Life of an average joe

These essays cover a tour in Afghanistan for the first seventeen letters home. For an overview of that tour, and thoughts on Iraq, essays #1, #2 and #17 should suffice. Staring with the eighteenth letter, I begin to recount -- hopefully in five hundred words -- some daily aspects of life in Mexico with the Peace Corps.



Friday, November 22, 2013

Letter #88: November 22nd, 1963



De: EDWARD J. MCDONNELL
Enviado: viernes, 22 de noviembre de 2013 12:29 p.m.
Cc: nedmcd.peacecorps@gmail.com
Asunto: El 22 de noviembre 1963; Dallas; Tejas; las doce y media por la tarde


El invierno de soixante-quinze (1975) era similar a otros à Paris, supongo – un choque irreconciliable entre la gloria del pasado francés contra un clima gris del presente. En la oficina de la Dirección General de Le Figaro, un periódico diario de Paris,  yo estaba tomando, tentativamente, mi primera y solo whisky nunca -- del tipo escoces con los dos perros, un negro y un blanco. Temblando desde el sabor desafiante del whisky, miraba a un editor mayor del gran periódico y le pregunté casi tímidamente, «Qui a été le meilleur président des Etats Unis à votre avis, Monsieur? »

[¿Quién es su presidente favorito estadounidense?]. Sin hesitación, este verdadero caballero continental, me respondió, «Sans doute, ce serait Président Kennedy…» Por supuesto, no era sorprendido porque los franceses habían sido famosos en su admiración del presidente Kennedy y, aún más encantados con su esposa, la ‘glaMujer’, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (Onassis, para entonces).

[Sin duda, sería el presidente Kennedy.] Pero no estaba terminado con mis preguntas, «Est-ce que je pourrais vous demander pourquoi? » [¿Señor, quisiera decirme porqué?]. Otra vez, sin hesitación, este caballero, tan inteligente como refinado, me dijo, con un aspecto de humildad, «Parce qu’il était ce qu'un président américain devrait être…et sa femme merveilleuse!» [Porque él era lo que un presidente estadounidense debería ser…¡y su esposa maravillosa!]
Así, más de once años después su asesinato, este presidente – este hombre – podría captar, con la ayuda de la elegante Jackie, la imaginación de los líderes intelectuales entre los franceses aun todavía…

…Fue las tres de la tarde más o menos.  No era muy feliz con la escuela.  La monja, Sister Mercedes – el mismo nombre del coche alemán que mi tía y tío tenía (un de tal vez seis o siete en Pittsburgh); y, ella era similar a una maldita alemana: tiránica y fea --  no estaba en la sala; ella había salido de repente y rápido.  Sin embargo, no fue nada para averiguar; esta escuela siempre había sido un lastre – es todo que supe.

Esta mala monja -- ella me había dado una palmada en la cara varias veces, un o dos meses antes, cuando ella me sorprendió cuando estaba jugando el toro en una corrida con una chica 'angelical' (al menos en los ojos enojados de la Sor Mercedes). Después de eso, me condenó al Infierno; no había sabido que la imitación de un toro fuera un pecado mortal. Después de todo, la iglesia católica antes del Segundo Consejo Vaticano – es decir, en el otoño de 1963 – era diferente que hoy en día.

De repente, con la misma manera casi frenética cuando ella se había huido de la sala, Sister Mercedes regresó a la sala en hacer la señal de la cruz varias veces en repetición como si fuera una persona desesperada con la esperanza fútil que una mera repetición de la misma acción otra vez, otra vez y otra vez podría cambiar un resultado atroz de un destino trágico. Ella tuvo una expresión bien rara, en su cara ahora poco roja; algo que no había visto antes: un sentimiento además de ira.

En el mismo momento, Sor Mercedes me pareció triste y temerosa. ¿Qué pasó con ella? Como estaba yendo a la frente de la sala, ella dijo sin respiro, “The President has been shot.  Please, we must pray…” [Vamos a rezar -- ¡se ha tirado al presidente Kennedy!]. Instantáneamente, todos nosotros – si un niño, condenado al infierno, o una niña tan angelical – estuvimos pidiendo a Dios para preservar a un hombre no bien claro para nuestras pequeñas mentes. 

Sin embargo, las noticias no podrían ser tan feas a causa de nuestra temprana liberación inminente sobre un viernes al momento de la llegada de los camiones de escuela…unos veinte minutos más tarde, a las tres y media.  En el viaje por camión a casa, me extrañé a mi amigo anterior, Sammy, un taxista modesto, con un brazo deformado y torcido, que me había manejado, con otros compañeros de kindergarten, durante el año precedente. Sammy fue un caballero siempre a mí. Era uno de mis amigos favoritos en mi pequeño mundo.

Sammy podía explicar cosas complejas con calma y paciencia, como porqué mis padres habían estado tan preocupados por un lugar llamado 'Cuba', cuando yo era un estudiante de kindergarten en 1962. El camión era muy ruidoso con gritos casi al azar, sin pausa ni causa (en mi opinión, como un niño de seis años). Los chicos "grandes", de diez u once años, estaban discutiendo sin escuchar; pero esto fue casi normal con los chicos mayores en 1963.

Uno declaró: "It's nothing, you retards. Kennedy got a little scratch, that's it. " [¡No es nada, idiotas! Kennedy está bien. Sólo un rasguño...]
“Forgot you, dolt. The president’s hurt bad, real bad…” [¡Olvídalo, imbécil! El presidente está herido, y muy gravemente…] 

Los gritos y contra-gritos; declaraciones y refutaciones igualmente definitivas siguieron volar a través de este miserable camión hasta que llegué -- ¡al fin! -- a la parada cerca de mi casa. Las niñas eran silenciosas; algunas parecían llorar; por supuesto, eso no fue importante porque niñas estaban llorando todo el día y toda la noche; de hecho, para sollozar fue la sola razón de la existencia para niñas. Por supuesto, fui muy confundido.

Cuando salí de mi camión escolar y estaba caminando sobre la banqueta hasta la casa, todo era tranquilo; pero de una manera extraña.  Daisy, el perro feroz del ciego Sr. Douglas, no estaba en su patio, como siempre, ladrando sin fin para darme – y a ningún otro – miedo.  No me encontré ninguno tránsito, tampoco. Pero, era el medio de la tarde de viernes cuando gente estaría en la calle. No había otros niños, también, incluso mi hermana.  Ella ya habría llegado desde su kindergarten por ahora, gracias a su nuevo amigo, el Sr. Sammy (tomado desde mí; ¡ninguna justicia!). Nada podría explicarle este misterioso silencio. 

Ningún de beisbol ni futbol americano de toque, tampoco.  ¿Qué está pasando hoy? Tal silencio fue tan raro como inesperado y eso me hizo inquieto. Pues, caminé hasta la puerta de la casa y, antes de tocar la timbre, mi madre la abrió para mí.  No es ordinario, tampoco, mi padre prefería que yo abra la puerta para mi madre. En este momento, me di cuenta que estaba tiritando. ‘¿Cuál? Es noviembre…’ pensaba yo. Pero este temblor era más que una reacción física al clima.  ¿Qué pasa?

Cuando se abrió la puerta, pude ver inmediatamente que mi madre no se sentía bien del todo. Ella tenía ojos hinchados pero, como mi padre, no bebía mucho.  “¿Estás bien, mami?” Luego, me noté a mi hermana, de pie detrás de mi madre, chupándose el dedo de pulgar. Claire tenía apenas cinco años y sólo lo hizo eso cuando algo malo le había sucedido. Sin duda, algo muy malo había ocurrido.  Comenzaba preocuparme de mi padre.

Como si ella había leído mi mente, mi madre dijo con un dolor que no habían visto antes, “Su padre está regresando de su oficina. Neddy, el presidente Kennedy ha muerto.”  Esa noche, durante un cena silenciosa sin carne -- pero me gustó macarrones con queso; ser católico no era tan malo todo el tiempo – mis papas explicaron en términos accesibles para sus chicos lo que había pasado. Todo ese fin-de-semana fue totalmente confundido para mí. La próxima noche, el sábado, mi madre y mi padre fueron muy enojados pero, gracias a Dios (y por una vez) no conmigo.

No pude entender su ira. Después de todo, ese asesino horrible, el Sr. Oswald, se había mató a sí mismo por la venganza en la mañana. Por supuesto, él lo había merecido, o así me parecía.  Mis padres explicaron muchas cosas durante los próximos días, empezando con, “Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty but he was a sick man. Two wrongs don’t make a right…” [El Sr. Oswald fue culpable de un crimen terrible, pero era enfermo de la mente. Dos injusticias no se anulan entre sí en favor de la justicia…]

De hecho, en la misa del próximo día mi padre nos dijo a mi hermana ya mí para rezar para la familia de Lee Harvey Oswald además de los Kennedy. ¿Por qué estoy yendo al Infierno por haber sido un toro y este Oswald iba a recibir oraciones para su alma? Me di por vencido. ¿Se podría explicar todo eso? Verdaderamente, yo pensaba que el mundo se había vuelto loco. 

