LCPS Superintendent Greg Ewing's Resignation -- and his Lawyers' Lame Effort to Keep his Letter Secret

            Greg Ewing's lawyers’ efforts to bury his retirement letter are a sad coda to his failure as Superintendent of Las Cruces Public Schools.

            When LCPS hired Ewing, he said all the right things in the right tones.  Almost two years in, warning lights began flashing.  The Sun-News was publishing things he disputed, and he refused to discuss them on my radio show unless I told co-host Walt Rubel (a Sun-News editor) to go fishing that day.  Ewing didn't dare face hard questions from a newspaperman.  

            Now Ewing has resigned – but he's still trying to get more of our money. 

            Under New Mexico's Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA), Ewing's resignation letter is a public document.  KVIA requested a copy.   LCPS withheld it.  IPRA's narrow exceptions don't apply, and LCPS's lawyers say they agree with that; but Ewing's lawyers say they'll seek a court order against disclosure.  LCPS is giving them time to do that.

            I believe that delay violates IPRA.  (LCPS is already on the hook for Ewing's illegal handling of an earlier IPRA request.  That's one ground cited by “Enough” for seeking to recall three board-members.  Whether or not recall proponents can hold boardmembers responsible, wrongfully withholding documents requested under IPRA usually means a public entity must produce the documents and pay two sets of attorneys.) 

            KVIA got the three-page resignation letter (on ScottHulse letterhead), but everything was blacked-out except the lawyer's name and Ewing's.  

            IPRA requires LCPS to give KVIA the letter “as soon as possible” and definitely within three days.  LCPS should have told ScottHulse it had three days to seek an emergency court order if it so chose.  ScottHulse should have been ready: it drafted Ewing's letter to a public agency, with full knowledge of IPRA. (ScottHulse didn't return my phone calls.)

            I heard two lame excuses for not releasing the resignation letter.   (Even if one were valid, that should mean redacting certain portions, not everything.)

            IPRA exempts “letters or memorandums which are matters of opinion in personnel files” to avoid publicizing unsubstantiated opinions about public employees – and perhaps to protect those voicing opinions from retribution.  Here, Ewing has resigned.  Maybe he included criticism of the board.  His lawyers want to say that because he expressed opinions and because LCPS might someday put the document in Ewing's personnel file, the exception applies.  That novel argument shouldn't succeed.  A court should sanction it as “frivolous.”

            Secondly, Ewing's lawyers say that Ewing, having resigned, is offering in his letter to settle some controversy; but there's no litigation.  Ewing must be demanding money, based on some claim of mistreatment and/or a threat to do the board some further harm. 

            By this logic, any threat to sue a city, if coupled with an offer to forego suit if paid $1million, would become a confidential document, immune to IPRA.  That’s clearly not what the New Mexico Legislature intended.

            IPRA's “opinions in a personnel file” wasn't meant to cover a former superintendent's gripes.  IPRA contains no exception making threats against a public agency confidential. 

            Far from letting Ewing extort more of our money, many citizens wonder why he can't be back-charged for the vast sums his bad conduct will force us to pay in lawsuits.

            NOTE: After my deadline, Ewing wisely retreated from his bad IPRA position.  His resignation letter is an odd mix of threats and complaints.  I’m guessing his substantive legal complaint isn’t much better than his anti-IPRA stance.

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 25 August 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website, where there's also a news story by Algernon D'Ammassa, and KRWG's website, and a spoken version will be available shortly on KRWG's website and will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM.]

 [I had already sent the Sun-News the basic column.  Receiving a copy of Ewing's letter as I arrived in Ruidoso Friday night to play in a tournament Saturday made it challenging to change much..  Given more time -- or if I'd been sure during the week that the letter would become available Friday -- I'd have focused less on the IPRA issue (on which it was pretty obvious Ewing's position was a loser) and more on his charges against the Board.]

