Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Who Are These ICE People Anyway?

Two related but separate federal agencies are the primary enforcers of our immigration laws. One is the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) whose diverse responsibilities include the collection of import duties and the regulation of international trade. It examines people and cargo at ports of entry for such concerns as smuggling and the curtailment of the spread of harmful pests. This agency also protects and patrols our Mexican and Canadian borders. It is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). CBP does not have primary responsibility for the enforcement of immigration laws within the country.

That falls to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), which is also part of DHS. ICE is headed by Acting Director Todd Lyons. ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since 2017.

ICE has two primary components: the Homeland Security Investigations Division, which is concerned with transnational crimes, and the Enforcement and Removal Operations Division, which enforces immigration laws within the country. While ICE does not patrol the border, increasingly the border patrol (CBP) has been enforcing immigration laws away from the border, including in Minneapolis.

Under the One Big Beautiful Bill, ICE became the largest, most well-funded law enforcement agency in American history.

Although for a hundred years states tried to regulate immigration, the Supreme Court in the 1870s held that immigration and naturalization were solely under federal jurisdiction. Although immigration is a federal responsibility, ICE seeks the help of states and cities in immigration enforcement. Some jurisdictions, however, are reluctant to provide that help and claim status as a “sanctuary” city. While there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, the term usually refers to a locality that refuses to cooperate or limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Moreover, the use of the term “sanctuary” is misleading. An undocumented person does not get sanctuary from immigration laws by residing in a sanctuary city. The undocumented can be deported wherever they are in this country.

ICE officials have sought local assistance in several different ways. ICE might ask cities and counties to tell ICE when the localities have encountered an undocumented immigrant. Sanctuary cities usually do not honor these requests. They don’t share their databases with the federal officials. Some localities even forbid the collection of information about immigration status.

ICE often asks to interview people in local jails. Non-sanctuary places may freely allow that. Sanctuary localities, however, may not permit it at all or allow it only if the inmates voluntarily sign a consent form informing them that they don’t have to talk to ICE and are waiving that right.

ICE also lodges requests, called administrative detainers, asking to be informed when an inmate that ICE believes is deportable is to be released from a state or local lockup. Sanctuary cities differ in their responses. Many will tell ICE about the release of someone who has been convicted of a violent offense but not otherwise. Some sanctuaries will not tell ICE about the release of any inmate.

Trump officials suggest that this non-cooperation is illegal. That is not true. No law requires states and cities to cooperate with ICE, and no law probably can require that. That conclusion is based on the 1997 Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States.

At that time a federal law required “local chief law enforcement officers” to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The Supreme Court concluded that requirement was unconstitutional given the established constitutional principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Supreme Court extended that maxim to local law enforcement, which the Court held is also not subject to federal direction. The Constitution does not empower the federal government to compel state law enforcement officers to fulfill the national government’s federal tasks. Assuming these principles still apply, the federal government cannot commandeer localities to enforce immigration laws.

The administration and other right wingers say, however, that sanctuary cities are making their communities unsafe by not helping deportations. Conservative media often scroll names of deportees along with the heinous crimes they supposedly committed. Trump’s press secretary has averred that the sanctuary jurisdictions are endangering their citizens by giving a safe haven to dangerous criminals. Trumpian attacks on the sanctuary states and cities are, therefore, “focused on protecting American communities from criminal aliens.”

Are the ICE actions focused on dangerous criminals? A fact-checking organization says that the administration has not provided enough information to substantiate that claim. The fact checkers say that the percentage of those detained without a criminal conviction or charges doubled in 2025 to 40%. However, most of the convictions are not for violent felony offenses. The Cato Institute has looked at the records of ICE detainees and concluded that a mere 5% of them had violent felony convictions. The New York Times also concluded from similar data that 7% had violent felony convictions.

Are sanctuary cities endangering their citizenry? Sanctuary jurisdictions maintain that their lack of cooperation is not only legal but is good policy. They point out that in sanctuary cities local resources are properly allocated to local priorities, not to enforcing laws that are the responsibility of the federal government.  Sanctuary cities also maintain that they are safer because of their policies.

The jurisdictions highlight that deportation before a verdict or punishment, which often happens in non-sanctuary jurisdiction, deprives communities of the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. Sending a person to his home country without serving a sentence here in the U.S. does not act as a deterrent to others.