La trascendencia de este fin-de-semana llegó para mí finalmente, en términos que una mente infantil pudiera comprender, cuando vi a la linda Carolina de seis años con su hermanito, John-John, durante el funeral de su padre.  Sólo podía entender una parte de la tragedia nacional con las lágrimas de una chica de mi edad. 

Después de esos cuatro días duros, mis papas estarían contentos a menudo, pero nunca tan felices; mi país sería nuevamente confidente, pero no tan confidente...

Tan bellísima una mañana del otoño en Nueva Inglaterra -- ¡como una visión espiritual de la poesía sublime de Robert Frost! Sin embargo, me sentía triste que mi madre, enterrada algunas meses antes, no estaba con nosotros para la boda de mi primo (quitado una vez), el hijo de mi prima.  Los demás ya habían regresado a Nueva York y a Boston. Sin embargo, yo había decidido quedarme en Hyannis Post por dos días más para visitar a mi tía Bárbara, la hermana de mi padre, muerto por seis años ahora. Yo le extrañaba, también.
    
Después de mi curso regular de correr (de unos seis kilómetros), estaba caminando en el clima fresco tan bonito y tranquilo.  Estos momentos me darían energía para regresar a Manhattan y mi trabajo sobre Wall Street.  Aunque yo no había sido rico, había tenido mucha suerte con la generosidad de mis familiares.  Mientras de caminar hacia la casa de verano de mí tía, un hombre, manejando su coche, me acercó y me señalo para hablar con él.

“¿Dónde está la casa del presidente?” Inmediatamente, entendí el deseo subyacente la pregunta. Sin embargo, hace años antes, me habría dicho, ‘Uggh. Un turista…voy a confundirle con instrucciones erróneas…jajaja".  De verdad, como adolescente, había pensado en una tal manera porque no me gustó de no ser una parte verdadera de Hyannis Port; de no ser uno de los chicos que pasaría todo el verano allí. 

Sí, mi madre fue enojada conmigo cuando ella había descubierto que yo había sido un ‘snob’ en engañar a la gente que querían solo ver la casa de su presidente Kennedy. Pero, todo eso había sido en los años setenta, los mismos cuando estudié en Paris…Pero, ahora fue el año 2000 y el presidente había sido muerto por casi cuatro décadas para entonces. Esta vez, no quería ser un tonto. De veras, pude sentir la sangre llenando en mis mejillas.

Este hombre era típico del distrito del sur de Boston; católico e irlandés como había sido nuestro presidente.  Él tuvo este acento de Boston; él no habría oído de ‘HARVARD’ pero sólo de ‘Jah-vahd’.  Esta vez yo me incliné hacia el coche, con mi t-shirt lleno de sudor, y le he dicho, “Well, sir, you´re right near it, actually. Just go straight to that intersection, the President’s house is on the far left-hand corner, behind that wooden fence.”

[De veras, caballero, está muy cerca de la casa del presidente. Se la encontrará sobre la esquina izquierda a través de la intersección, detrás de la cerca de madera…].  Intercambiamos nuestras gracias y saludos para un buen resto del día.  Como yo estaba mirando a este coche yendo cada vez más lejos de mí, hacia la casa Kennedy, me asombró que este hombre todavía tenía tal lugar en los corazones de mis compatriotas, dos generaciones después de su trágica muerte. ¡Qué caballero maravilloso debió haber sido, este John Kennedy!

« Aimerais-tu un autre? » [¿Otro whisky ?]
Su voz me sacó de nuevo en la década de 1970.
« Non merci. C’est un peu trop fort pour moi… » 
Sonreí. Él sonrió, también. Luego, dije, « Mais… »
« Mais, quoi ? » [Pero, ¿qué ?] me preguntó.
« Ma famille aimait bien Jean Kennedy aussi. » [También, le gustó a mi familia el presidente Kennedy…]
« Biensûr… » Ambos de nosotros sonreímos. 
Cincuenta años es un plazo largo; todavía no suficientemente largo. 

Gracias y saludos,
Ned
Edward J. McDonnell  III, CFA
Peace Corps-México
USMX.:  860-690-1740
SKYPE: nedmcd3

Trade Mart Speech

Discurso al Mercado de Negocios
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY (el 29 de mayo 1917- el 22 de noviembre1963)
el treinta-y-cinco presidente de los Estados Unidos de NorteAmérica
Extracto del discurso programado pero nunca presentado; el  22 de noviembre 1963; Dallas
The advancement of learning depends on community leadership for financial political support, and the products of that learning, in turn, are essential to the leadership's hopes for continued progress and prosperity. It is not a coincidence that those communities possessing the best in research and graduate facilities -- from MIT to Cal Tech -- tend to attract new and growing industries. I congratulate those of you here in Dallas who have recognized these basic facts through the creation of the unique and forward-looking Graduate Research Center.

Avances en aprendizaje dependen del liderazgo de la comunidad por apoyo no solo político sino financiero. Los productos de dicho aprendizaje, a su vez, son críticos para el mantenimiento del progreso y prosperidad. No es una coincidencia que las comunidades que tienen las mejores facilidades en posgrados e investigación – desde M.I.T. hacia Cal Tech – tienden a atraer nuevas industrias en crecimiento.  Quiero saludar a ustedes en Dallas por haber entendido tales realidades en establecer su único Centro de vanguardia de Investigaciones de Posgrados.



This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason -- or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.

Esta vinculación entre liderazgo y erudición es esencial no solo al nivel comunal pero es aún más indispensable en todo el mundo. Aunque la ignorancia o la falta de progreso puedan estancar el crecimiento de una ciudad o empresa, tales deficiencias en las relaciones exteriores pueden minar la seguridad de la República. En este mundo de complejos problemas en curso, en un mundo lleno de frustraciones y desafíos, el liderazgo estadounidense debería guiarse por la luz de razón y aprendizaje. De otra manera,  ellos que confunden la retórica por la realidad -- así como el factible cotidiano con una mejor posibilidad para el futuro -- van a apoderarse de la atención de otros con una solución sencilla y rápida y equivocada hacia cada problema internacional.



There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable. But today other voices are heard in the land -- voices preaching doctrines wholly unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the sixties, doctrines which apparently assume that words will suffice without weapons, that vituperation is as good as victory and that peace is a sign of weakness. We cannot expect that everyone, to use the phrase of a decade ago, will "talk sense to the American people." But we can hope that fewer people will listen to nonsense.

De vez en vez, se ha necesitado declarar alertas específicas. Dicha resistencia se componen de muchas partes distintas, desde disuasión masiva hasta influencias sutiles. Las lecciones de la última década nos han enseñado que la libertad no se pueda defenderse con sólo el poder nuclear.  Ni se puede Europa depender del estratégico poder nuclear. Además, en progresar más allá los papeles tradicionales de las fuerzas armas, hemos realizado un crecimiento de más del 600% de la fuerzas especializadas que son listas para trabajar conjunto con nuestras aliadas contra ‘partidarios’ contras guerrillas, insurgentes, asesinos y saboteadores que amenazan la libertad de manera indirecta pero peligrosa.



This Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help. It was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere. It was not General Marshall's speech [for the emergency aid to Europe under the ‘Marshall Plan’] which kept communism out of Western Europe.

Nuestra seguridad no se ha obtenido sin sacrificio ni esfuerzo.  Nuestra fortaleza no se explica rápido ni sencillamente, tampoco. Ya que haya tantas formas de fuerzas, una sola no será suficiente.  Fuerzas nucleares nunca vaya a disuadir a guerrillas. Alianzas firmadas no previenen la subversión interna. Sobre todo, meras palabras no serán suficientes por delante. Los U.S.A. son una nación de paz. Para mostrar abiertamente nuestra resistencia y determinación, nuestras palabras necesitan auto-confianza sin agresividad. Si estamos fuertes, nuestra resistencia va a hablar por sí mismo. Si estemos débiles, palabras no valen. El Doctrina Monroe en sí mismo no disuadió a Europa desde meterse en este hemisferio.  Tampoco, no era el discurso de General George Marshall [para solicitar al Congreso para recursos de emergencia para Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial] que ha contenido comunismo en Europa de oeste.



It has been necessary at times to issue specific warnings. This strength is composed of many different elements, ranging from the most massive deterrents to the most subtle influences. But the lessons of the last decade have taught us that freedom cannot be defended by strategic nuclear power alone.  Nor can Europe or any other continent rely on nuclear forces alone, whether they are strategic or tactical. Finally, moving beyond the traditional roles of our military forces, we have achieved an increase of nearly 600 percent in our special forces -- those forces that are prepared to work with our allies and friends against the guerrillas, saboteurs, insurgents and assassins who threaten freedom in a less direct but equally dangerous manner.

De vez en vez, ha sido necesario para declarar alertas específicas. Dicha resistencia se componen de muchas partes distintas, desde disuasión masiva hasta influencias sutiles. Las lecciones de la última década nos han enseñado que la libertad no se debe defenderse contra sólo el poder nuclear.  Ni se puede Europa depender del estratégico poder nuclear. Además, en progresar más allá los papeles tradicionales de las fuerzas armadas, hemos realizado un crecimiento de más del 600% de las fuerzas especializadas.  Estas 'boinas verdes' son dispuestas para trabajar junto con nuestras aliadas y ‘partidarios’ contras guerrillas, insurgentes, asesinos y saboteadores que amenazan la libertad a la vez indirectamente y peligrosamente.



