Why Are "Catholic lawmakers hostile to abortion even when more moderate on other social issues?"

Before I say anything, I want you to click on the link below.  I want you to look at the green number that appears at the top of the page.  First see how many millions are listed there, then notice how quickly that number is going up?

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

When I opened the page it at 13,336,610.  It goes up by about 3 every second.

A law recently passed in Kansas limiting abortions

These are statistics for clinical murder.

The counter shows how many human beings are being murdered around the world every second - not total of murders, but only those murdered clinically, in a nice, safe, clean sterile setting that makes these murders seem like a "medical procedure."  This clean, clinical murder is called "abortion."

The total is the number of abortions that have taken place this year - since January. That's less than 4 months.  In less than 4 months, well over 13 million babies have been intentionally murdered in clinics.

That means that in less than 2 months, there were over 6 million clinically murdered babies.

According to the same webpage, the WHO reports that there are between 40 and 50 million abortions per year. That means that in less than 2 years, there are more than 75 million clinically murdered humans.

a precursor to abortionists

Why 75 Million Murders?

Why do I highlight the numbers 6 million and 75 million?  Well, about 80 years ago, a man took over the parliament of a prominent and very advanced European country.  He proceeded to start a program that led to and arranged for the clinical and systematic cold-blooded murder of over 6 million innocent people.  This program also lead to the deaths of 75 million people in the war which most people would consider the worst catastrophe in human history.

This man is an icon of evil; his actions and the way of thinking that led to those actions are unquestionably condemned by all reasonable humans.

Yet, the same number of cold, systematic, clinical murders that he committed in about 6 years was committed in the first two months of this year in the name of "choice" and "rights."

Of course, we're comparing planned, clinical murders in a handful of nations to those in the whole world .  So to make the comparison more fair, let's compare only to the U.S.  According to the WHO, there are about 3000 abortions a day in that country. That means there are 6 million every 5.5 years.  That means in the U.S. alone, abortion is outdoing the holocaust in a lesser period of time.

The same total number of people that died in horrendous 6-year war that evil man started have been murdered in abortions in only the past 2 years.  Both these numbers are world-wide.

A monster, because he made abortion look as dirty as it really is

The Holocaust of Our Progressive World

World War II and especially Hitler's Holocaust were horrible atrocities which should have never happened.  The numbers above show that abortion is an even greater atrocity - at least by 3x.

Abortion is the Holocaust of our modern, progressive, middle-class world.

Like the Holocaust, comfort, ease and - most importantly - the fear of shame or public humiliation for speaking out against it, make us quite us quite content to allow it to carry on quietly out of sight in safe, sterile clinics where it won't make us feel bad or guilty.

Unlike Hitler's atrocities, which eventually brought almost every other super-power nation against it, there is only one single nation in the world that has taken a decisive stand against abortion (Chile).  All other either endorse it as a "fundamental right" (increasingly more common) or turn a blind eye to it.

Many people are upset by what happened with Dr. Gosnell.  A few people are upset because he was murdering babies.  Most people are upset only because he wasn't as clean and clinically sterile as he should've been and - worst of all - that he let his filthiness spill out into the public eye to make us uncomfortable.

Like the brainwashed middle-class of central Europe in WWII, we are willing to turn a blind eye for the sake of comfort - we just want to be sure that it's kept comfortably clean and out of our sight.

Alberto Giubilini, advocate of "after-birth abortions"

The Final Solution

Post-birth abortion is not only a monster looming in the future used as a scare tactic by pro-lifers.  It is a common and accepted practice - even if it has not yet been given official legal approval.

It is already common practice for babies born live after botched abortions to be (a) left to die or (b) killed by the same techniques used in abortions.  This not a freak abuse limited to monsters like Gosnell.  In Canada, the government has reports of this happening to almost 500 babies in 10 years.  These are only the reported cases.  (In Canada, there is no legal requirement to report an abortion.)

Planned Parenthood practices both techniques (a and b) mentioned above.

The academic groundwork to justify "post-birth abortions" legally has already been laid by "credible" academics in influential places.  The justification is that a baby can be killed by the same techniques used in abortions “when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion."  They use the term "after-birth abortion" rather than "infanticide" "to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child."

(see http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-08/opinions/38362423_1_viable-babies-abortion-survivor-planned-parenthood)

Marc Thiessen - a critic of "post-birth abortion"

Basically, killing a baby just after birth can be justified by the exact same arguments used in favour of abortion. And these academics are right; there's no reasonable way you can justify that a baby is a conscious human being 1 minute after the leaving the mother completely if you did not recognize that status 2 minutes earlier when part of her was still inside her mother.

Currently, there are scientists studying the question whether a 2-month-old baby is a conscious human or not - and even a 5-month-old.  People should be paying much more attention to these studies, because if the "scientific consensus" answers the above question with "no" then we will soon be having academics, and then doctors and judges, talking about something like "pre-consciousness abortion" to describe a process for clinically murdering babies that are several months old.