The sanctuary jurisdictions also want undocumented people to feel comfortable cooperating with the local police. Without that cooperation crimes will not be reported and prosecuted. Undocumented immigrants won’t come forward to report crimes or become witnesses if, as a consequence, they will be deported.  Criminals, whether citizens or not, will go free, and the community will be more crime-ridden.

Furthermore, a city may be healthier, safer, and more community-friendly if undocumented people are reasonably comfortable interacting with government authorities — not just police, but also schools, hospitals, clinics, employment agencies, and housing authorities.

Sanctuary cities point to study after study showing that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities and that sanctuary cities have, on average, more vibrant economies than non-sanctuary jurisdictions. The Trump administration, as it often does, avoids or denies the accuracy of such studies.

Finally, is there sanctuary for the undocumented in churches and elsewhere? President Obama issued orders that protected immigrants in hospitals, churches, courtrooms, funerals, weddings, and schools. Trump reversed that order. That there was an order and that it was reversed tells us something. We may have an image of Quasimodo swinging on a Notre Dame bell rope with Esmeralda under his arm and crying “Sanctuary,” but there is no accepted American legal principle that people are free from deportation (or prosecution for crimes) because they are sheltered in a house of worship.

Posted on by rjonakait

First Sentences

“Charles Mitchell strode up the steps of 55 Wall Street, determined to project his usual sense of confidence and certitude.” Andrew Ross Sorkin, 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History—And How it Shattered a Nation.

“‘We hold these truth to be sacred. . .’ Sacred? No. That doesn’t sound right.” Walter Isaacson, The Greatest Sentence Ever Written.

“Few Americans understand just how great the Great Lakes really are.” John U. Bacon, The Gales of November: The Untold Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald.

“The fear that gripped the world in March 2020 is not something we will soon forget.” Steven Macedo & Frances Lee, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us.

“A black man in a white hat stood sleeping against a brick wall.” Michael Rips, The Golden Flea: A Story of Obsession and Collecting.

“In the Roaring Twenties, the famous philanderers William Randolph Hearst and Babe Ruth might have thought it, but only Henry Ford said it out loud: Housewives of America should be patient with outbreaks of marital infidelity.” Gary M. Pomeranz, The Devil’s Tickets: A Night of Bridge, a Fatal Hand, and a New American Age.

“On the night the ships appeared, some fishermen were out on the ocean, working by torchlight.” Hampton Sides, The Wide Wide Sea: Imperial Ambition, First Contact and the Fateful Final Voyage of Captain James Cook.

“The first time it happened I was in a stall in a public bathroom just off Wall Street in Manhattan.” Naomi Klein, Doppelganger: A Trip into the Mirror World.

“‘Have you ever thought what you are going to do when you get out of High School?’ asked an editorial in Rahway High’s Scarlet and Black.” Jennifer Burns, Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative.

“There was a buzz of excitement when I arrived at my Harvard office at 78 Mt. Auburn Street on a June morning in 1972.” Doris Kearns Goodwin, An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s.

“Fred Rogers had given some very specific instructions to David Newell, who handled public relations for the PBS children’s show Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.” Maxwell King, The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers.

“I like to probe the darkness at the edges of our nation’s history.” Nathaniel Philbrick, Travels with George: In Search of Washington and His Legacy.

“The glass doesn’t just break, it explodes into hundreds, thousands of pieces.” Andrew McCarthy, Walking with Sam: A Father, a Son, and Five Hundred Miles Across Spain.

“One of the great myths of our criminal system is that minor arrests and convictions are not especially terrible for the people who experience them.” Alexandra Natapoff, Punishment without Crime: How our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal.

“The Indian Nation turnpike is a four-lane highway cutting north to south through the bottom right corner of Oklahoma.” Rebecca Nagle, By the Fire We Carry: The Generations-Long Fight for Justice on Native Land.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

A Liberal Who Has Been Mugged

Conservative members of Congress who recently questioned special counsel Jack Smith complained and chastised him for having spied on those members. By “spy,” they meant that Smith had gotten some of their calling records from phone companies. The documents indicated the numbers that had been called from the congressional offices, the numbers of those who had called the offices, and the duration of the calls on and around January 6, 2021. The content of those conversations was not revealed. The politicians seemed to be unaware that getting such records is routine practice in criminal investigations.

The Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures. The Supreme Court has held that the protection applies when a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The Court further held that people have such expectations in their phone conversations. Thus, the government cannot wiretap into phone calls and hear what was said unless a warrant based on probable cause has first been obtained.

When I make a phone call, I do not divulge the content of the conversation to the phone company, but I do disclose other information, such as the number I called and, for billing purposes, the duration of the call. The Supreme Court has held that I do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in this information, now often called metadata, because I know that I have given these data to the phone company. This judicial conclusion left such information outside Fourth Amendment protection.

Congress stepped in, but it was a small intercession. The new law said that a judicial order had to be obtained before getting this information, which comes from a device often call a “pen register,” which records the outgoing information of the number called, or a “trap and trace” device for recording the numbers of incoming calls. The government must now get a judicial order, but the burden is low. The government does not have to show, as it would for a search warrant, probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. Instead, the government attorney only has to certify that the information sought is likely to be “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Such orders for this phone information are common. Tens of thousands of such orders are issued each year. I am not aware of conservative Congresspeople previously complaining about this practice. That has changed not because the conservatives have become concerned about the privacy implication of pen registers for ordinary Americans. Instead, they are concerned because they have learned that such orders have been used to get information about the their own congressional calls. As long as only others were affected, they had no concern. But when the conservatives in Congress were affected, an outcry ensued.

An old joke concludes that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Apparently, a civil libertarian is a conservative who has been affected by a standard law enforcement investigation.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

A proposal: Denmark and Greenland should offer to cede Greenland to Trump on the condition that he live in Greenland 330 days of the year. If his control of the island is so important for America’s national security, he needs to be there and if he is patriotic, he should be willing to make that adjustment to his living conditions. If life in Greenland is going to be demanded of those staffing the military bases there, it should be good enough for the president.

An alternative proposal: Apparently, Greenland is very, very, very important to our national security, but, if we are honest, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi (and maybe Louisiana, except I like New Orleans) are not. Swap the island for those states. I know of many Americans who would be pleased if the United States did not have the burden of including Texas, Alabama, Mississippi (and maybe Louisiana, except I like New Orleans). But there will still have to be negotiations about who foots the bill for changing the few maps with Gulf of America.

I told a friend that I was concerned about an upcoming doctor’s appointment. This was not for the usual reasons, but because nurses are on strike at New York City hospitals, and my doctor has an office in a hospital. I have heard that it is chaos outside some facilities. And, I told my friend, I have never crossed a picket line. Bob said that his father told him never to cross a picket line because workers needed all the support that they could get. His mother also told him never to cross a picket line. She said, however, that is because the strikers would follow him home and break his legs. Bob said that her attitude might have come from her father. He had come penniless from Poland and had become financially successful here. His assumption became that if you were working class, it was because you were stupid or lazy or probably both.

A wise person said, “A man never realizes the blessing of being born poor, till he gets over it.”

The college football star after his team’s victory said that all glory for the win went to the Lord. Just once I would like to hear a football player say, “I was playing a great game until God made me fumble.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Where Are the Conservatives Who Cared About Free Speech?

Acquaintances of mine railed against President Biden’s attempts to get social media to take down posts of misinformation and disinformation. They maintained that this was government coercion, in effect, telling citizens what could be published. Free speech was under a dangerous assault, they said. Where are these conservatives now when free speech is being assaulted regularly on many, many fronts?

Examples are legion. The administration has been trying to dictate to universities the viewpoints faculty hires should have and what they should teach. They want them disciplined for disapproved teachings. Law firms have been punished because of the people whom lawyers have represented. Negative comments about Charlie Kirk are apparently not allowed. Speaking in favor of diversity can lead to the end of a government career or the withdrawal of a research grant. Lawful residents are locked up–even deported–for their views. The government seeks to punish congressional representatives for repeating a basic legal principle. And this is only a fraction of the actions that have subverted free speech. But my supposed free speech-loving companions remain silent. I expect that their silence will continue even in the face of a memo to all federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies dropped by Attorney General Pam Bondi on December 4, 2025, which came to light weeks later.

In the memo Bondi says she is outlining federal law enforcement priorities to support President Trump’s call to root out domestic terrorism. The AG maintains that “many of these domestic terrorists and domestic terrorist organizations are united by an anti-fascist platform. . . . This ideology that paints legitimate government authority and traditional conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist’ connects a recent string of political violence.” (If the left is using the “fascist” label, it is only following the right. In 2023, Time wrote, “Among Trump and his allies, the ‘fascist’ label has been growing in popularity.”)