Reducing the economic help needed to bolster these nations that undertake to help defend freedom can have the same disastrous result. In short, the $50 billion we spend each year on our own defense could well be ineffective without the $4 billion required for military and economic assistance.  Dollar for dollar, in or out of government, there is no better form of investment in our national security than our much-abused foreign aid program. We cannot afford to lose it. We can afford to maintain it. We can surely afford, for example, to do as much for our 19 needy neighbors of Latin America as the Communist bloc is sending to the island of Cuba alone.

La reducción de ayuda económica requerida para fortalecer estas naciones que se defienden sus libertades podría asegurar el mismo resultado funesto. Es decir: el cincuenta mil millones dólares [o USD 365 mil millones en términos de hoy en día frente el presupuesto actual entre USD 475 y USD 515 mil millones de dólares actualmente] no tendrá los resultados deseados sin el USD cuatro mil millones de ayuda económica y militar [o 31 mil millones en términos actuales frente a USD 52 mil millones actualmente]. No hay mejor inversión para nuestra seguridad por delante que la ayuda económica, no importa lo que digan nuestros adversarios. Tenemos que mantenerla. Por supuesto, deberíamos apoyar nuestros diecinueve vecinos americanos al mismo nivel de ayuda soviética para pequeña Cuba.



I have spoken of strength largely in terms of the deterrence and resistance of aggression and attack. But in today's world, freedom can be lost without a shot being fired, by ballots as well as bullets. The success of our leadership is dependent upon respect for our mission in the world as well as our missiles -- on a clearer recognition of the virtues of freedom as well as the evils of tyranny. And that is also why we have regained the initiative in the exploration of outer space, making an annual effort greater than the combined total of all space activities undertaken during the fifties, launching more than 130 vehicles into earth orbit, putting into actual operation valuable weather and communications satellites, and making it clear to all that the United States of America has no intention of finishing second in space. This effort is expensive -- but it pays its own way, for freedom and for America.

He hablado de nuestra fuerza en términos de resistencia y disuasión militar contra agresión. Sin embargo, en nuestra tierra contemporánea, la libertad puede ser asesinado por la votación tan mucha como una explosión revolucionaria.  Nuestro liderazgo oportuno depende del respeto mundial no solo para nuestros misiles sino para nuestra misión nacional por delante que reconoce la virtud de la libertad frente a los estragos de tiranía. Es porque hemos recuperado la iniciativa aeroespacial por comprometer más recursos en el año actual que aquellos de toda la década de los 1950 para lanzar en el orbita más de 130 cohetes y satélites de usos pacíficos y para aclarar que los Estados Unidos tienen ningún intención para ser un perdedor en el espacio exterior. Por supuesto, tal esfuerzo está caro pero se paga por su mismo en su única manera para nuestra NorteAmérica libre.



Finally, it should be clear by now that a nation can be no stronger abroad than she is at home. Only an America which practices what it preaches about equal rights and social justice will be respected by those whose choice affects our future. Only an America which has fully educated its citizens is fully capable of tackling the complex problems and perceiving the hidden dangers of the world in which we live. And only an America which is growing and prospering economically can sustain the worldwide defenses of freedom, while demonstrating to all concerned the opportunities of our system and society.

Al final, debe ser claro para ahora que cualquiera nación no pueda ser más fuerte afuera que adentro.  Sólo una República que hace lo que dice sobre iguales derechos humanos y la justicia social será respetada por otros, la elección de quienes van a influir nuestro futuro. Sólo una América que ha educado adecuadamente a su gente podrá hacer frente a sus problemas complejos y entender los peligros ocultos dentro de nuestro mundo aquí y ahora. Solo un país que está creciendo y prosperando económicamente podrá sostener las defensas mundiales de libertad por mostrar a todos actores importantes las oportunidades intrínsecas que nuestro contrato social y nuestro sistema de gobierno les ofrecen a todos.



It is clear, therefore, that we are strengthening our security as well as our economy by our recent record increases in national income and output -- by surging ahead of most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits, by maintaining a more stable level of prices than almost any of our overseas competitors, and by cutting personal and corporate income taxes by some $11 billion, as I have proposed, to assure this Nation of the longest and strongest expansion in our peacetime economic history. My friends and fellow citizens: I cite these facts and figures to make it clear that America today is stronger than ever before. Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.

Por tanto, es claro que estamos fortaleciendo nuestro seguridad y nuestra economía mediante incrementos sin paralelos de la riqueza y productividad; por catapultarnos delante de la mayoría de Europa en el crecimiento y rentabilidad del sector privado; por mantener más estabilidad de precios que casi todos nuestros competidores exteriores; así como, por reducir los impuestos por unos 83 mil millones de dólares, como propuesto, para asegurar el más largo y fuerte expansión en nuestra historia de épocas pacíficas. Compañeros estadounidenses, estoy citando dichos hechos para asegurarles que nuestra República es más fuerte que jamás. Nuestros rivales no han suspendido sus ambiciones. Nuestras amenazas no han disminuido. Nuestra vigilancia no se puede relajar. Sin embargo, tenemos la fortaleza militar, económica y científica para hacer lo que se necesita para preservar, extender y promover la libertad.



The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions -- it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations -- it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. We, in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than by choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain."

Esta fortaleza no se desplegará para ambiciones de fuerza; se aplicará en el perseguimiento de paz. En lugar de provocar a otros, nuestra fuerza servirá la resolución pacífica de disputas nacionales. Todos nosotros en este país y generación – más por el destino que por nuestra elección – debemos destacar nuestros protectores sobre estas murallas de la libertad. Por tanto, oramos por la dignidad de nuestro responsabilidad y poder; por la sabiduría para ejercitar este poder con moderación; por un mundo, en nuestro edad y en eternidad, de una paz con un énfasis para una buena voluntad universal para todos. Esta visión debe ser siempre nuestra meta basada en la justicia subyacente de nuestra resistencia. Como se escribió hace muchos años, “excepto por la protección de Dios, los vigilantes son alertos en balde.”
[Salmo 127, versículo 1, versión del King James]




Establishment of the Peace Corps
Establecer el Cuerpo de Paz
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY (1917-1963), presidente de los Estados Unidos de NorteAmérica;
Anuncio de la creación del Cuerpo de Paz (Peace Corps)
el  01 de marzo 1961; Washington (Departamento de Relaciones Exteriores)
I have today signed an Executive Order providing for the establishment of a Peace Corps on a temporary pilot basis. I am also sending to Congress a message proposing authorization of a permanent Peace Corps. This Corps will be a pool of trained American men and women sent overseas by the U.S. Government or through private institutions and organizations to help foreign countries meet their urgent needs for skilled manpower.  It is our hope to have 500 or more people in the field by the end of the year. The initial reactions to the Peace Corps proposal are convincing proof that we have, in this country, an immense reservoir of such men and women—anxious to sacrifice their energies and time and toil to the cause of world peace and human progress.

Hoy, he firmado un orden executivo para establecer el Cuerpo de Paz (Peace Corps) de manera temporal hasta podremos lograr, junto con el Congreso, la autorización y financiación permanente del Peace Corps.  Dicho Cuerpo será un grupo de hombres y mujeres norteamericanos entrenados para enviarse por su gobierno (o por instituciones privadas) al extranjero para ayudar a los países con escasez urgentes de personal calificado.  Nuestro deseo es la ubicación en el campo al menos de unos 500 antes de 1962.  Las reacciones iniciales a esta propuesta proveen prueba más allá de dudas que tenemos en nuestra República una piscina profunda de tales mujeres y hombres que están listos, mediante el Peace Corps, para otorgar sus energías, tiempo y sudor para la causa de paz mundial y el progreso humano.



In establishing our Peace Corps we intend to make full use of the resources and talents of private institutions and groups. Universities, voluntary agencies, labor unions and industry will be asked to share in this effort—contributing diverse sources of energy and imagination—making it clear that the responsibility for peace is the responsibility of our entire society. We will only send abroad Americans who are wanted by the host country—who have a real job to do—and who are qualified to do that job. Programs will be developed with care, and after full negotiation, in order to make sure that the Peace Corps is wanted and will contribute to the welfare of other people. Our Peace Corps is not designed as an instrument of diplomacy or propaganda or ideological conflict. It is designed to permit our people to exercise more fully their responsibilities in the great common cause of world development.