Unlike the case with pre-birth abortions, for "post-birth abortions" we don't even need renegade doctors who want to be heroes. Planned Parenthood is already doing that quietly, behind the scenes, on public money and with public approval (given through silence.)  All it will take to implement this "final solution" is a couple of Supreme Court judges who want their names to be recorded in history as the fearless leaders of justice who overturned their nation's laws for the sake of "progress."


Saving a Mother's Live?

And the big question - how many abortions are procured to save a mother's life? This is after all, the end-all wildcard pro-choice argument that makes all pro-lifers shut up and be entirely ashamed of ever even thinking that abortion should be banned.

Reasons for abortions

In a U.K.study, 0.006% were in direct response to save a mother's life (i.e. she was dying and the abortion saved her), and another 0.37% were due to risk of the mother's life (i.e. it was unsure if she would've died or not, but the risk was high.)

That means, of the 13 million babies clinically murdered since January, probably only 78,000 - worldwide - were in direct response to the immediate threat of death for the mother.

Abortion is not right in any situation, but the point here is legal abortion has nothing to do with saving mothers' lives. 99.994% of abortions are carried purely for a matter of personal preference or convenience, justified on the assumption that the baby is not in fact a human.  This lends itself very nicely to post-birth abortion arguments.

(*U.S. stats will list 2.8% as "maternal health concerns." This does NOT indicate danger or even risk of death, but "health" in a far broader context. "Danger of death" does not show up on stats - I'm assuming because the cases are so rare.)

Me, holding my babies minutes after they were  born.
They were humans then, just as they were 8.5 months
before, at the moment of conception.

Some More Stats

• Worldwide, there are 125,000 abortions per day - that's the entire population of Waterloo, ON, or Playa del Carmen, MX, murdered every day
• In the US there are over 3000 abortions every day - that's the population of the township I live in
• That's a total of about 20% of all babies in the U.S.
• In Canada, there is one abortion for every 3 live births; that's 25% of all babies

So ...

I couldn't name a worst atrocity than this one. Go back to that counter again - http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/. Every time that number turns over, imagine a person in nice clean clinic, having surgical scissor being jammed up through her neck into her brain, or having her spinal cord severed, or being burned in chemicals or cut to pieces alive - of course, in each case this person is nicely sedated and muffled to ensure that other people in the room don't feel uncomfortable about the process - they might see her squirm a little, but doctors and scientists can reassure us that that's just an non-conscious reflex. Pleasant thought, isn't it?

Back to the Main Question

Why, then, is that "Catholic lawmakers in particular are often hostile to abortion rights even when they are more moderate on other social issues"?  Tara Culp-Ressler at ThinkProgress.org points out this fact as though it's absurd, some sort of silly contradiction.

I hope the numbers and comparison I shared above answer this questions satisfactorily. Abortion is not simply another "social issue."

Cowboys and Catholics

Since I’ve been interested in the Catholic Church, I was always impressed by the fact that John Wayne, the archetypal Hollywood cowboy, was a Catholic (convert).  I don’t really know anything about his personal life, but I have a few random, possibly unrelated and probably irrelevant and unjustifiable thoughts about this fact.

1. I suspect that the Catholic priests, always in the form of an “old Spanish padre,” holds some important place in the genre of Westerns. I’ve forgotten too much about Westerns to confirm this, but it seems to me that cowboy heroes in movies are mostly indifferent to religion but end up being protectors of innocent religious people when they do show up.

2. If I understand the little I’ve read about his life, John Wayne showed his Catholic Christian values as a political figure; he was typically a hero for conservatives, but a frustrating one, since there were times when he would support the “liberal” side of issues when it came to showing mercy and forgiveness.  Politics have little or nothing to do with real cowboys, and there’s no reason to think that John Wayne’s political stances have any reflection on a real connection between Catholicism and cowboys; the same could almost be said of his religion.  Yet, it in the end, it is John Wayne.

3. There is a good deal about cowboys that people would not generally connect with Catholicism; they tend to be lone renegades, just doing their own thing, not telling anyone how to live, or letting anyone else tell them how to live.  Not too many people would think “Catholic” when they hear this idea.  (Although the Catholic Church does have plenty of renegades – but that’s besides the point, and it’s quite a different kind of renegade.)
Yet, there’s at least one thing somewhat Catholic about the archetypal cowboys. The archetypal cowboy knows he’s a sinner – even though he would never say it in those terms.  He knows that the way he lives is wrong, despite the fact he doesn’t want anyone to change it, anymore than he wants to change what’s wrong about others.  Also when it comes right down to it, he’ll stand up for fight for what’s right; he’ll protect those who really are good when they’re not strong enough to do it themselves.  These two points aren’t exclusively Catholic, but could fit into certain brands of Catholic thinking.

I wish I knew enough to prove some of these points or give examples. I could probably think of a few country songs I’ve heard recently, but I won’t bother for now.  In any case, if cowboys and Catholics have nothing else in common, John Wayne is a pretty good connection just by himself.

Come to Mexico for a Great Vacation ... at Starbucks?