Bondi’s claim is, putting it charitably, weakly sourced. For example, a claim that “anti-fascists violently rioted on UC Berkeley’s campus in 2017” [emphasis added] footnotes a 2019 news report headlined “Scattered Violence Erupts at Large, Left-Wing Berkley (sic) Rally.” Besides getting the date wrong, she equates “scattered violence” at a large rally with terrorism. Trump and his appointee maintain that lefties are the problem for mass, terroristic violence in this country even though study after study, including one posted on the FBI website (but now archived) have concluded that disproportionately right wingers have been the cause of such violence in this century.

Bondi continues, “Particularly dangerous are those acts committed by violent extremist groups that threaten both citizens’ safety and our country’s ability to self-govern. These domestic terrorists use violence or the threat of violence to advance political and social agendas, including opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States  Government; hostility toward traditional views on family, religion, and morality; and an elevation of violence to achieve policy outcomes, such as political assassinations. [Federal law enforcement] shall prioritize the investigation of such conduct.” Law enforcement, Bondi said, should identify not only those who participate in such events but also “those who organize or financially sponsor those participants.”

There are some–shall we say–definitional problems. Define, e.g., “radical gender ideology.” What is an “extreme” view of mass migration? Does a traditional view on family oppose divorce? Why is anti-Christianity included but not antisemitism? If I don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, am I anti-Christian? If I think CEOs get paid too much, am I anti-capitalist? I can argue that traditional moral values both favor and oppose the death penalty. Can it be both? A traditional view of religion is that churches are greedy. May I hold that opinion and start an anti-clerical movement? The January 6 protestors tried to prevent the legal transfer of power through violence. Wasn’t that anti-Americanism deserving prioritization?

She seems to have overlooked a salient fact: “Political and social agendas” and “views,” whether extreme or not, are expressions protected under the First Amendment. Yet this concern got a mere footnote in the memo: “The United States Government does not investigate, collect, or maintain information on U.S. persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment. No investigation may be opened based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of rights secured by the Constitution.” Notice, however, the qualifier “solely,” which eviscerates the apparent qualifications of the footnote. No government official will claim an investigation or collection of information is based “solely” on monitoring constitutionally protected activities. Some other justification will always be conjured up. Thus, the First Amendment will be trampled.

Shouldn’t anyone who uses illegal violence or threat of violence be prosecuted? Why “prioritize” those who hold such views and not everyone who uses illegal violence and threats of violence? Surely it is designed to suppress dissent so that those in power can stay in power.

And not for the first time I wonder where the principled conservatives are. Those who complained when the Biden administration tried to get social media companies to remove misinformation should be screaming now. The Trumpian actions impeding free speech are dangerously far-reaching. The Bondi directive is another clear example. And yet, my conservative acquaintances are silent.

Posted on by rjonakait

Some Books I Do Remember

I look over the books I read in 2025. Many I can’t seem to recall at all. Others I vaguely remember. But a few have stuck with me.

Orbital by Samantha Harvey. Twenty-four hours orbiting the earth. I did not like this slim, Booker prize winner as much as some friends did, but the poetic meditations made it worthwhile.

When Women Ran Fifth Avenue: Glamour and Power at the Dawn of American Fashion by Julie Satow. I was not familiar with this history of remarkable women who transformed department stores in mid-twentieth century New York City.

The Fish Can Sing by Halldór Laxness. Any writing by Iceland’s Nobel Prize Winner is worth reading.

V13: Chronicle of a Trial (Translated from the French by John Lambert) by Emmanuel Carrère. A great book about the trial of terrorists who slaughtered many in Paris on Friday November 13, 2015.

32 Yolks: From My Mother’s Table to Working the Line by Eric Ripert. This memoir from the renowned chef is surprisingly good but also disappointing. It ends too soon. I wanted to learn more about his later life, but if he has written about that, I have not found it.

The Personal Librarian by Marie Benedict and Victoria Christopher Murray. This fictional biography of Bella de Costa Greene is not great literature, but Greene’s story—born Black, lived as a white, became J.P. Morgan’s librarian—is a great one.

Working: Researching, Interviewing, Writing by Robert A. Caro. Learning how a great craftsman crafts is always fascinating.