En establecer este Cuerpo, pretendemos aprovecharnos completamente de los recursos y talentos disponibles en organizaciones privadas, grupos cívicos, universidades, agencias voluntarias, sindicatos y empresas industriales. Todos se solicitarán que contribuyan sus participaciones justas en este empeño – desde sus fuentes respectivas de innovación e imaginación – para aclarar a través de todo el mundo que la responsabilidad para la paz recae sobre todos nosotros. Vamos a enviar estadounidenses buscados por otros países con las calificaciones para hacer una contribución autentica. Los programas van a desarrollarse después de negociaciones prudentes para asegurar que el Peace Corps está bienvenido y confiado con tareas valiosas para el país.  Este Cuerpo no es una herramienta diplomática e ideológica. El Peace Corps es diseñado para permitir a nuestra gente cumplir las responsabilidades plenamente no solo para sus mismos sino para la causa común desde antigüedad para el desarrollo de nuestro mundo.



Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy. There will be no salary and allowances will be at a level sufficient only to maintain health and meet basic needs. Men and women will be expected to work and live alongside the nationals of the country in which they are stationed—doing the same work, eating the same food, talking the same language. But if the life will not be easy, it will be rich and satisfying. For every young American who participates in the Peace Corps—who works in a foreign land—will know that he or she is sharing in the great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.

La vida en el Peace Corps no será fácil. No habrá un sueldo, pero un subsidio modesto para mantener necesidades básicas y para la salud.  Se espera que a estas personas vayan a vivir y trabajar juntos con sus homólogos en los países anfitriones dónde estarán sirviendo en hacer el mismo trabajo, comiendo la misma comida, platicando en la misma lengua. Aunque la vida vaya estar difícil, todos los jóvenes (¡y viejos!) que participan en el Peace Corps serán profundamente enriquecidos por haber trabajado en una tierra lejana. Tales norteamericanos podrán reconocer que, él o ella, está compartiendo en un esfuerzo hercúleo en llevar a toda gente una vida de dignidad que subyace en todo gran sociedad basada en libertad y madurada en paz.



The Presidency and the Press

El presidente frente a la prensa
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY (1917-1963), presidente de los Estados Unidos de NorteAmérica;
Extracto del discurso a la Asociación Estadounidense de Editores de Periódicos
el  17 de abril 1961; Nueva York (El hotel Waldorf Astoria)
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

La propia palabra  ‘secreto’ es repugnante para una sociedad abierta en su libertad. Como una gente, nos somos opuestos, intrínsecamente desde nuestro nacimiento, a los juramentos y procedimientos secretos. Hace casi dos siglos, decidimos que el peligro del ocultamiento indebido de información superaría cualquiera amenaza enumeradas para justificarlo.  Hoy en día, no hay muchos beneficios ganados en oponerse el desafío de un adversario cerrado por imitar sus restricciones caprichosas. Aún ahora, no vale la pena el sacrificio de preservar nuestro país sin nuestra República y sus queridas tradiciones. Siempre, enfrentamos el peligro grave que una necesidad proclamada de más y más seguridad se tomará por aquellos ansiosos para extender su sentido hacia la censura oficial por medio de encubrimiento.  No voy a permitir eso en mi propio comportamiento. Ningún funcionario de mi gobierno, si mayor o bajo o si militar o civil, debe interpretar mi discurso esta noche como permiso para imponer la censura sobre la prensa; ni para reprimir la disidencia; ni para ocultar nuestros errores; ni para retener hechos desde la prensa ni desde la gente; todos nosotros merecemos saberlos.



"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

Nos enfrentamos a través del mundo por una conspiración monolítica sin compasión que depende de medios secretos para extenderse – por la infiltración más bien que la invasión; por subversión en lugar de elecciones libres y justas; por guerrillas en la noche y no ejércitos en el día.  Nos enfrentamos un sistema que ha esclavizado y robado vastos recursos, humanos y otros, para una máquina cerrada y eficiente que integra las varias operaciones militares, diplomáticas, científicas, políticas y económicas con espionaje. Preparaciones ocultadas y no publicadas. Sus errores enterrados lejos de los titulares de los periódicos. Sus disidentes silenciados y nunca bienvenidos. Ningún gasto se cuestiona; ninguna historia antipática se imprime; ningún secreto se revela.

"No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.  I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers-- I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Un presidente estadounidense no debería tener miedo del escrutinio público de sus programas.  Desde dicho escrutinio viene comprensión; y, desde dicho aprendizaje, el apoyo y la oposición. Ambos son necesarios. No les pido que sus periódicos apoyen a mi gobierno. Sin embargo, busco su ayuda en la gran tarea de alertar e informar a la gente estadounidense. De veras, tengo una profunda confianza en cualquiera respuesta evidenciada por nuestra gente; nuestros ciudadanos son conscientes cuando tienen la información completa.  No solo me falta el poder para suprimir el debate público, quiero abrazar la polémica. Este gobierno va a ser abierto con sus errores. Porque un hombre muy sabido dijo una vez, “Un error no se vuelve un engaño hasta se niega a reconocerlo.” Intentamos aceptar nuestra responsabilidad para cada equivocación. De hecho es nuestra expectativa que ustedes los publicarán cuando los pasamos por alto esta responsabilidad de transparencia.



Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

Sin polémica, sin crítica, ninguno gobierno ni país puede tener éxito – y nuestra querida República no podría sobrevivir. Es porqué el legislador ateniense, Solón, decretó como delito una retirada desde la controversia. Además, es porque nuestra prensa es protegido por nuestra primera enmienda primordial—el único profesión protegida específicamente en virtud de nuestra Constitución—no solo ni principalmente para divertirnos, ni para destacar lo efímero tampoco, ni simplemente darle a la pública lo que desea—sino para informarnos; para estimularnos; para reflexionarse; para aclarar nuestros retos y oportunidades; para enumerar nuestras elecciones y crisis; así como, para liderar, dar forma, educar y aún encolerizar, algunas veces, la opinión pública.



This means greater coverage and analysis of international news-- for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news-- that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

Es decir que los publicación y análisis de las noticias internacionales no son lejanas y extrañas pero aquí y ahora en nuestras calles.  Es decir que se debe atender más cuidadosamente a la transmisión oportuna y exhaustiva de noticias. Al final, se dice, que nuestro gobierno – en cada nivel – debe cumplir la obligación para proveer a ustedes, los ciudadanos, la información más completa salvo por limitaciones estrechas de la seguridad nacional…Asimismo, hacia la prensa libre – nuestro registrador de los hechos, el guardián de nuestra conciencia, la mensajería de nuestras noticias --  buscamos la resistencia y el apoyo, con confianza en su ayuda para hacer a todos nosotros lo que el hombre debería ser: nacido hasta la libertad y la independencia.



The American University Commencement Address

El Discurso a la Universidad American para la ceremonia de graduación
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY (1917-1963), presidente de los Estados Unidos de NorteAmérica;
Extracto del discurso para declarar el entendimiento con la U.R.S.S.
el  10 de junio 1963; Washington
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

El profesor, luego presidente, Woodrow Wilson dijo que cada persona entregada desde una universidad hacia la sociedad debe tener el espíritu de su edad y país.  Tengo confianza que cada uno de los caballeros y de las damas, honrado en graduación de esta institución estimada, va a servir continuamente – mediante su vida y sus talentos – su lleno compromiso del servicio para un apoyo público.



"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

“Pocas cosas en nuestro mundo emparejan la elegancia de la universidad,” dijo John Masefield [el Poeta Laureado del U.K. desde 1930 hasta su muerte en 1967] en homenaje a las universidades británicas en palabras tan oportunas ahora que nunca. No refería a las cúpulas, ni al campus con muros verdes de la hiedra.  Él respetó la belleza  hasta siempre de la universidad a causa de ser “un refugio donde aquellos que desprecian ignorancia podrían aprender; donde aquellos que ven la verdad podrían trabajar para que otros puedan mirarla, también.”





We need not accept that view [that peace is a fantasy not worth contemplating]. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again. Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned.

No tenemos que rendirnos a dicha idea [que la paz es un sueño, que no vale pensar en la posibilidad]. Nuestros problemas se hacen por hombres. Por tanto se pueden resolver por hombres también.  La humanidad puede ser tan gran como se desee.  Ningún reto impuesto por nuestro destino común existe más allá de la mente y corazón de hombres. Nuestra intelección y pasión compartida a menudo  han superado problemas por lo visto imposibles. Vamos a enfocarnos en una paz diaria que podremos realizar. No debe basarse en una revolución de la naturaleza de seres humanos pero en una evolución de instituciones humanas. Una realización exitosa de acuerdos transparentes y acciones van a alinearse con los intereses universales, comunes a todos nosotros.



No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

De verdad, ¿se existe entre nosotros un gobierno o sistema social tan malo que su gente debe verse como sin virtud? ¡No! Como estadounidenses, creemos que el comunismo  es repugnante como una aniquilación de la dignidad y la libertad del individuo. Sin embargo, podemos alabar a la gente rusa por sus muchos logros culturales -- gracias a esfuerzos valientes -- en la industria, en la economía y en la exploración aeroespacial.


Monday, October 7, 2013

Letter #87: reflexiones sobre un funeral mexicano en inglés

Dear everyone,

Well, now that politics is out of your face, if not my system, onto México we go. About two weeks ago, I went to the funeral service for the mother of a close friend from my office. My friend and colleague, Magda (short for Magdalena, as in Mary Magdalen) has been so gracious to me in my tenure here.  Magda edited the booklet I put together, with the much needed help of seven experts (six in the Peace Corps), as well as the core of my weekly letters to the science center where I serve.  Her children are lovely and never fail to treat me like the long lost eccentric uncle, turned gringo.