Playa del Carmen's Beaches

I've complained before that people come down for vacation to Mexico and in reality see nothing of Mexico.  But forget about culture, history and tradition.  We know 95% of tourists simply don't care about that stuff. But what about the wide, beautiful beaches that made places like Playa del Carmen and Cancun so famous?  It's the same story.

This afternoon my family and I went down to the beach. Weaving our way through the crowded Fifth Avenue (the main tourist street, running parallel to the beach, a block or two away) we saw crowds of mostly non-Mexican tourists (including many Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc.)  A block and a half later, after about 2 minutes of walking, we arrived to the beach.  I would say about 90% of the people were Mexicans - a complete turn around from the trendy main drag, filled with stores and restaurants that you could easily find in any major North American city.

We arrived in the mid afternoon when it was still warm and sunny, and stayed until the early evening when the sun had gone down.  I waded in the water with my kids, and later went into the water alone, floating on my back and looking at the stars and moon above me.  It was absolutely beautiful!

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder; why do all these Americans, Canadians and Europeans spend so much money to come to come to the beach, and then not go to the beach?  The big selling point here in Playa del Carmen is the beaches, which are some of the world's most beautiful - so beautiful and relaxing, in fact, that they made me (a former and very decided hater of beaches) fall in love with beaches.  Yet instead, they go to drink beer at a bar.

It's not only downtown.  I've been to resorts and seen pictures of others, where it's the same story.  The pools, beach clubs, restaurants and tennis courts are full of people and alive.  If there are lounge chairs or canopy beds down where the sand begins, an adventurous spirit may wander down.  But the actual sand of the beach is empty of northern tourists, and you would think there's something wrong with the water, since no one's in it (even now in the middle of "winter" the water is comfortably warm; these tourists wouldn't know that, though.)

So, just my same question again - why would you spend all the money to come down here, and instead of enjoying some of the most beautiful beaches to be found, go to Johnny Rockets and Starbucks?

Travel Safely in … Mexico City?

My closest brush with crime in Mexico City was one day when I was coming out of the subway, and I saw a guy who was very well dressed in the trendiest clothes listening to his iPod, wearing sunglasses that were probably worth more than the suit I was wearing and the laptop I was carrying put together.  Within about 5 seconds someone had approached him from the front, and someone else from behind, and stripped him of every last item of value he was carrying.

 

I had been carrying a briefcase and wearing a suit, but I guess these thieves know what they’re doing; although I was dressed for a business-type job, they could tell I really didn’t have items that would be worth anything to them.

 

For a place that has a reputation for being unsafe, I’d say it’s pretty impressive that during 2 years, this was my closest brush was crime – especially considering I lived in some not-so-nice neighbourhoods.

 

While I definitely been lucky, and had some excellent “guides” (my wife, friends, etc.), I think it’s also safe to say that a good way to avoid robbery in Mexico City is not to carry things worth steeling.  Dress in regular clothes and leave the valuables at home.

 

With that rule of thumb in mind, I think that it’s also safe to say that it’s no more dangerous to be in Mexico City than in just about any other large city.  People get nervous simply because of the city’s size; there are definitely places best avoided, and a common sense is needed, I would say this is even more true in cities like Detroit.  According to Wikipedia, Mexico City isn’t as safe as “highly developed western European cities such as Frankfurt or Barcelona but is safer then cities such as Moscow or Washington DC.”

 

Lonely Planet listed Mexico City as one of its “Top 8 places to (safely) visit in Mexico now,” saying:

 

“There really is no more fascinating city in the world than Mexico’s misunderstood capital. With a population of over 21 million (and a crime rate about a third of Washington, DC’s), Mexico City had a serious scrub-up for its bi-centennial, and now some places like mariachi-filled Plaza Garibaldi are considered (like Times Square in New York) safe enough to be a ‘Disney version’ of its former gritty self.”

 

Mexico City has many beautiful places to visit, and my advice to travellers is definitely worth going; travellers need to use common sense (as anywhere else) but can go there with confidence that they will be fairly safe.

Wearing Religion on Your Sleeves

Recently, in a Q & A post for a very popular expat blog, a soon-to-be expat in Latin America was worried about finding a girlfriend in a very religious country; the soon-to-be expat was atheist.  The blogger reassured the concerned would-be expat that Latin Americans, although with very deep-rooted religious beliefs, don’t usually “wear their religion on their sleeves.”

 

I both agree and disagree.

 

In the normal meaning of this expression, meaning that someone talks about their religion to the extent that it might be uncomfortable for other people, I agree.  Most religious Latin Americans I know (even some that I would call “very religious”) would not usually discuss their faith or try to push it on other people.  They simply don’t seem to find that necessary.  In this way, they’re very discrete and not at all obtrusive in their beliefs (again, generally speaking.)  For this concerned expat, this would probably be enough; any girlfriend he found would probably not be pushy, even in this kind of relationship.