Strangers in the Land: Exclusion, Belonging, and the Epic Story of the Chinese in America by Michael Luo. An important but often overlooked part of our history.

Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age, by Stephen R. Platt. Picked by my history book group, I expected an academic slog, but Platt made this into a page turner.

My Friends, by Fredrik Backman. This, as is anything written by Backman, is worth reading.

The Princess Bride: S. Morgenstern’s Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure by William Goldman. A delight for all ages.

The Maid by Nita Prose. A mystery story with a different, often amusing, main character.

Sonny Boy by Al Pacino. I resist most memoirs and especially those of show biz celebrities, but I saw several comments about how good this book is. I pulled it off a library shelf and loved it.

The Complete Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. I had seen the great movie Persepolis when it came out but only now read the graphic novels that inspired the film. They are also great.

The Mission: The CIA in the 21st Century by Tim Weiner. I don’t remember many details even though I read the book recently, but Weiner gives us an important and depressing look at the country.

The Gales of November: The Untold Story of the Edmund Fitzgerald by John U. Bacon. Taught me a lot about the commercial importance of the Great Lakes and the dangers of their waters as well as about the Edmund Fitzgerald. The book is another surprising page turner.

The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers by Maxwell King. Learned many fascinating facts and insights about an important but now often overlooked person.

In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us by Steven Macedo & Frances Lee. A significant, critical examination of our responses to Covid. I am still coming to grips with this book and hope to write about it soon.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Whither Greenland?

President Trump wants Greenland. He and his acolytes say that might be accomplished by military force. Or we might buy it.

The size of the real estate grab appeals to Trump. It would be large, but not as large as it appears looking at the usual maps. Mercator projections make land masses look larger the further away they are from the equator. Thus, Greenland looks to be the same size as Africa. That is misleading. It is, in fact, a fraction of the size of that continent.

But it is still large. Larger than Alaska. Much larger than Texas.

But it is also small. Only a fraction of the coastlines is not covered in ice. Little of the island is habitable.

And its population is small. About 58,000 people live in Greenland with 20,000 in the capital city Nuuk. The rest live in small, isolated places scattered mostly on the west coast.

This is a tough place to live. Two-thirds of Greenland lies above the Arctic Circle, with the cold and the long days and nights that implies.  While there is a small amount of sheep grazing, there is no arable land. Farming is non-existent. The main food source comes from the sea, including fish, seals, and whales. Fish and fish products are 90% of the exports. Seals and whales are protected and can’t be exported, but under a quota, can be eaten locally.

Inuit, who form 88% of the population, have genetic traits that help them deal with the cold and allow them to digest fats that assist them to survive without foods from plants.  However, much food as well as almost all other basics are imported. Greenland has one of the highest costs of living in the world with a corresponding high poverty level.

Trump has maintained that Greenland is essential for our national security. He has not explained why but it is assumed that is because of future shipping lanes and because of rare earth minerals. Once again, our usual maps mislead us. If we look down at the planet at the northern pole, we can recognize the importance of the shipping lanes. Going from our East Coast to Asia takes four days less through the Arctic than the present transit routes.

Arctic paths, now quite limited, will be more open with global warming. There is a contradiction here. Trump and the Trumpistas say that climate change is a hoax. On the other hand, they have maintained that global warming is inevitable and with the inevitable break-up of ice, shipping through the Arctic should become easier.

But this does not explain why America would need to own Greenland. There are many global shipping lanes vital to us where we do not own the bordering land.

Greenland’s role in an expanded rare earth trade perhaps has been exaggerated or not placed in context. With global warming more land will become available for mining. That can be overstressed. Ice melt has increased and more land exposed, but even with rising world temperatures, the estimate is that it will take 10,000 years for the ice sheet, which is 1.5 miles in some places, to melt, or even if temperatures rise much faster than they have, 1,000 years.

Greenland currently has only one operating mine. Even if receding glaciers open more mining possibilities, the mines will not be easy to operate. Infrastructure has to be built. There are no railroads in Greenland, and the longest motor vehicle road extends for only twenty-two miles. The roads stop at the edge of the towns. Travel from one settlement to another is either by boat or airplane or more likely helicopter, and weather often shuts transportation down. Twelve-foot seas are common off the west coast, and there are icebergs. Power plants would have to be built. Housing materials–there are no trees in Greenland–would have to be imported. Roads and airfields would have to be built with materials that will not be easy to get there. A workforce would have to be imported into the harsh living conditions presumably with people who do not have the genetic advantages of the Inuit for living in Greenland.