It has been over ten years since I last attended a funeral and that was in the United States.  There have been five or six memorial services for fallen soldiers or private security personnel (including Gurkas) along the way in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While moving, these services are different since the casket is not present; that damn box is the material reminder that, while some things may be eternal, people are not.  While feelings run high with the acknowledgement of loss at a memorial service, it lacks that feeling of severing the life-presence that a funeral does.

When my father died after a long and valiant struggle against a foe he could not defeat (i.e., cancer), we kept the casket closed.  After all, chemotherapy is a war of attrition.  Either cancer or the patient dies.  My brother-in-law is right: it resembles the medieval quackery of bleeding patients in the hope of draining the disease along with the blood.  With his body ravaged as much by the failed cure as the triumphant disease, we decided that dad should rest in peace and out of direct sight.

On the day of the funeral, we had the opportunity to view the body one last time before the service and burial.  I had refused one such opportunity before, at the beginning of the visitation.  At the last second, I decided on impulse to do it. And I was glad I did.  My father’s body had been well taken care of; but THAT was not my dad.  That moment enabled me to accept that he was gone, really gone.  Which brings me back to service I attended in Querétaro. 

Unlike any other funerals I had attended, and to my surprise, the casket was open during the service.  When I took communion, I was on the side from which I could not see the body because I was behind the open lid. The pall-bearers stood round the casket as if it were a body lying is state.   That was a touch of arguably maudlin wisdom – leaving the casket open.  The wisdom lies in the body reminding the congregants that the deceased is truly gone but the communion refuses to commend the soul of the dead to the nullity of nothingness (i.e., non-existence).

My colleagues were surprised to see me in the line.  Yes, I am no longer Catholic, nor even Christian, and I often take communion when I attend church for two conscious reasons.  First, I need all the help I can get. Second, if it is an action that merits burning in Hell, trust me in saying that I have done far worse things and so I am a goner in any case.  So that leads to a third reason of conscience, reserved for weddings or funerals.

That is, I want to honour the family in a time of profound change: one as a door opens to two people properly conjoined in the eyes of God and the other when the chapter has closed on someone’s life.  These acts of taking the sacrament are something like spiritual syntax.  Is what I do hypocritical? Almost certainly it is.  Nevertheless, I will continue to do it.  Besides, taking communion is often the only visible support, especially at a funeral, that I have the opportunity to give my mourning friend or familiares. 
 
A couple of days later, I wrote the most solicitous note that I could.  One aspect of getting distance on the odometer lies in the fact that I have conveyed all of these thoughts before and so I needed only to translate. Their repetition makes them feel hackneyed at best and phony at worst.  Yet I do mean them and have to rest content with accepting that my words of solace are trite but true, even in my limping second language. 

Truthfully, I had a lot of free time at the service since the acoustics rendered unintelligible  a language I normally do not understand when native speakers whipped through it. I had time to think.  I looked closely at the altar.  Emblazoned in gold-leaf and dedicated not to the bleeding Christ but to his mother, the queen of this earthly existence of mourning, noon and night.  Usually, in most churches I have been to, above the altar is a crucifix or a cross.  The only exceptions I remember are chapels, perhaps not even all of them.  

When I think of chapels my thoughts revert to the breathtaking beautiful Heinz Chapel / la Sainte Chappelle which, if memory works, do not have any altar or at least no cross or crucifix at the head.  Yet, this was a church and, while virgin queen of all queens adorned the sacred canopy, the cross or crucifix did not dominate.  Now, this catholic-protestant split may seem like quibbling over details.  It really is not; the distinction is mission-critical to the core beliefs of the two broad strains of faith.

The crucifix is the cross with the dead and drooping body of Christ draped on it while the cross is the only the cross.  The former signifies the path to glory through sacrifice, pain and martyrdom, not so dramatically for us these days but through mortifications of the flesh (i.e., mini-sacrifices of the self to God by way of fasting, retreating to desolate surroundings, etc.).  That is to say: class is not exactly a barrel of laughs with Sister Mary Elephant in charge. 

The cross, at least as my Christian friends have stated to me, represents the gift of salvation that Christ gave to us, not so much by dying on the cross, but by leaving the cross as a vacant symbol of oppression through His resurrection.   Therein lay the new covenant, based not on suffering but on liberation.  While I can not really buy into either of these narratives, they deserve my respect, nevertheless.

These symbols – along with the various beliefs they punctuate – have brought solace to billions over the millennia, just as they did for Magda and her grieving family that hot, humid day in the midst of Querétaro’s rainy season.  Yet, I continued to stare at the altar and canopy, overflowing with precious metals and presided over by a woman.  And, for some reason, that made sense to me.  The southern Mediterranean societies tend to have a matrilineal dimension, especially in Spain where, traditionally, the surname of the father is followed by that of the mother. 

So the Marianism seen in Spain and even Italy – where a lousy Pope but good Italian (Pius XII) tentatively placed Mary into the R.C. godhead in 1950 – could quite easily show up in México.  Supporting this manifestation would be the more naturalistic reverence accorded to women in the indigenous cultures of México; and that is where the flaunting filigree of the gold-leafed canopy in that church came home to me.  The alter and canopy obviously reeked of Romanesque over-show.

On the other hand, the tastefully metallic majesty hinted at something else, something older than Catholicism in México.  Perhaps, the altar and canopy, for all their finery, represented something not quite lost with the conquistadors, that is, a lingering hint of the Azteca culture of gold and sacrifice. Some say the genius of the Roman Catholicism lies in its simplicity in that there are four levels between God and man: Pope, cardinal bishop, priest.  That is simply not true. 

That structure derives from the Book of Exodus with Jethro – as history’s first and, perhaps, only effective management consultant – instructing Moses to delegate his burdens for the faithful to groups of ten or fifty (priest), hundreds (bishop) and thousands (cardinals) and the whole congregation (Pope, the first of whom was Moses, not Saint Peter).  To tell you the truth, I really do not know enough to identify all that endures in Catholicism from the mother-faith. 

But a lot does.  As a priest once pointed out to me before my ‘fall’, that peculiar genius of the mysticism in the machinery lies in the ability and willingness of the Roman Church to absorb and integrate alien cultures – some say, less than flatteringly, coöptation – into the symbology as well as calendar and, to a lesser extent, the liturgy of the Church. 

This genius lies with another Jew, Saul of Tarsus (later, Saint Paul), who made a tribal religion open to the world of his day, as well as to Constantine, a tough emperor nevertheless drowning in Wiley’s momism, who imposed it as the church of the State.  The genius of Catholicism, as of any mainline religion with its own depth of tradition and varying degrees of dogma, that I witnessed that day was a whole lot more basic than organizational structures or the coercive canon of empire. 

The genius lay in the comfort that a good and decent woman, my Magda, and her husband and children could be part of something far larger: a sacrament centuries in its uniform application, millennia in the making.  You see, it was more than the Son of Man; more than the Martyr of God; and even more than a thoughtful rabbi and ridiculed revolutionary whose arm was around Magda’s shoulder that day.  It was God Himself, with uttering His sympathies with that peculiar Spanish from the Bajío, the central highlands of México.



Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Letter #86 to friends & familiares: parting thoughts on politics

Dear everyone,

It really is time for me to right-size my ego; George Stephanopolis, I aint…not sure I can even spell it. Perhaps, like other volunteers, I have a lot of free time and so I wile away the hours bloviating. Since two months remain in my three years here, it is time move ahead with some essays on México. Part of the challenge here is that I take little time to travel and discover the country. By the time the week-end arrives, it seems I am just too tired to be anything but lazy.

Before I turn to writing about México, however, permit me one last note about the political world for parting reflections on two current topics of discussion: Benghazi and the N.S.A. These two issues have taken on high visibility, partly because of President Obama’s mismanagement and partly because of Edward Snowden’s revelations. They exist in the popular conscience as festering sores, harmless in themselves, that are picked into infection.

Benghazi. Some of the most valuable evidence has come out piece-meal and key data often get lost in the shuffle. Piecing everything together, at least from the accumulation of information I have come across, indicates that our civilian leadership did not act in bad faith during the event itself, though the lying to families and manipulated narrative afterward are troubling. The case that President Obama should have been micro-managing this crisis is appealing but unconvincing.

At least for me, Benghazi has turned out to be what I thought it was in the first place: a horrifically tragic and avoidable event. Trying to rescue these people against all odds might have forestalled a second attack. The Department of State might have honoured more security requests. The Department of Defense might have mobilized rapid response units at the first sign of trouble. Might, might, might: subjunctivitis doth make idiots of us all.

Had I been on the look-out for Benghazi before the fact – had I been the Ambassador or the foreign service officer – I would have thought, when making the decision whether or not to lay over for that last night, that the likelihood of the eventual outcome was about 5-10%, which it probably was. Yet, by expected values, that would come out to me being 10% killed (e.g., losing an arm). Of course, when the attacks came, the whole outcome occurred as tragic as that was.

