 21:1-4:

As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "Truly I tell you," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

8. Liberals are open to other cultures and nationalities.

Conservatives often hate foreigners. (Lately, especially the French and the Mexicans and the Muslim.) Liberals, not so much.

Jesus loves all nations. Matthew 28:19: "[G]o and make disciples of all nations . . .."

 9. Liberals believe in mercy.

Liberals, more than conservatives, believe in second chances and mercy. Liberals, more than conservatives, oppose California’s Three Strike law, under which a man with two serious prior felonies can get a life sentence if he steals a packet of aspirin for his ailing wife. Liberals, more than conservatives, oppose the death penalty.

The mercy of Jesus breaths in the Bible.

His life was mercy.

John 8:1-11 is the story of the woman caught in adultery, who was about to be killed. Jesus wrote in the sand, and the crowd peeled off until they all were gone. Jesus asked who was left to condemn her. She said nobody. Then he told her: "Then neither do I condemn you," . . ... "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He told the criminal dying on a cross next to him: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43.)

Matthew 9:13: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 11:4: Jesus teaches us to pray: "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us."

Luke 7:3-4:

"If a brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them."

In the story of murderous Saul called to become an apostle to preach the gospel, mercy is huge. (Acts 9.)

10. Liberals believe that private property can be appropriated for the common good.

Conservatives consider private property sacrosanct. Liberals, within reason, not so much.

And Jesus: not so much.

Matthew 8:28-32:

When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."

He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.

Of course, one of many differences between Jesus and liberals is that liberals have to compensate owners who’s property is taken. (They know they’re not Jesus. And they aren’t.)

Honestly, I've listened to conservative preachers and liberal preachers, and I prefer the conservatives. But there's something in liberalism that imitates Christ.

Now, I'm only half-serious here, so I assume that my conservative friends will be only half-angry. (If that.)

________________________________

Biblical quotes are from Today’s New International Version.

Rick Santelli versus George Bailey

"All I want is freedom and community."

Francis Carney was a great professor, and I took every course that he taught. I have quoted him here, but that quotation was not his opinion. He himself quoted a former student, but only to mock him. To Professor Carney, freedom and community were opposites, and they were mutually exclusive. You could have one or the other, he told us, but you couldn’t have both.

1. Rick Santelli: apostle of every-man-for-himself.

CNBC on-air editor Rick Santelli famously condemned the economic bailout and the Obama administration. He asked people around him if they wanted their tax dollars to pay for their neighbors’ mortgages. His point of view, his choice between freedom and community, was as clear as natural gas.

Santelli is an apostle of every-man-for-himself. His rant was the spark from which the Tea Party exploded.

Here is that rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQQfzXQ6UjA&NR=1

2. George Baily and community.

But Santelli’s point of view is not the only light in the American political sky. There is an anti-Santelli. His name is George Bailey.

George Bailey was Jimmy Stewart’s character in the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. At a climactic point in the movie, Bailey’s savings & loan was threatened. His depositors - his shareholders - panicked and thought they’d loose all of their money. They crowded Bailey’s saving & loan and demand to withdraw their savings. In a Santelli-like assertion of every-man-for-himself, they sought to exercise their freedom.

George Bailey talked them down. He talked them down by explaining that they were invested in each other. He explained that their money wasn’t sitting in a safe: it funded the mortgages of their friends and neighbors. (That’s why George Bailey’s speech is so easy to contrast to Rick Santelli’s.) Bailey persuade his shareholders to take small portions of their savings instead of trying to draw out all they had, and he won for his savings & loan a reprieve from the forces that want to crush it, represented by the odious Mr. Potter.

Community scores.

Here’s a piece of George Bailey’s speech to his shareholders. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Er69b4HMl8 Here’s a longer version, giving the context of the first clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu2uJWSZkck&feature=related

3. American politics and striking the balance.

I have argued before that politics in America is largely a calibration of the balance between freedom and community. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-we-think-when-we-love-health-care.html

Fundamentally, I think that’s correct.

In 2008, America favored the balance suggested in the candidacy of Barack Obama over what John McCain offered. In 2010, the balance shifted away from community toward every-man-for-himself.

2012 is upon us. Campaigning has started. Once again, candidates take their place on a continuum between freedom and community. To me, all Republican candidates (except perhaps John Huntsman) represent an extreme argument against community and for every-man-for-himself. They want to arrest regulations. They want to return us to the days when corporations regulated themselves. Ron Paul goes so far as to call for the end of the Department of Homeland Security: let airline companies themselves take responsibility for their own security and the safety of their passengers.