But once again, even if increased mining makes sense, we don’t need to own Greenland. Denmark and Greenlanders have made it clear that they are willing to deal with us on future mines.

Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. Denmark has possessed Greenland for 300 years.

For centuries, Denmark governed Greenland with strict oversight, regulating commerce and allowing only limited contact with the outside world, but in the 1950s Denmark tried to modernize Greenland, which meant forcing Inuit into Nuuk and destroying local cultures. Greenland finally achieved home rule in 1979, receiving sovereignty over most internal affairs.

Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign policy, defense, and currency. Denmark subsidizes Greenland by more than $500 million a year.

We have tried to buy Greenland before. In 1946, we offered $800 million, or $1.7 billion in today’s money, but Denmark turned that down. Today it is not clear whom we would buy it from because Denmark does not appear to have the legal ability to sell Greenland. Since 2009, Greenlanders have had the right to hold a referendum on independence whenever they want. A recent poll showed that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose an American takeover.

But Trump has not explained why we need to buy Greenland and then subsidize it. Trump and his supporters avoid talking about what this would mean for our national debt. Moreover, a 1951 agreement with Denmark basically gives the U.S. the untrammeled right to build military bases where we want in Greenland. Indeed, we used to have more than a dozen while we are now down to one.

Nor have the American legal niceties been discussed. We have bought lands before, but it has never been as simple as a president wanting to buy foreign land. We do after all have a Constitution, and the consent of Congress or the Senate has been necessary for those purchases. We may say that President Jefferson and Secretary of State Monroe made the Louisiana Purchase, but in fact Congress ratified and authorized the funds for it. The Gadsden Purchase and the acquisitions of Florida, Alaska, and other lands came via treaties together with the authorization of the funds from Congress. A treaty, of course, requires not just the consent of the Senate, but consent by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

Of course, some Americans can’t imagine why Greenlanders shun being American. However, Greenlanders, besides native pride, may see that America opposes what Greenlanders take for granted. So, for example, Greenland has universal government-funded health care. Education is free through college. Childcare is heavily subsidized from the age of six months. Gasoline is subsidized. Abortion is available and paid for by the government. The abortion rate is one of the highest in the world with abortions exceeding live births in some years. In addition, Greenlanders are environmentalists. They have prohibited offshore exploration for oil. Most of their energy comes from renewable sources.

That social safety net is the same one that exists in Denmark, and part of the reason that Denmark regularly makes the top five on lists for the happiest places in the world. That, however, is not necessarily true for Greenland. As do many other indigenous populations in the modern world, Greenlanders have a high suicide rate.

In addition, after three hundred years joined to Denmark, there has been a cultural intertwining between Greenland and the Kingdom. About 20,000 Greenlanders, more than a quarter of the population, live in Denmark. Greenlanders have the right to go there. No one has discussed Greenlanders’ status under American ownership of the land.

A sense of that cross-cultural embedding comes across Peter Høeg’s excellent book Smilla’s Sense of Snow or, alternatively translated, Smilla’s Feeling for Snow, which was made into a not overly successful streaming show. More successful has been the show Borgen, what might be called the Danish House of Cards. The third season highlights the relationships between Greenland and Denmark.

The cultural blending is demonstrated further by Inuuteq Storch, a Greenlandic photographer who was the official representative for Denmark at the prestigious Venice Biennale and who is having a showing at MOMA P.S.1 now through the end of February. You can find some of his pictures on the internet.

Whither Greenland? They seem mostly to want to be left alone.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

Hope and Kindness (Guest Post From the Spouse)

These days I have not been a half-glass full kind of person, but I have been thinking about how to be hopeful in the face of difficult times. So…in no particular order, here are some things that I find hopeful:

I am of the opinion that our current president is trying to accrue to himself powers to which he is not entitled. It gives me hope that millions of others feel as I do and have taken to the streets to say so.

Despite what the administration tells us about rampant urban carnage, crime is down in New York City and the murder rate is lower than it was in the 1950s.

I am hopeful when I learn that many staff members of the conservative Heritage Foundation resigned to protest their director’s tacit condoning of the white supremacism of Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes.