The N.S.A. data sweep.  The N.S.A. debate is welcome and well overdue. That said, however, the matter of impropriety or abuses of power comes down to whether or not we trust these government officials. Call me lenient, if you like, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons.
  • I believe that both F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller and General Keith Alexander are overtly honorable.
  • James Clapper is too cool and rehearsed to be taken at face value; still, I sense that he is largely telling the truth.
  • C.I.A. Director John Brennan is more difficult to trust because of his involvement with the drone-strike campaign; I may be being superficial because he looks menacing.
  • Admittedly, most of my comfort derives from Keith Alexander, Robert Mueller and, to a lesser extent, James Clapper
  • A colleague pointed out that Edward Snowden may have hopped from job to job to de-compartmentalize his clearance so he could disseminate a lot of information.
  • Lastly, credit card companies invade people's privacy far more than anything alleged of the N.S.A., and far more regularly. Their data-mining for marketing peers into content more than any of these agencies do. I do not recall Capital One, MBNA or Providian seeking people's consent.
All that said, I believe President Obama has lost his credibility; funny, I actually find Attorney General Holder and C.I.A. Director Brennan to be more trustworthy. To be sure, each of Muller, Alexander and Clapper has been caught in giving misleading information. Too bad we do not live in a world where people never feel compelled to lie for reasons larger than themselves or their professional standing. 

Nevertheless, the inconsistencies were small and, if my memory serves me well, matters of degree more than kind. Additionally, I also believe that everybody I know would likely have done the same thing; each set the record straight, when busted or when appropriate. In short, they did what spies do but managed to keep their hand on the tiller of inward integrity, at least from what I have seen.


In closing, I sincerely hope that conservatives tamp down the publicity-mongering. If there are investigations to be carried out, do so as one would do them normally. If something big turns up, it will become public soon enough.

Monday, September 16, 2013

Letter #85: Ethics, the Capital Markets, and Retro-innovation

This is yet another political letter home.  This letter discusses a  mundane topic: banking as a public utility.  Traditional banking services arguably act like utilities in that they are ‘natural’ monopolies, like municipal water companies or local electric utilities.  That is to say: their unhindered interest in providing these services is to maximize economies of scale to make themselves a ‘market of one’ reaching out to the limits of a self-contained service area. 

In earlier times, with the prevalence of community banks, these areas were most often cities or towns. 
As communications made the world a village, states and regions became that perimeter of self-containment.  Finally, globalism and the inter-net turned much of the world into a rumpus room. Big banks got even bigger, spanning continents and occasionally spreading financial incontinence.

Speculative ‘hot-money’ currency trades and, later, derivatives, questionable value propositions and corrupted ‘gain-on-sale’ accounting fueled these dislocations. 
The derivatives were particularly hazardous because they frequently were not hedges but the means by which an institution could squeeze a few basis points (i.e., per-cents of a per-cent; e.g., one basis point of $100 being a penny) out of an efficient market through algorithms

In the late 1990s, after wearing down regulations argued to be archaic, the U.S. Congress finally knocked out the last of the bank laws legislated sixty-six years before. 
The Bank Act of 1933 (37 pages long and known as ‘Glass-Steagall’, to honour its Congressional sponsors, Senator Carter Glass, D-VA, and Representative Henry Steagall, D-AL) had split the investment banks from the commercial banks for a very good reason. 

Investment banking tended to bet money while traditional banking (think Bailey Home Loan from
It’s a Wonderful Life) tended to preserve it, through savings accounts, and intermediate it. In other words, in earlier times, when investment banks underwrote securities, they often assumed the ‘market risk’ of the stock or bond issue.  That is to say: the institution effectively purchased all of the securities, for a cheaper price than expected in the market, directly from the company raising money through the re-sale of stocks or bonds.  These investment banks then re-sold those securities to the larger capital market at the anticipated price. 

Sometimes, the pricing did not work out, leading to losses by the investment bank.  Though it is not often assumed anymore, this underwriting risk of a securities offering presents us with an instructive example of proprietary trading.  Most securities trading is similar to traditional banking: brokers intermediate funds between people selling securities and others buying them with a few basis points skimmed (i.e., the bid-ask spread) by the broker-dealer for handling fees.

When, however, the institution represents one side of the trade without offsetting it in a symmetrical transaction (i.e., funds are not intermediated, as they were not in a bond underwriting) in which an institution expends some of its ‘capital’ on a trade in the capital markets, that bank or broker is making a bet by assuming the risk inherent in its particular side of the transaction. 

These bets, more like educated guesses most of the time, have higher profit margins than the less glamorous, more prudent service of intermediation.  Yet these bets entail higher risks because losses can burn through the institutional capital very quickly.  Since most brokers and banks make the bulk of their business from intermediation, they tend to lend out all but a small amount of funds taken in as capital and deposits (i.e., as a safety margin).

So there is little capital left to burn through before the ship is sunk.  These one-sided 'proprietary' banking transactions, these bets, explained events like cornered gold markets and the crashes that accompanied them in the 150 years before the Great Depression.  The consequences would ripple or metastasize through the financial system since intermediation, in mature markets, meant that almost everybody had a piece of the action by re-lending out funds received.

(Nowadays, the
 securitization of risks via sales of existing portfolios of loans and computer-driven trading accelerates this metastasis.) Such betting, intuitively, ought not to involve others’ money, especially without their knowledge and consent.  Thus, for many years, these activities involved partnerships in which people bet their own money or funds entrusted by people whom they knew and who understood the risks involved

For the rest of us, the only loans from the banks were often secured; that is, there were fixed assets pledged as collateral (i.e., the house in a mortgage). If the borrower reneged on his commitment to repay the loan, the bank would re-possess the collateral for sale to generate the proceeds to repay much or all of the debt still to be re-paid.

Investment banks often had to pledge securities, usually issued by well-respected companies (i.e., traded frequently and indicative of underlying value), as collateral with a significant haircut (a 20-50% discount from the market price on the date of the pledging). If collateral values dropped sufficiently, the investment banking / trading partnership or individual investor in the 1920s had to put up more collateral. 

If there were a long and proven history of cash-flows able to absorb short-term borrowings for working capital, some large corporate borrowers would need to pledge collateral, as valued net of its 'hair-cut', at less than the full amount of the borrowing (i.e., all the way down to no collateral for 'unsecured'
loans). 
This traditional, lower-risk financial intermediation, based on a skinny-income business model, made banks natural utilities.  

That is, the ideal supplier would be one giant generic bank for a market that minimized non-intermediation expenses relative to the customer-base and income generation. But, like any monopoly, the bank would then elevate prices (interest rates on loans) to its market to maximize profits for its owners (be they partners or shareholders).  Like any ‘monopsony’ (i.e., one purchaser, the bank taking deposits, versus a splintered array of sellers, average-Joes with their pay-checks, etc.), the bank could get away with paying little or no interest on people’s savings. 
As a natural monopoly fulfilling a vital function in the larger economy, banks came to be viewed, and, under the provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, regulated as public utilities. Like any utility – and particularly one that took on debts to produce more debt (as opposed to taking on debt to provide water or electricity) – banks required a sufficient capital base (i.e., money sitting in the vault) to withstand occasional shocks to the system. 

Remember the scene in It’s a Wonderful Life when George Bailey pulled the last dollar out of his pocket to pay off a depositor withdrawing money and, in doing so, dissuaded others from withdrawing funds?  The newlyweds, George and Mary, forfeited their honeymoon to save his bank and their town. 
That was a classic bank run since, pre-New Deal, banks would lend out almost every dollar they got to earn interest, thus leaving them unable to honor more than a modest spike in withdrawals. 

While Frank Capra’s family film may seem innocently simple to us today, the mechanics were not all that different in 2008, except for the level of sophistry flowing around the market and the business news circles to justify a similar impulse toward speculation heedless of the longer term fall-out.  So the New Deal, under a lot of heat these days, brought in two new key measures and reinforced another to stop the three banes of banking and investment banking:
  • a tendency of traditional banks to start taking speculative positions in a search for more income after a market had been fully exploited – a brand extension strategy that seems logical but entails a discrete change in the risk profile from that of a pure monopoly to a book-maker;
  • a run on the bank when depositors lose confidence in the bank and want to get their money out before others do, lest there be none left for them (i.e., the slower fool theory); as well as,
  • abusive pricing or speculative practices, in lending or in attracting deposits, of a natural monopoly if left unchecked.
As an inherently high-risk proposition, rational capital markets professionals assumed that investment (or merchant) banking activities would be best left to smaller groups of partners investing what they could afford to lose or those funds entrusted to them by others of means and similar risk appetites

That is to say: a market where people knew they were preserving most of their assets and betting what money they could manage without.  The only market related risk among these partnerships was the hazard of perpetrating frauds on unsuspecting investors.  So, what did the New Deal do to try to prevent a repeat of the 1930s?