Which is pretty much what we had on September 10, 2001.

4. Santelli and the world of tomorrow.

To foretell the future that the Republican candidates would propel us toward is as easy as looking at the past that was.

For example, at the outset of the 20^th Century, the federal government started to regulate food production because of scandals in the meat-packing industry. Upton Sinclair’s muckraking novel The Jungle provoked public outrage. The Jungle led to not-so-surprise inspections by Teddy Roosevelt’s administration that revealed the wretched, filthy, disgusting conditions of meat-packing plants. The only one of Upton Sinclair’s claims that inspectors could not find evidence to support was the claim of a man falling into a vat and being sold as lard.

Regulation of the food industry is community, and I don’t want to return to the freedom that existed before Upton Sinclair’s exposure of that industry’s filthy practices.

Those filthy practices arose from the pursuit of profit. That same pursuit led to the implosion Enron. And it led to companies like Goldman Sachs selling investments to their customers that were so bad that Goldman Sachs, for itself, made financial bets that those investments would stink and sink. Which they did. Goldman Sach’s customers were financially flayed, and Goldman Sachs made huge profits - profits from selling terrible investments to their customers, and profits by betting that those investments were the financial equivalent of bad meat.

That happens when a balance is struck too much toward freedom and too far from community.

5. Striking a balance.

I disagree with Professor Carney. I don’t think that freedom and community are mutually exclusive. But I think that it takes hard work to find the ideal balance between them. I’m suspicious of those that think that community - represented by regulation - has no role in a free society.

To see the future with the extreme embrace of freedom and the extreme rejection of community, you need only look at the past. And the past is the domain of poison, poverty, and Thalidomide babies without arms or legs.

And that sucks.

Michoacan: Ten Truths

My brief journey to Michoacan, Mexico is almost done. Here are ten ideas I take home with me.

1.   Mexican children, like children all over the world, can be completely delightful or totally annoying. But they are more often delightful than annoying.

2.   Dogs in town centers always look hungry.

3.   The people don't look hungry. Like Americans, most of them seem far from hungry.

4.   The exception to number 3 is certain wizened, ancient women, who trawl outside tables at restaurants, hoping to scrounge coins. (I hope that America never abandons social security. Otherwise, some of our wizened ancients will have to live on scrounged coins.)

5.   You see more on foot than from a bus. You see more from a bus than from a taxi.

6.   It's good to tip, but it's bad to tip too much. I tip the standard American 15% at restaurants. I believe this is extravegant by Mexican standards. I returned to a restaurant where I had eaten before, and the young waiter's new attitude, in some indefinable way, made me uncomfortable. After the meal, I paid with a 200 peso note. The young waiter gave me change as if I had paid with a 100 peso note. I had to "remind" him that I had paid with a 200 peso note. Maybe I'm paranoid.

7.   Knowing some Spanish is highly useful in Mexico, as it is in most Hispanic countries that I've visited. Nobody at the (relatively) upscale hotel I'm staying in speaks any English, and I've found that often to be the case. But people surprise you, like a small-town taxi driver, or a bread vendor on a bicycle, who speak (some) English.

8.  Newspapers and other news media made me uneasy about traveling to Mexico, and Michoacan, with reports of violence, kidnappings, and beheadings. I have had no problems and have never felt in danger here.

9.   For me, it's harder to adjust to the time change than to the fact that communication is labored. The language tangle is a challenge and an adventure.

10.   The artisan-copper trade in Santa Clara del Cobre is ailing. Compared to a few years ago, I saw almost no foreign tourists this time. The manufacturer and shop that I traded with before - a substantial business - is gone. And after I showed interest in a piece at one shop or another, and decided not to buy, the sales person looked downcast, almost desperate. When I finally bought a piece, that purchase brought visible joy to my vendor. Times are hard here.

Rolling Over in their Graves

We join a congress of the Founding Fathers, called from their graves to debate an Issue of Current Importance.

George Washington calls the congress to order. He says, "Gentlemen. In Harrison County, West Virginia, a school board has been sued by a civil rights group to take down from a school corridor a portrait of Jesus Christ. We are here to vote on whether we shall turn in our graves."