 

Yet, in another sense of the idea, I would disagree.  If we consider the “concrete” (although definitely not usual) meaning of “wearing your religion on your sleeves,” I would say Latin Americans do; i.e. they actually wear their religion on their sleeves – or at least on their arms.  Bracelets similar to the one in the picture are fairly common, in my experience.  Mexicans who wear the Virgin of Guadelupe or Saint bracelets may not talk about them, or even expect or hope that other people will notice; I suspect (although I can’t confirm) that they wear them to remind themselves of something or perhaps to use them for prayer more so than to show other people something.  While they wear their religion on their sleeves in the concrete sense, they don’t “wear their religion on their sleeves” in the sense that they are pushy and obsessed or are going to try to convert you or even talk to you about God.

 

I suspect many North Americans who wear “What Would Jesus Do” bracelets or the coloured bead bracelets would do so for a similar reason – primarily, even if not solely, to remind themselves of something. Yet, in English-speaking North America, we have a stigma that people who use these things will be obsessive about their faith.  Although this is definitely not true all the time, it is true more often here (Canada or the U.S.) than in Latin America.

 

For Latin Americans, the same is true of household altars, icons, statues, rosaries, etc.  You might see all of these things in someone’s home, car or bus (bus drivers take a lot of liberty in personalizing their vehicles,) but they probably won’t seem in any other way preoccupied or focused on the related themes.  In the worst cases, any of them could be “trends” or just the thing to do in your family or community; in the best cases, I suspect that these people use these items to remind themselves of their faith, to pray, etc. but are content to leave it that. They’re instruments of personal devotion, not of outreach or conversion.

 

I suspect that for this concerned would-be expat this would also be OK.

Are You English, German or Spanish?

While I would describe my ethnic background in the fairly universally understood terms of “Canadian of Mennonite background,” the people still belonging more fully to this group have other terms by which they describe ethnicities.

 

For example, they might describe my immediate family thus:

 

“His parents are German, and he grew up German.  But now he and his sons are English and his wife is Spanish.”

 

Anyone who knows my wife, my kids and me knows that there’s nothing English, Spanish or German about us – least of all in terms of ethnicity or culture.  Of course, what these people are doing is referring to ethnicity/culture by the language spoken.  I’m English because that’s my primary language; my parents are “German” because they still speak the Mennonite dialect of the language between themselves; likewise my wife is “Spanish” because of her mother tongue.

 

I don’t know the exact reasons for this choice of terminology, but I can guess as to some of the underlying ideas:

 

• An idea seems to have come about that there’s something inappropriate, embarrassing or sometimes even insulting to refer to people by their true ethnicity; while in the parts of Mexico where I lived, most Mexicans are proud to be called “Mexican”, a number of Mennonites who have lived in Mexico seem to feel that the people consider it insulting.  I don’t know if this is true or if it’s just their impression.

 

• On a similar note, numerous Mennonites whom I’ve talked to  “correct” me discretely, yet pointedly, when I refer to them as “Mennonites.”  For example, if I ask them if there were many Mennonites at the community picnic, they will answer that there were a lot of “German” families, slightly emphasizing the word “German.”

 

• This leads to another point; while Mexican is clearly a national ethnicity, Mennonite is officially a church denomination; strictly speaking it refers to someone’s faith and religious views.  A very strong case could be made that the nature of the denomination (which sometimes, but definitely not always, dictates laws about clothing, transportation, entertainment and even language of its adherents) has in many cases created a corresponding ethnic culture; a similar case could be made about certain Jewish groups.  For this reason, it’s common to refer to anyone belonging to that ethnicity as “Mennonite” even if they have never joined that church, don’t adhere to its beliefs or have been excommunicated.  On the other hand, there’s justifiable hesitation in calling someone Mennonite after they’ve joined a new church, even if they retain the cultural practices.

 

• Finally, there’s a problem with calling the Anglophone population of southern Ontario “Canadians;” the problem is that it implies that the German-speaking Mennonites are not Canadians, when in fact many of them are.  They are NOT immigrants – at least not most of them.  They have been Canadian citizens for a longer time and for more generations than most Anglophone Canadians, having arrived to the Prairie Provinces during the mid- to late-1800s.

 

• A similar problem arises with the term “Mexican;” a growing number of Mennonites are now Mexican citizens, since that’s where they and their parents were born.  So, calling the Hispanic Mexicans only “Mexican” incorrectly implies that these Mennonites are not Mexican, when they are by all legal rights.

 

The biggest problem is that while ethnicity is clear, there is no clear rule for determining religion or citizenship of ethnically “Mennonite” people.  So, in light of all of this, I could  re-word the description of my family given above as follows;

 

“His parents are ethnically low-German speaking Mennonites of Canadian citizenship, and he was raised in this same culture; he and his children are now ethnically Anglophone Canadian but his wife is Hispanic Mexican.”

 

I'm not sure if this would go over so well with most people, though.

The Tortilla Factory in Detroit - A Little Taste of Mexico for a Canadian Child

A package of tortillas from Detroit.

While much of what I've written about my experience living in Mexico as a Canadian has focused on the past few years of my life - when I've actually been living in Mexico - my Mexican experience actually goes back to my very early childhood.  During my entire life, my parents have made several trips a year to Detroit's Mexican community to buy authentic tortillas, mazapans, canned enchilada sauce, and other authentic Mexican products.  Since Detroit has by far the largest Mexican population anywhere nearby, it also has the best supply of items straight from Mexico.  My parents continue this habit to this day.