While I am not familiar with the laws and have forgotten the alphabet soup of regulations from the Federal Reserve, the régime built on traditional usury laws (to prevent over-charging on interest levied against borrowers) with three basic pillars, one dependent upon the other:
  • splitting investment banking from traditional financial intermediation;
  • capping rates paid to depositors; and,
  • insuring people’s deposits. 
What the New Deal did, I believe, is exercise regulatory power in the manner it should be applied: by establishing universal and perceptible ground-rules in a market, leaving enforcement latitude to the Central BankThe beauty of the simplicity of the New Deal banking régime was that its basic pillars reinforced each other. 

The bettors kept betting, but through partnerships meant to remain small enough not to bring down an entire system when they failed, as many would over the normal course of time and betting.  The Federal Reserve either received the power or was encouraged to assume the power of direct intervention to maintain the orderly function of the capital markets, when these partnerships got to be big enough to disrupt the markets, as they did by the 1950s.
Through Glass-Steagall, banks became the public utilities they were all along by virtue of being natural monopolies. Like such monopolies, the public interest was served by enumerating clear and universal pricing limits (like those imposed on the water company for pricing its services). 

Finally, the base of the utility (i.e., people’s savings and deposits) was insured to forestall bank runs; that is, people could trust the public utility. This system worked very well.  Depositor insurance was extended to people with savings invested through broker-dealers. 

This interview with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), backs up an unmistakable track-record of good regulation done right.  To be sure, there was more than one exception to the success of Glass-Steagall, a lot more.  Yet, by drilling down in cases as diverse as Hutton, Continental-Illinois, Barings, Long-term Capital, Drexel and the rest, one will see a variant of one of two reasons underlying these spectacular collapses:
  • taking the eye off the ball and over-leveraging money relative to risk assumed; or,
  • actions that betrayed or lost the confidence of the market.
That is to say: good rules make markets work better but can not prevent occasions of stupidity or malfeasance.
In fact, in the majority of these collapses, the very depositor insurance often gave the struggling bank a deep and stable deposit base, thanks to the New Deal programs, to buy enough time for them to muddle through (Mellon) or merge with somebody else (Hutton). 

In those cases where this was not the case – Barings, Continental-Illinois, Long-term Capital – regulators could intervene and proceed with an orderly recapitalization (Continental) or liquidation of a partnership (Barings and Long-term Capital). In the case of Long-term Capital, the Federal Reserve used its discretion artfully, just as it failed to do in 2008.

After thirty years of work-arounds, loop-hole arbitrage and gradual erosion, Glass-Steagall finally fell.  The rationale was not greed but efficient capital markets.  The big reason I heard back then for repealing Glass-Steagall was that the obsolete structure was an economic friction and disadvantage for U.S. money-center banks in the now supra-nationalized global banking market. 

The argument basically stated that money was a form of capital and for capital to create wealth, it had to be mobilized. In the information age, with "business @ the speed of thought”, the higher the mobility (or velocity) of money, the more projects or purchases it could finance and the more growth enjoyed by everyone.  At least, that's how I think the argument proceeded: the swirling dollar becoming a whirling dervish.

The division of banks and investment banks decreased the hallowed free-flow of this capital and, therefore, diminished the profitability for which financial institutions thirsted in an era of a perceived market discipline of grow-or-dieAs long as Glass-Steagall remained in place, depositors’ insurance need not be a visible moral hazard because banks tended to be limited to traditional lending. 

True, that frame-work did not prevent stupidity but it had largely assuaged cupidity, as spectacular exceptions  like The Bank of New England 
– proved the rule.  Since depositors’ insurance was, by the 1990s, as American as apple-pie, its repeal would almost certainly never occur.  As long as Glass-Steagall remained in place, it did not need to go anywhere.  The problem became one of identity.

Over time, senior executives (at least a large enough number) of the traditional banks saw themselves less as stewards of a public utility and more the captains of industry bent on a profit that would reward them handsomely in bonuses and symphony chairmanships. Investment banks, in their turn, looked ravenously at the deep pools of money (i.e., capital and deposits) languishing on banks' balance sheets. 

That damn Glass-Steagall stood in the way.  The thinking went something like this: look at all of that dormant capital those fat sluggish banks are sitting on!  Boy, if we could only get at that pot of money. 
That ‘archaic’ New Deal law slowed the flow of money and, therefore, profits, jeopardizing New York’s pre-eminence of the global financial hub (or so the argument went). 

Besides, with the on-rush of globalism ushered in by the E.U. and N.A.F.T.A., American banks were at a ‘systemic disadvantage' to European and Japanese banks that brooked no such 'petty' distinctions.  (Now let us take a generational view of what happened to European and Japanese banking.  Neither system has fully recovered from a leveraged betting binge.)

So, good-bye Glass-Steagall BUT NOT depositor insurance with the Gramm, Leach Bliley Act of 1999.  The two together created the moral hazard that caused the meltdown within a few years.  Here’s why the dynamic duo of free-wheeling financial betting and depositors' insurance was dynamite.
  1. As long as Glass-Steagall remained in place, insured deposits tended to be passive, adding a 'soft' layer to the utilities’ capital base. 
  2. If Glass-Steagall were repealed along with depositors’ insurance, at least in theory, bankers would have to look over their shoulders, lest their excesses in betting would precipitate runs on the banks they mismanaged.
  3. Lastly, the repeal of Glass Steagall and the retention of depositors’ insurance allowed the bettors to mobilize, or leverage, all that ‘dormant’ capital through proprietary trading (i.e., betting) and corporate finance to earn higher margins than had been realized by antiquated banking practices.
This 'reform' and 'modernization' enabled financial speculators to bet with other people’s money, knowing that almost all, if not all, of the other people would get completely bailed out by depositors’ insurance. To be sure, at the time as an international banker, I felt ill-at-ease with the undoing of this New Deal pillar of sound finance.

My mentality was more that of the lazy mind of the middle-manager: "if it ain't broke, don’t fix it."  Yet, whenever I questioned the wisdom of this ‘reform’, I endured a torrent of verbal abuse for being a reactionary idiot. Upon conceding my double-digit I.Q. and pressing on for explanations, none that really seemed coherent came along. It all sounded like so much peer pressure to smoke cigarettes at sixteen. 
Confessing to being a curmudgeon before my time did not work, either.  When it came to questioning the economics and mechanics of derivatives trades, particularly credit derivatives, I will 'not even go there' when it comes to the words that came bouncing back to me at times.  So, like Winston Smith in 1984, I swallowed hard on the fake gin, suppressed a tear of surrender and went along with the true-speak.

Fast-forward to the night before the 2008 election, when I looked up the respective stands on the financial crisis of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL).  By then, I was out of banking and on tour in Iraq for the State Department. 
In truth, I had already decided on Senator McCain because he had been a war-hero but, impressed with the first African-American presidential candidate, I made one last due-diligence check. 

Senator Obama’s ideas on the detestable bail-out of Wall Street seemed unclear and muddled to me; Senator McCain was much more in line with what I felt.  By then, I had accepted the fact that President Bush had had one day to react for the first banking bail-out; that is, he took the immediate course, the only one open to him to buy the time for more comprehensive reform.  Any president would have done what President Bush had done, though doing so was a regrettable necessity. 

But I was damned if another bail-out was going to happen because people had made other people’s money into an ingredient of intellectual tinker-toys (i.e., structured finance) yet would not face up to the consequences of the cultural malaise, if not corruption, pervasive within so many banks. What I recall as being the big argument for another bail-out was that Main Street needed to be protected from Wall Street’s mess. 

One way the money center banks had skimmed a few pennies, seemingly for free, was in overnight lending to smaller banks to balance out the books of the banking system on a daily basis. 
That vital utility of local banking would go away without the bail-out to preserve overnight lending, so the argument seemed to go.  That premise sounded tinny and rather false to me. 

In fact, since the largest wire-transfer systems were under, or easily placed under, the control of the Federal Reserve, there was no reason why the Federal Reserve could not take that money, proposed under T.A.R.P., to liquefy the overnight market and keep it functioning, under its direct auspices rather than pump fictitious greenbacks into flagging Banks. 

The big-bank theory (of bail-outs) could be shattered as the institutions filed for bankruptcy (under an express plan) and got to work on re-building the compromised public utility. 
During that Chapter-11 catharsis, the banks would disgorge their money drains (securities structuring and underwriting as well as proprietary trading) as well as spin their bad assets off into trusts so they would re-emerge as the utilities of the Glass-Steagall era

The Federal Reserve might need to guarantee bank capital for a while to absorb the accounting losses incurred with 'sunk' funds being securitized at 20-40
¢ on the dollar.  Such losses from spinning off squidgy assets would be book-keeping in nature, since the money financing them was already gone forever. That guarantee until organic recapitalization could occur, however, would not be nationalizing the banks in the sense of managing them.

The T.A.R.P. money would not go  as it eventually did  to the banks for purchasing assets or, as it turned out, to sit idly on the balance sheets matched by preferred stock, both of which created money out of thin air.  Investment banking and trading would be dead, but only for a short while until hedge funds would begin to see opportunities in the bundled baddies being mis-priced and new companies came to the market (savings banks?), etc.