Thomas Jefferson speaks up. He says, "Mr. President, I again go on record to say that it is unseemly that we are again pulled out of our graves to answer a new controversy - or an old one."

Washington nods courteously. "Thank you, Mr. Jefferson."

Jefferson continues, his voice rising a little. "And as I said in life, and as I have said before in these congresses . . ."

Somebody groans. "Here we go again!"

Jefferson continues: "In my life, when I was asked about how to discover the intention of the writers of the Constitution, this at a time when many of my fellows had died (and they sworn to secrecy about the debates of the Convention, besides), this I answered: "laws and institutions must go hand and hand with the progress of the human mind." And this I also said, "This they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead."

Another delegate grumbles. "Yet here we are."

John Adams clears his throat. "Some among the living say, Mr. Jefferson, that you are not in fact a Founding Father."

This provokes Jefferson. "Who says that?" he demands.

"Tim LaHay, a well-known writer of religious books."

Jefferson glares around the room. "Who was the principal writer of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the republic? Show me your hands!" He raises his hand.

Washington clears his throat. "The president will conduct all polls."

Jefferson takes his hand down.

Washington speaks again. "We will now vote. Who, concerning this controvesy, chooses to turn in his grave?"

Some delegates raise their hands.

"Who chooses to remain in repose?"

Others raise their hands, Thomas Paine among them. Some abstain, Jefferson among them.

John Adams murmers, "What a surprise. The usual suspects."

James Madison murmers back, "The Religion of every man must be left to the conscience of every man."

To which Adams replies, "You've said that before."

Washington cleares his throat again. "It seems that once again we have no unanimity."

Someone says, "Not in school prayer, not in income taxation, not in health-care reform."

"Health-care reform!" John Adams thunders.

"This again!" someone says, despair creeping into his voice.

John Adams continues, "Every time that issue comes up, some among the living assume - assume! - that we opposed health care provided by government! Do they not know that I signed into law . . .."

Adams is joined by a chorus of weary voices as he says, "an Act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen?" He continues speaking alone: "That act taxed shipmasters to pay for construction of hospitals and give medical care to merchant and naval seamen."

Benjamin Franklin grins slyly. "Socialist", he says.

"What's that?" John Hancock asks.

"I'll explain later."

John Adams sighs. "Once again, no unanimity. We haven't been unanimous since women were empowered to vote."

"Almost unanimous," corrects Benjamin Franklin. "And it hasn't turned out badly."

John Adams addresses Washington. "Mr. President, your voice might break this impasse in this congress. How do you determine this issue in your mind?"

Washington answers, "The president does not vote and the president does not debate. The president presides."

John Adams persists. "But Mr. President, you prayed with your troops."

Washington replies, "Yes, but also, as I died, slowly, I declined to call for a preacher."

John Adams says with resignation, "Well, the living will just have to say that only some of us are rolling over in our graves, and some of us are not."

Somebody murmers, "Yes, and what are the chances of that happening?"

Washington then concludes the congress.

-------------------------------------

This, of course, is a speculative piece, meant in fun. I honestly have no idea whether John Adams would roll over in his grave if a portrait of Jesus were taken out of a school under compulsion. He was deeply religious. But that doesn't necessarily speak to whether he personally approved the First Amendment, or how he would have interpreted it if he did. I suspect that he approved, because being religious isn't the same as wanting government to promote religion. Historians might have a better answer than I do to these questions.

Nor do I know that Benjamin Franklin would have approved women voting. It just wasn't an issue in his day. Women didn't vote, and for a long time few male adults voted, because of property qualifications. But I happen to like Franklin, so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Call it poetic license.

But much of what I have written is based on history. For example: where I quote Jefferson quoting himself, I quote from history. And Washington did decline to call for a preacher as he died.

I can't strongly enough recommend the book The Whites of their Eyes: The Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History, by Jill Lepore. It shines a light on Revolutionary times, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the present debate about original intent. Lepore is a good writer and a great story-teller, besides.

Patzcuaro: Not a Food Fright; an Adventure.

In the city center of Patzcuaro, Mexico, women in the evening sell chicken that they fry in free-standing pans. The pieces of chicken for sale, partly pre-cooked, sit on the edge of the frying pan, and potatoes cook in the center of the pan.

I asked a woman how much the meal cost. She told me that the chicken came with potatoes and five tortillas, and it cost 55 pesos. I said that was fine.

The vendor was a handsome elderly woman with her white hair pulled back in a pony tail. She wore a full white apron over her beige knit shirt and black skirt.