In fact, a week or two ago, I went to Detroit with my dad again.  We bought 100 packages of tortillas; my parents freeze them and heat them as they need them, in the microwave or stove top.  The freezing part seems absurd to any Mexicans I mention it to.  But the tortillas are cheap, and very authentic, made directly from soaked, ground up corn, rather than the instant "Maseca" brand corn flour which is even become standard practice in many parts of Mexico.

I remember the tortilla factory looking small and sketchy, like the rest of the community. The tortilla factory is now very successful, likewise reflecting the community's extreme transformation, which is currently an island of radiant and hopeful success in what is otherwise a decaying and lifeless city (the old part of Detroit.)

More on this community to come.

The Blessing of a Home - A Religious or Cultural Practice?

The altar in our home on the night of the blessing.

I've written about a few things that Christians in Mexico do, although they officially shouldn't do them.  Today it's kind of the opposite; blessing of homes, an other items, is something very acceptable that Catholics do in Mexico, but, from what I understand, is virtually never done in Anglophone North America.

On February 19, we had our home blessed by Father Patrick of our local church.  It was my wife's idea, since she's the one who grew up Catholic, and who simply assumes that these sorts of things should be done, or at least are a very good idea.  Inevitably I ask her why (I'm generally not big on doing things until I know what they mean,) and spend the next evening on the internet looking for information; some time within the week or month, we'll find someone at the church to ask.

In this case, her answer gave me the basic concept.  We learned some further details from a nun at church, and later the priest when he arrived for the blessing.  I found out that the usual custom is to have a home blessed when a family first moves in, but it is also sometimes done annually or when an addition is put on, or some other change takes place.

One point he made, however, surprised me.  I told him that this was all new to me and I really didn't know how it worked.

"The blessing of homes," he said, "is also fairly new to me."  He is American, and explained that while he was in the U.S., he didn't bless any homes.  After arriving in Playa del Carmen, however, he had been quite busy blessing new homes; in fact, he knew my community and arrived quite easily, since the community is very new (see The Neighborhood I Call Home,) and had been here often for this very purpose.

His comment surprised me, since I saw this as a "Catholic" practice, so I assumed it would be common for Catholics anywhere - I assumed the difference between my wife and me in this case was our religious background, and not our cultural background. I hadn't thought of it as an ethnic practice.

He told me in the U.S. it's just not the thing to do.  Here in Mexico, he explained, people ask for blessing on just about any major item in their life - homes, cars, businesses - or smaller religious items, like icons of Mary or the Saints, crucifixes, or Bibles.  Our Bibles were blessed with the home, as was the cross seen in the picture, and the rosary hanging on it.  We don't have any icons; I explained to the priest that I'm still learning about this concept before "diving in" and he said it was understandable.  I've seen people at the church asking for blessings on a good variety of items.

I commented that it's something that could probably change in the U.S., imagining a shift towards stronger religious traditions; he agreed, but for a reason I hadn't thought of at the moment.

"As more Mexicans move in, American [Catholics] will probably see that they're having their homes blessed, and want to do the same."

I've read before that the Catholic Church in the U.S. is seeing a strong shift towards larger immigrant numbers.  But could it be that the American Catholicism, or even Christianity in general, would be also begin to assimilate practices of Mexican or other immigrants?  Or will the children and grandchildren of the immigrants loose this kind of practice as they become more American and realize that these practices aren't "normal" there?

Personally, I suspect it will be the first; Americans will begin to pick up ideas like this one, and many others, not specifically because of any desire to be like the immigrants, but rather because of growing interest for a deeper-rooted religious culture of their own, triggered or at least helped along by what they see.

I assume Canada isn't too different in terms of the blessings, etc., but it doesn't have nearly as many Mexican immigrants. If any change happened there, it would be triggered by a different source.

Will a change like this happen?  Would be a cultural shift or a religious shift?  Or perhaps a shift of religious culture?  Perhaps a religious shift already happening will prepare for a deeper shift influenced by new cultural values?  Or maybe none of the above, and I'm just imagining everything.  Who knows.

A Poor Canadian Living in Rich Mexico - Part 2 - The Stats

Wealth Distribution - two scenes from Mexico City

Of course, the idea that Mexico is financially richer than Canada is absurd; I acknowledged that in my last post!  But it's not just my imagination that Mexico has a lot of very well-to-do people.

Comparing some of the stats from the two countries will help show the bigger picture.

These are taken from the CIA World Factbook, a great source of statistical info for just about any country:




                                                                         Mexico                    Canada
Population:                                                 110,000,000             31,000,000
Gross Domestic Product:                         $1.56 trillion            $1.3 trillion
GDP per capita:                                          $13,800                     $39,600

Average household income:                    $10,000                   $26,000
                                                                    (these last two are from Wikipedia - it's all in US dollars)

So, while both countries are "trillion dollar class" economies - a status shared by only 14 countries - and Mexico actually has a larger economy than Canada, the fact that Mexico shares that wealth between more than 3 times as many people makes it pretty clear where average wealth is higher.