In fact, Senator McCain’s thinking, informed by his ordeal during the savings and loan crisis of twenty years before, was far closer to a regulatory philosophy of ground rules in an open arena rather than trying to control people through rules-based behaviors. 
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, ('Dodd-Frank' per the legislative sponsors) with its 848 pages, was D.o.A., a ready victim to human nature and frailty, not to mention the blah blah blah ad blauseam inherent in most contemporary legislation. 

Much of Dodd-Frank may make sense over time; let that be legislatively ingested incrementally.  But, as Blaise Pascal observed so long ago, men may be as weak as reeds (grass blown over by the wind) but men are thinking reeds... dammit. 
Regulation should empower oversight to be equally clever in reigning in those thinking reeds who are 'too clever by half'. 

After all, clear and explicit ground rules, enforced with latitude to respond to unique ‘next-war’ circumstances, enable limited and rational government. The
recent bill introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren; Angus King, I-ME; and, John McCain
 answers that necessity of republicanism.  This tri-partisan trifecta is overdue and welcome.  

Bringing back Glass-Steagall will not be a panacea for human failings but it will lead to reasonable incentives and behaviors for a sector of the economy rightfully deemed as key public utility. 
And, no, Wall Street has not learned.  The hearings led by Senator Levin (D-MI) on the ‘whale-trade’ derivatives portfolio in London of J.P.Morgan of six months ago reminded me so much of the type of evasiveness I encountered from people who did not know, or refused to say, the answers to my questions as a risk manager, tedious as they were.  

Finally, I should have known the jig was up with the hope that bankers had shed their hubris when, in the preceding year, J.P.Morgan Chairman, Jamie Dimon, testified to a Congressional Committee that revoking Glass-Steagall had not precipitated key problems underlying the 2008 melt-down. Masterfully, Dimon was half-right, it was that revocation without a simultaneous end to deposit insurance – accelerated by corrupted micro-incentive structures – that did.


Thursday, September 5, 2013

Letter #84 to Friends and Familiares: the Proof may be in the Putin...

It is time to listen our country’s leadership and to inform our respective Representatives and Senators of what we – each one of us – really believe to be the appropriate course of action with respect to Syria.  My opinion is plain and remains unchanged, variously categorizing me as smart, stupid or simply self-involved.  http://nedmcdletters.blogspot.mx/2013/08/letter-83-thoughts-on-syria-case-for.html That is not the purpose of this note to my loved ones. 

The best note of skepticism I have come across is that of one politician whom I trust, though his politics differ sharply from mine. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html  The arguments in favor are being presented capably by Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel. http://www.c-span.org/flvPop.aspx?id=10737441229  My interest lies not in those two but in General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This letter, too, is about Syria. But not about Syria herself. Rather, I want to discuss just why Russia is acting the way she is.  For days, I have scratched my head in puzzlement as to why Russia is being almost provocative in the face of terrible depredations, evidently attributable to the régime she supports categorically.  This afternoon, when I was composing my weekly letter to my compañeros in the engineering research center where I serve, I was thinking about a question several colleagues had posed to me as "their" norteamericano.

That question was why the U.S. government is not listening at all to the government of Vladimir Putin.  Admittedly, there is far more interest around me in why the National Security Agency is monitoring the various communications of Presidents Peña-Nieto and Rousseff, respectively.  (My response being because it is easier to spy than ‘google’, a dumb joke that wrests the requisite chuckles).  Nevertheless, as I tied together the Syria debate with technology transfer in Mexico (?¿?¿?), President Putin’s view came into focus.

A basic question – a serious question – about the Syria discourse remains unaddressed.  Specifically, the reasons I have heard about why President Putin is acting like a jerk are unconvincing.
  1. Vladimir likes to “poke America in the eye”.  This argument seems weak and does not get any stronger with the re-telling ad nauseam.  It is hard to believe that a man who has survived the rough-and-tumble politics of the U.S.S.R. and of Russia would allow his personal feelings to affect his judgement and behavior when the stakes are so high.  Poking in the eye is reserved for things like Mr Snowden but to risk a regional war or worse? No, I don’t think so.
  2. Russia needs a Mediterranean port for her navy to maintain her status as a world power.  This thinking, at least as far as the port is concerned, makes more sense.  Yet why did President Putin not offer a deal: “Hello, Joe, we will support your meddling in Syria if you guarantee that we retain the right to our base in beautiful downtown Tartous?
  3. Back in the U.S.S.R.  This sentiment tends to link onto the previous idea of naval access to the Mediterranean.  It argues that President Putin rues, misses and aims to restore the lost status of a super-power.  Nevertheless, setting out the great-power swap would play better into this fantasy as co-equals negotiating the fate of another bastard-child of the Sykes-Picot affair.
  4. Economics.  This argues that dueling pipelines through Turkey versus the Caucusus is driving this pariah status assumed by Russia.  Honestly, I know too little to address that question.  This trade-off could well be true but I wonder if it would rise to the level of great power confrontation.  Additionally, given the harrowing destruction of the one-time jewel of the region, it may be a very long while before any business runs through Syria, except for illegal arms, of course.
So, unconvinced by any of these reasons for the great bear’s growling obstinacy, I pondered – indulging myself in a fruitless exercise – about what I would be thinking if I were President Putin.  That I cannot do.  The cultures of Russia and the United States are so different as to make direct empathy impossible. The intricate nature of Russian politics and President Putin’s role in it make empathy sheer speculation; frankly, I would trust more my chances at playing darts without my coke-bottle glasses.

So, I went to a second line of thought. In looking at the Syrian dilemma, I asked myself, “Now, hot-shot, why do you think President Putin would be so stubborn in his support for an unseemly régime that likely has used poison gas on its people, especially as refugees swell in number and dwell in suffering?”  Then a thought crossed my mind.  It was one of those moments I flashed back in time, thirty-three years ago, when I was a senior in college.

It was Clark Mollenhoff’s class in journalism and contemporary political issues in the winter semester at Washington and Lee in early 1980.  It had been snowing one of those damp Blue Ridge snows that made Lexington, Virginia almost celestial in its small-town splendor.  But it made getting to class a soft-shoe in Hell.  So, I was late, already well on my way to getting the only hook ever administered by Mr Mollenhoff, a retired, if not retiring, investigative reporter for the Des Moines Register. 

Mr Mollenhoff was a kind man, not least for his grading students on a pass-fail basis: A = PASS; B = fail.  Yet I found a way to a precedent-setting ‘C’.  Leave it to me to prove myself so exceptional as to prove the Mollenhoff grading rule.  That day, the contemporary political theme was the then-recent invasion of Afghanistan by the U.S.S.R. along with the U.S. response to it (i.e., wheat embargo, Olympics boycott, etc.).  Back then, the widely discussed reasons for that invasion revolved around a desire for Soviet a deep-water port.
 
That seemed nutty to me, even then.  The idea of invading a land-locked country to wrest docking rights in Pakistan strained my wretched little mind into a migraine.  So far-fetched.  There were other things flitting through my mind that day: recent taking of hostages in Iran; the attack and take-over of the Mecca mosque by extremists; and, other reports of rising Islamic extremism.  The U.S.S.R. had a large population of Muslims. 
 
So, in class that day, I said that the U.S.S.R. attacked Afghanistan to send a message to its large, apparently restive Muslim minority: “Hey, if we are willing to take this flak in the United Nations and around the world by publicly invading this bozo country next door, imagine what we will do to you who are out of the public eye.  Sooo, quiet down…”  That idea was laughed out of the room because, well, I was well on my way to a hanging hook and the idea, admittedly, seemed outlandish.

Since then, I have found out that senior Soviet foreign policy leaders (supposedly in released Kremlin papers or interviews; I do not know which one, if either) have stated that the reason I had cited was one of, of course, several reasons, the simultaneity of which prompted the follow-trhough of an already-planned invasion.  The point I am making is that the Russians today, sans les Stans, have reason to be anxious with what happens in Syria.  So why would President of Russia be one petty Putin?
  • The Russian sphere of influence most definitely still extends strongly to the south via the Commonwealth of Independent States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States).
  • There are some twenty million Muslims living in today’s Russia and up to another eighty million in Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, largely living under secular authoritarianism.
  • Russia has already lived through a civil war and a bloody insurgency in Chechnya and, perhaps, Dagestan.
Where would al Qaeda go next once it were to triumph in Syria?  With possibly the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world? You make the call.  Before doing so, please also ponder the more general question of what motivates nations in the anarchy of international relations.  My guess would be fear and the prospect of aggrandizement. Perhaps we have an inkling of what President Putin’s answer might be: a desire to keep that navy base and a fear of Islamaoists, armed with convenient instruments of mass murder headed his way. 

Since some of the toughest jihadists around come from Chechnya, where might these people look for their next indulgence in blood-drunk blood-sport of stamping out takfiris and combatting the heresy of secular governments, especially one under the possible thrall of those awful orthodox Christians?  So, President Assad’s remaining in power may not be the worst-case scenario in the Russian mind; instead, the great Russian bear may want to defend her cubs far away from home.