I am horrified that Hamas butchered Israelis and that Israel has decimated Gaza and destroyed Palestinians in retaliation. But I am hopeful when a Syrian Muslim singlehandedly tackles a man with a gun, saving the lives of many Australian Jews in the midst of celebrating their faith.

While many people have been misinformed about the safety of the measles vaccine and have stopped giving it to their children, I am grateful to know that vaccines for measles and polio and Covid and flu even exist.

Even though the United States as a government seems to have abandoned its role as a charitable donor to the world, it is encouraging to know that other individuals and privately funded organizations continue to bring health and hope to the poorest countries of the globe.

I have a friend, a woman in her 60s, who was trained as a surgical nurse. Three times a year she volunteers to accompany a team of doctors and technicians as they go to areas of Africa, South America, and Ukraine offering surgical relief to those with facial anomalies and horrific battlefield injuries. I find this inspiring.

Watching chained immigrants duck-walked to a foreign prison is a living nightmare. However, there continue to be lawyers and organizations that are working tirelessly to protect their rights.

It is a gift that people continue to write books that inspire, entertain, and educate me.

It is gratifying to see white men helicoptering a black woman and her child to safety after a flood.

I am thrilled to be reminded that Beethoven wrote glorious but challenging choral music, and that people are willing to spend long hours rehearsing that music in order to sing it to me.

It gives me hope when someone opens a heavy door for me.

It gives me hope that pop-up foodbanks appeared to help those suffering during the government shutdown.

In our house it’s good news that the Green Bay Packers made the playoffs.

And it brings me happiness and hope when my husband brings me not one but two cookies from the resident lounge on his way back from the gym.

Posted on by rjonakait

Again, Whither Venezuela?

By now we all have a basic knowledge of what has happened in Venezuela. Circumstances are quickly changing, though, and what might have been said yesterday would be different today. Much about the future of that country is now unknowable. I don’t plan to concentrate on all those possibilities, but instead, to give background about what is known so there will be some context as events in Venezuela unfold.

We do know that Maduro and his wife were dragged out of their country and brought to NYC where Maduro had been under indictment since 2020. New indictments of Maduro, his wife, his son, and several Venezuelan government officials have now been filed. Maduro pleaded not guilty today at his arraignment.

This is similar to the 1989 invasion of Panama to capture the de facto ruler who was under drug indictment in Miami. Manuel Noriega fled to the Vatican mission in Panama City seeking sanctuary. The U.S. used various tactics to get him out including weaponizing the heavy metal music of Van Halen by blasting it at the mission. After ten days of Van Halen, Noriega surrendered and was brought to Florida where he was put on trial, convicted, and sentenced to forty years.

The first question might be, If Maduro was brought here illegally, can he be tried? A basic principle of our criminal law, affirmed by the Supreme Court several times, is if a defendant is within the court’s jurisdiction, it does not matter how the person got before the court. Maduro can be tried.

A second question arises since international law gives immunity from criminal indictments for heads of state. Noriega raised this defense, but it was easily denied because he was not the legal head of Panama. Maduro may also raise this defense, but it should lose. The president has the sole authority to recognize foreign governments, and we have not recognized Maduro as the valid head of the Venezuelan state. Maria Corina Machado won primaries to be the opposition candidate to Maduro in 2024 elections, but she was barred from running. She was replaced by Edmundo Gonzalez, who, neutral observers said, won in a landslide. Without presenting evidence, the National Electoral Council declared victory for Maduro. However, the U.S., European countries, and others refused to accept Maduro as legitimate.

With Maduro gone Trump has stated we are going to run the country until there is an acceptable transition. That transition, however, does not seem to include the leaders chosen by the Venezuelan people—Gonzalez and Machado—but the non-legitimate vice-president Delcy Rodriguz.

Although the Trump administration is trying to avoid that term, we are now in the world of regime change, a place we have been many times before. We can hope that this one goes better than many of our other attempts.

Our most recent effort at regime change was Iraq in 2003. Our failure there shows the difficult tactical and moral issues that such change can bring. We wanted to eliminate the brutal ruling party, a sensible seeming goal, and undertook what was called de-Baathification. As a result, there was no one else who had experience running the country, and something like anarchy broke out. This helped bring about the creation and rise of Isis as well as increased power to Iran, for which we continue to suffer. There can be, there will be, collateral consequences for regime change.