But there's one little detail the CIA World Factbook points out:

While in Mexico "per capita income is roughly one-third that of the US, income distribution remains highly unequal."

 In Canada, on the other hand, this is less of a problem.

The World Factbook backs this claim with it's "Distribution of family income - Gini index" ranking Canada (32) much better than Mexico (46) (A lower number means better family wealth distribution; the "best" country has a score of 22; the U.S. is only slightly better than Mexico at 42.)

While Mexico has very low unemployment it has big problems with underemployment - people who have jobs, but don't get paid enough for that job.  Putting all this together means, while Mexico has one of the world's best economies (being in the trillion dollar class is really impressive!) there are really rich people who have most of this money, and there are really poor people who see little of it; the idea will come as no surprise to most Mexicans, who complain about this often.

What they forget, though, is that this same fact means that many Mexicans have a good deal more wealth than many Canadians.  By visual impression, I would think there are more really rich people in Mexico than in Canada. But Forbes' list of country by number of billionaires suggests the opposite; Canada has 24 billionaires, while Mexico has 9.  Canada also has considerably more millionaires.  Maybe the Mexican wealthy just like to show it off a bit more.

These same stats also means that a "poor" Canadian really doesn't compare in any way whatsoever to a poor Mexican; but in this case it's Canadians who need to be reminded of this fact, not Mexicans.

Canada tends to be a very middle class country, while Mexico's middle class seems to be smaller than it should be.  One of my friends from Mexico City pointed out that the middle class of the city's southern area is a very small community that tends to be fairly closely connected; this is surprising from a city with almost the same population as Canada.

Canada hasn't accomplished this through socialism; in fact, the Heritage Society ranked Canada #6 worldwide, in its "Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings" - and I don't believe socialism figures very positively into this ranking. I'm definitely not bragging, here, just an analysis.

(Completely contrary to popular beliefs and absurd blanket statements from both sides of the political spectrum in the Canada and perhaps the U.S., Canada actually has more capitalist economic freedom than the U.S. which ranks #9.  It's very strange, for that reason, that left-leaning Canadians like see the country as more socialist, and right-leaning Canadians as well as right-leaning detractors of  Canada from the U.S. like to complain about Canada's "socialism," which seems to be a fabrication of political image.)

Back to Mexico, though, some people are saying that the country's middle class is growing.  I don't enough about economy to say how this would be best done, but I just hope it's true.

The first part of this post was about  my personal experience living in Mexico with very little money - and the difficulties in convincing people of that fact:

A Poor Canadian Living in Rich Mexico

Interesting Expats Part 2 - The Drunk "Dentist"

Steve Martin in "The Little Shop of Horrors"

What kind of person do you imagine as dentist?

Imagine this.

A 20 year-old American, living near the beach, who's supposed to be living 3 hours away studying dentistry.  His mother, back in Denver, sends him money every Thursday to pay his rent and buy food so he can focus on his studies.  By Saturday, he has no money, for anything.  On Saturday night he's trying to convince neighbours to buy him beer.   Throughout the week he shows up at the neighbourhood shops (mostly run out of people's living rooms) and asks for photocopies, snacks, etc. on credit.  Usually he's very hung over, or still drunk.  When they charge him the 50 cents (5 pesos) he owes, he stops going the store.

I know a lot of people in their early 20s who are still working out the direction of their life, so most of this wouldn't surprise me - if he weren't supposed to be a dentist.

One day, back when my wife  was still running her own mini-business out of our living room, he showed up, reeking of alcohol, and started asking if he could see our teeth.  I passed on the offer.  We already knew that he had studied half a semester or something like that in dentistry before running off the beach.  He then started talking to the other clients and asking to see their mouths, taking their phone numbers, apparently to make appointments for dental work. (I'd like to think the people who gave their phone numbers were giving fake ones.)

Another neighbor who had seen his house said that he had a ratty old dentist chair in his living room.  I didn't ask about the equipment.

Would you let this guy stick a sharp object in your mouth?  I know I sure wouldn't.

For the story of a more socially responsible expat, read Interesting Expats Part 1 - The Priest
For a discussion of what makes us expats, read What is an "Expat"?

What is an "Expat"?

A Real Expat

As a part of the group of not-rich expats in Playa del Carmen (i.e. the ones who don't own condos near the beach worth half a million dollars, or even a condo a few blocks back worth $150,000), I've realized two things about us.  One is, we blend in better.  We live in the lower-middle class neighborhoods, speak Spanish (somewhat successfully), hang out with our Mexican neighbors and are often married to Mexicans.  The other is, we really don't think of ourselves as "expats."

Officially an expat (shortened from "expatriate") is anyone who resides in a country other than their own on a long-term basis.  For internet marketing, businesses whose target market are anglophone North Americans, "expat" means people who have some money (not necessarily rich, just enough to own a vacation property worth $150,000 or more), don't speak Spanish, hang out with Canadians at beachfront restaurants, live in gated communities, or high security condo complexes, and only have neighbors from Texas and Italy (even though they live in Mexico.)  Interaction with Mexicans is charity and buying local handicrafts.