She asked me if I wanted breast meat or leg meat. When she asked, she put her ungloved finger directly on the piece that she was talking about. To my American eye, this looked wrong. But I was not in America; this was Mexico. I chose the breast. And after all, I thought, the chicken was going into the middle of the pan before I ate it.

The concave frying pan sits on a brazier that sits on a skeleton of thin, black, metal bars. The brazier has an open vent next to the fuel. While the chicken cooked, the vendor constantly and vigorously fanned the fuel with a woven fan.

Like the chicken and the potatoes, the tortillas went into the middle of the pan. She counted out five of them and, in two batches - four and one - she hand dipped them in a red sauce. As she pulled the tortillas from the sauce, her fingers were red with it. They remained so as she finished cooking the meal.

When the chicken was fully cooked, she pulled it off the pan with her fingers.

I hope I do not sound condescending. American government sometimes is hyperactive, and maybe our food regulations reflect that. I have heard that Peking duck is not served in Chinatown in Los Angeles. Apparently, its method of preparation does not meet local health standards. That is a shame. I have eaten and enjoyed that dish in China, and I never was sick from it.

A nice finish to this piece would be a rave report of the deliciousness of the meal.

Well, the potatoes and the tortillas were very good. Parts of the chicken were somewhat dry. But it was late, and maybe the meat had waited too long on the edge of the pan before I chose it. But the flavor was fine.

Everywhere I have traveled, I have tried to eat the street food. Eating like a local adds to the adventure of travel. And often, people who make their homes where I travel seem to like my effort to eat as they do.

Making the Best of Bad Spanish

The poverty of my Spanish is matched by my boldness in using it here in the state of Michoacan, Mexico.

But it works, kind of.

In fact, it works like the game Jeopardy. Remember, Jeopardy is the game where the contestants try to guess a phrase from a few letters on a board.

So, here in Michoacan, I ask a question, in Spanish, like "Where can I find the bus to Santa Clara del Cobre?" Then my courteous would-be explainer answers in Spanish. But he answers too fast and with too many strange words for me to understand. But usually, I can spear a few words. So, just like a contestant on Jeopardy, I try to assemble those parts into a coherent answer.

So I asked a man in a minibus who was ferrying passengers that very question: where was there a bus to Santa Clara del Cobre? From his soup of words, I heard "take" and "Santa Clara del Cobre". He gestured me into the van. "Ah," I thought, "what luck. It must be on his way." I asked how much it cost, and he answered six pesos. That was more luck: the guidebook said it cost seven pesos to travel from Patzcuaro to Santa Clara del Cobre. Which seems cheap for a half-hour journey. (One peso is nine cents.)

We traveled for about five minutes. Then he pulled over and gestured behind the minibus. There, there was another minibus with the words on the windshield, "Santa Clara del Cobre." So he charged me, to get to the right bus, almost as much as I expected to pay to make the whole journey. The fink.

A young man stood outside the Santa Clara del Cobre bus. I told him where I was going, and he handed me a perforated ticket and gestured me onto the minibus. I climbed in and waited to depart, sitting on a bench along one side of the minibus, examining the other passengers.

Eventually, I looked toward the front of the minibus. The driver was looking at me. It seemed as if he had been doing that for a while. He pointed at the young man who had handed me the perforated ticket, who was in the minibus and also looking at me. I handed the young man the minibus fare. He thanked me and stepped out of the minibus, and we were on our way.

I thought it was odd that the minibus driver should just look at me to get my attention, instead of saying something. I do not speak Spanish well, but I am not deaf.

After a time, I asked the driver if Santa Clara del Cobre was near. From his facial expression, he looked like he was mentally wrestling with how to answer, and then he gestured forward ahead of the bus. I took this to mean that we were close.

He might have simply said "Si", and I would have understood. But apparently he believed that Americans speak no Spanish. And he was unwilling or unable to alter his understanding of the linguistic universe based on the demonstration of my poor Spanish.

We arrived at Santa Clara del Cobre. The driver stopped the minibus next to the copper bust of the founding patron of the copper industry of this locale: Bishop Quiroga. Then, the driver pronounce his only word to me: "Ticket!" I handed him the perforated ticket, which he tore and returned my half.

So here I am in Santa Clara del Cobre, practicing my Spanish, depending upon the patience and good will of the local populace to tolerate its simplicity.

And loving it.