When I wrote about Venezuela in October, I suggested that the administration’s actions might be more about oil than drugs. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and Trump is concerned about American oil he claims was stolen. The right-wing strongman Juan Vicente Gómez, the military dictator who ruled Venezuela from 1908 until his death in 1935, granted concessions that left three foreign oil companies, two of them American, in control of 98 percent of the Venezuelan market. Venezuela became the world’s second-largest oil producer. Oil accounted for over 90 percent of the country’s total exports. Gómez’s successors tried to seize greater control over the country’s economy, and in 1943 approved a law that required foreign oil companies to relinquish half their profits

Venezuela nationalized the oil industry in 1975. In January 1976, the Venezuelan state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDSVA) took over the exploration, production, refining and export of oil. American oil companies Exxon, Mobil, and Gulf were hard hit as was the Dutch giant Shell. The companies, which by then were accounting for more than 70 percent of crude oil production in Venezuela, lost roughly $5 billion in assets but were compensated just $1 billion.

While Venezuela formally nationalized its oil industry in the 1970s, beginning in the early 2000s under Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s predecessor, Venezuela moved beyond its earlier state ownership model and launched another wave of expropriation. Foreign operators were forced into minority positions alongside Venezuela’s national oil company, PDSVA, or saw assets seized outright. Major U.S. firms, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, ultimately left the country and pursued international arbitration over uncompensated takings. They are still waiting for their money.

The consequences for Venezuela’s oil industry were severe. The state oil company lost access to foreign capital and technical support. Skilled engineers left the country. This was especially damaging to Venezuela because its crude is ultra-heavy, which is harder to refine than light, sweet crude found elsewhere. When foreign partners exited Venezuela, PDVSA lost the ability to sustain the complex system required to deal with the heavy crude. Production declined steadily, falling from more than 3 million barrels per day before the expropriation to under 1 million bpd in recent years.

By the time Maduro assumed office in 2013, the industry was already in structural decline. Corruption, mismanagement, and U.S. sanctions under his tenure further constrained output and exports.

Venezuela’s oil industry cannot be simply, magically brought back. Not only must the oil infrastructure be brought back, refining heavy crude takes a lot of energy, and the power grid has also been deteriorating. The necessary improvements require both time and plenty of money.

Where will that money come from? Oil companies are unlikely to invest until Venezuela is a stable country and perceived as one. And first there has to be a successful regime change. Until then, perhaps the only source of investment would be our tax dollars, which would move us further away from free enterprise and a market economy, and towards a form of state capitalism, a road Trump has been traveling. But that is for another day.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

When is the New Year?

The New Year did not always begin on January 1. In some ages and places January 1 started another year, but in other places and ages a new year began on December 25 or March 1 or some other date. In early England and its American colonies, March 25 was New Year’s Day, which strikes me as odd. I may be conditioned by the January 1 date, but it only seems natural to begin a new year as a new month begins. March 1 or April 1 seem to be possibilities for another year, especially since these are days of spring in the northern hemisphere when we see the earth being renewed.

          In England and America January 1 became New Year’s Day in 1752 as England adopted the Gregorian calendar. Trivia question: When was a year not a year-long? The answer: 1751. The British parliament passed a law adopting the Gregorian calendar in 1750 mandating that the year 1751, which began on March 25, would end on December 31 with the next year beginning on January 1, 1752. Thus, 1751 in England was only 282 days long.

          There is another answer to that trivia question, however. The Julian calendar in use in England was not quite accurate, something that had been recognized during the Middle Ages. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII adopted the more accurate Gregorian calendar, which had January 1 as a year’s starting point. (What are the odds? Gregory adopted the Gregorian calendar.) This deletion required the elimination of ten days so that 1582 is also a year that was not year-long.

          Of course, because the Pope made this change–even though it was a good one–many Protestant countries resisted it, apparently thinking that if the Antichrist was behind it, then it could not be all good. Eventually, of course, other countries recognized that the Gregorian calendar was not some sort of devilish trick and adopted the new style of dating—even the Anglican British.

          Today countries that had used different calendars have adopted the Gregorian calendar, including Japan, Egypt, Korea, Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. New Year’s Day starts at the stroke of midnight on January 1, and it is the most celebrated time around the world as billions are excited by fireworks, whistles, and bells, local time of course.

          Even though I don’t understand why we celebrate the day, come Thursday, I, too, will be wishing folks a “Happy New Year!”