Of course, this is a huge generalization. I've met Americans with no money who speak horrible Spanish (and almost worse English); I've met people with vacation property is worth more than the sum of my entire life's financial worth (including the years I still have remaining to live) and are very in-touch with Mexico, Spanish and their local neighbors.  It's also worth noting that this has nothing to do with like-ability; I've met many of the other expats who are very pleasant people, and great to talk to.  They're just not into the whole "diving into Mexico head first" thing.  In any case, the generalization does have some truth to it.

Much more important than the money / no-money distinction is the adventurous / non-adventurous distinction (see Where's your adventurous spirit?).  Many Americans come down here for warm weather and beaches, and are kind of unsure about Mexican culture; living in a bubble of Gringos is just a more comfortable way of enjoying the sun.  Other Americans  come here to live in Mexico, and really enjoy a Mexican lifestyle, learn Spanish and become a part of the real Mexico; apparently these more "adventurous" Americans far outnumber the other ones.

While statistics are hard to get exact since there's no way to accurately count all expats, government sources estimate that 1 million Americans live in Mexico. Extremely generous numbers (probably exaggerated for the sake of promotion) place less than 10% of these among the nice resort communities like Cancun/Playa del Carmen and Puerto Vallarta.  Another 5% or so could be found in the towns of Lake Chapala.

These same stats estimate that between 400,000 and 600,000 Americans live in Mexico City and nearby areas; that's 40-60%!  (That would also be the largest American population in any city outside of the U.S.) But when you go to Mexico City, you don't see many Americans around.  My guess is that it's because of 2 reasons; one is that the city is just so huge.  You can easily half a million people in a city of 25 million.  The other is, they're probably the "other" expats; the ones who live in Mexican communities, learn Spanish, get swept away by a Mexican woman (or man), and lured into living their entire life here (see WARNING: Mexico is DANGEROUS! Do not come here - unless ...).

I would write about Canadians, but I don't have any stats about us, except that the the total is around 300,000, if I remember correctly.  I assume the breakdown of locations is similar.

The numbers are contrary to what people would expect; you walk down the main street of Playa del Carmen, and you're not sure if you're in Mexico; Americans, Canadians and Europeans everywhere.  There are "expat" bars that make you feel like you're back home.  On the other hand, you can walk for hours in Mexico City and not find a single American or Canadian - even in the "hip" neighborhoods.  That's because those expats are at home with their families, or at work, or in a Mexican bar, or at the taco shop.  They might be making enchiladas or mole for their kids.  They drink coffee from Chiapas.  Sometimes they're helping to start a new church, and may be working with mostly Mexicans in this task.  When they go on vacation, the go on roadies to nearby villages and places where tourists just don't go.  I'm sure, once in a blue moon, they go to beach. I also go the beach once in a blue moon.  Last time I went it was about 10 minutes away.  I hope that's still true next time I go.

It really wouldn't surprise me that no body notices the majority of expats; we're just here living our lives, quietly and happily (well, maybe not so quietly - that's hard to do in Mexico - but definitely happily), enjoying Mexico the real way.  Spring breakers and drunk middle-aged people working out their midlife crisis by acting like spring-breakers give Americans a bad reputation.  The others who just want their comfortable expat community, give the impression of distance and, sometimes superiority (this is a question of perception, not necessarily the intentions of those expats.)  Canadians have largely escaped those reputations, but it is still assumed that we can't handle the real Mexico.

But the truth is, the majority of us - Canadians and Americans - CAN handle Mexico, and LOVE being a part of Mexico - really a part of it.  We are the real expats.  But no one pays attention to us.

That's OK though.  If the others are anything like me, they don't to be paid attention to.  They just want to live their lives - in Mexico.  I'd like to meet some of them sometime and find out if my guess is true.

Illegal Immigration - An Alternative Approach

This Caguama (1liter beer) may present a solution (See bottom)

Of course, everyone has they're own opinion about the issue of illegal Mexican immigrants to the U.S., and it's a really a very complex topic, with all sides making economic, cultural, political and social arguments that make complete sense - to the people who fall into each given ideological area in the first place.  Since I'm not American, nor is it likely that I'll ever be denied legal entry into the U.S., I don't really have much say in the issue, I guess.

So, instead of throwing my own 2 cents' worth into a bucket that already has a few billion cents in it, I'll just talk about my experience with Mexicans who've done it.  The following are a few points I've noticed.

Determination.  After being caught and sent back three times, I would give up.  Especially since if I had to pay what amounted to a few months' pay for the service of being taken across and picked up on the other side.  I've heard $1000 USD, and that it's usually borrowed money.  I've known a few people who were going back for round 3 or 4.  That money could feed their family in Mexico for half a year. I don't know how they manage to make the whole thing profitable.  In one case, judging by the under-nourished look of the man's children, I don't think he did.  He was pumped and ready to go again, though.  Of course, there are thousands who succeed, bring their family and even buy a home.  Those stories are enough to motivate the others who don't get any use out of it.  It's kind like slot machines for addicted gamblers.


The lure of the American Dream, or an prospect of making it "rich" is stronger than just about any obstacle or risk.  One writer stated that the only thing the construction of a 20-foot wall along the border would accomplish is an increase in production of 25-foot ladders in Mexico. (R. Longworth, Caught in the Middle.)  Politics aside, I believe this is an accurate reflection of the determination involved.


Worse Prospects Back Home.  If I remember correctly, I believe the new laws in Arizona were proposing 40 days in jail for people discovered in the U.S. without a valid visa (I'm not sure if I have the details right or what the final outcome was.)  While I agree that it's harsh, I don't think it compares to the possibilities of imprisonment in Mexico.  A friend of my wife was in jail, innocently, for almost 10 years; most significantly WITHOUT TRIAL.  We only recently discovered his release when he contacted her on facebook.  If I understand correctly, Mexico doesn't have the "innocent until proven guilty" legal concept, and, it seemed in his case that the opposite was assumed.  (I believe President Calderon has taken steps to change this, as well as implementing a public, witness-questioning type process for trials.  If so, I hope it makes a difference.) In Mexican jails you also have to pay for your food and tip guards.  Family members have to visit to leave money.  Many inmates, are for this reason, compelled to make handy-crafts to sell and pay for their keep; the guards sell the crafts outside and keep a share of the cash. (One of the most famous hammock producers on the Yucatan Peninsula is actually a prison; foreign tourists innocently seem to think it's a nice way to fill idle time; I know I did at the beginning.)  So, how does the prospect of 40 days in an American jail stack up to this?

On top of that, many of these people come from a life of utter poverty.  They don't see much to loose.  Back on the farm, they always had corn, beans, squash and meat, not to mention as much fruit as they could eat. But they didn't have Kentucky Fried Chicken, Blackberry cell phones or satellite T.V.  I guess even a modest income in the U.S can get them these luxuries of the rich.  For others, the prospect of one day being able to take the kids to Disney Land would give their family special status.  They once knew a rich family from he city that had gone ...

Bragging Rights. Now, I can't say for sure, but I don't think 40 days in an American jail would daunt most of the people who head across the border.  I actually suspect it might serve as another source of bragging rights; I can here it now: "The gringos caught me and gave a free bed and food for 40 days!"  I've heard this kind of bragging.  The guy who I mentioned above, who had been caught and sent back 3 times was telling his story (of course, no jail involved) to a group of men and boys, sitting around with beer.  As he spoke with the pride and authority of true drunk, a 14-year-old boy looked on in awe, with sparkle of hope in his eyes.  That was 4 years ago.  I'm sure that 14-year-old is in the U.S. by now.

Not all the braggers are drunks. I've met some very fine, upstanding, lower-middle class family men speaking with true pride of their cross border risks, all for the sake of their dear family (these are more the Disney Land types).

National Identity Confusion.  For some reason, Mexicans who successfully establish themselves in the U.S. (legally or illegally) often do not want to be considered Mexican, or even Mexican-American, or Mexican-background.  I remember on a trip to Detroit once, to the Mexican neighborhood, one hispanic American was offended when my dad mentioned the word Mexican (he was definitely Mexican, as opposed to Colombian, for example.)  I've heard of many similar cases.  These people teach their kids that they are American, not Mexican.

Here in Playa del Carmen I met a Mexican family whose daughters had been born in the U.S.

"Some day," explained one of the little girls, "I want to go back to my Homeland, and get to know my people." She hadn't been there since infancy.  She placed a special emphasis on "mi patria" referring the United States.  All of this was in Spanish, and she couldn't speak any English.  Also, everything about the family, from their clothes and way of addressing people, to gestures and expressions was purely Mexican (which, for me, is a good thing.)  But these girls had been taught to believe that they were not Mexican.

I would think that for Americans this desire to assimilate should be seen as a good thing.  But, again, I'm not American. Personally, I think it's ridiculous; if I could say I had Mexican heritage, I would do so with pride.  (I do show off my Mexican citizenship card to disbelieving Mexicans; but it's not quite the same is really being Mexican culturally.)  Once people are born and raised in the U.S., and that is really their culture, then of course it makes sense to identify themselves with that nationality.  But, ironically, some Mexican-background Americans I know who have fully assimilated American culture are among the few who look back with pride to their Hispanic roots. Others are scathingly aggressive to their former people.

Now that I'm pretty much done, I'll throw in my one-cent's worth.  (It's not even really worth two.)

In the case of American policy makers, on either side of the political spectrum, I feel like one of two things is true; either they've had no contact with these people, and they know virtually nothing about them, or, they know, but pretend that they don't because it's more important to please their respective voters base.  I suppose both are possible.  If they knew something about how these people thought, I would guess that they could come up with some sort of policy that would work at least little better.

My one-cent opinion: they should gather a few of the illegal immigrants, sit down with them with a few caguamas (pronounced "ca-WAma" - see the picture at the top) and really get to know them.  It might not solve the problem, but I'm sure it would take them farther than they are now.