[Before I continue, however, I want to mention that Tuesday's County Commission meeting (starting at 9 a.m.) has two items that interest me.  One's the delayed "consideration" of the contract already signed by Sheriff Kim Stewart and the Third Judicial Court, regarding security at Magistrate Court.  Another is a liquor license for Forghedaboudit Southwest Italian Pizza or Yacone Food Group, LLC.  It's of interest because the main owner of the pizza restaurants (in Deming), Bob Yacone, apparently has a child abuse conviction from a few years ago.  Further, he reportedly committed another felony in a more recent incident, a road-rage incident in which he pointed a gun at a family.  (He's also, I think, made himself sort of obnoxious on Facebook.) In any case, state law doesn't allow a convicted felon to get a liquor license.  (I'd have thought the prior felony should also have precluded his threatening a family with a gun.)  That rule may be why the "principal contact" for Yacone Food Group LLC is Kimberly K Yacone, not Robert.  From all available evidence, Mr. Yacone is not a person who should have a liquor license in Las Cruces.  I do not know much about the law on liquor licenses, but it seems worth going to Motel Boulevard and expressing my view Tuesday morning.]

[Ewing's letter makes a bunch of accusations, mostly at Boardmember Maria Flores and threatens to file complaints with the New Mexico Public Education Department and with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission.  He claims "gender-based discrimination and retaliation."  He demands two full years' salary in a lump sum as the price of peace.  His legal case sounds dubious, for a number of reasons.  I think his major hope was that (particularly with elections and a possible recall on the horizon) the Board would negotiate with him and pay him significant money to go away.  That's where lawsuits can function as a legalized form of extortion.
I'll be interested to learn more facts, and won't fully judge this matter now; but it'd be an interesting jury trial!  "Gee, jurors, I made such a hash of running the schools that it sparked a bunch of lawsuits, at least one already settled with a payment of money, and violated IPRA, and apparently abused the administrative leave procedure, and tried to keep that fact secret from the public, and may even have misled the Board of Education about it; my work spawned a recall effort; but I was a great administrator, and by the way, here's a letter from the famous Hannah Skandera admonishing the Board and Ms. Flored on behalf of the disgraced former governor, Ms. Martinez."  Skandera's letter, with New Mexico jurors who were awake during the 2010's, may not have the impact Ewing's lawyers seem to think it should.  On the other hand, the Board might have a tough time explaining why, so recently and despite growing public dissatisfaction with Ewing, he got an extension and, I think, a raise.  So from a jury standpoint, it could be interesting.
Anyway, I'll follow this with interest.  There's a lot we don't know, including how many of the board-members had stopped drinking Ewing's Kool-Aid.  It appears, contrary to immediate speculation when he resigned, that the Board did not ask him to resign.  I've no idea what handwriting may have been on the wall, though.]

[A look at the full letter does confirm what I'd speculated: that it's a demand for money; that there was no reasonable basis for withholding it from public view under IPRA; and that it's full of accusations, some of them a bit odd. Journalists (and the school's lawyers) were right that it should have been provided to KVIA immediately, without redactions.]

 [By the way, Greg: we'd still love to have you as a guest on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" to give you an opportunity to articulate your perspective on the last couple of years at LCPS.  Let me know if you're up for it.]

County Government Gets Weird Again

County government is getting a little weird again.

At Tuesday's meeting: (1) someone urged the Commission to put County Manager Fernando Macias on administrative leave; (2) Macias accused County Commissioner Shannon Reynolds and Sheriff Kim Stewart of “blatant misrepresentations”; (3) County Attorney Nelson Goodin told Reynolds, “I'm trying to give you my legal opinion and you seem to want to argue” – then walked away; and (4) we learned that Macias and Stewart never sat down and discussed a contract (for magistrate court security) they were at odds over. 

The Third Judicial District Court (“3JDC”) now has management responsibility for magistrate court and wanted the Sheriff's Office (“DASO”) to provide security. Somehow both Macias and Stewart talked with 3JDC – separately. At one point, per 3JDC sources, there were two contracts floating around. 

As 3JDC Executive Officer David Borunda said Wednesday, “We wanted to fill this critical security need. We didn't care who signed for the county. Who had to approve it on the County's side was between the County and the Sheriff. We didn't care, and wouldn't have been in a position to offer a legal opinion.” He confirmed that the Administrative Office of the Courts reviewed the contract had “didn't have any concern” based on the fact that Sheriff Stewart signed it. 

Apparently Macias doesn't talk to Stewart. Both told Reynolds they hadn't sat down and talked about this. Eventually 3JDC and Stewart signed an agreement. DASO started providing security August 1^st.

Macias told the Commission that Judge Arrieta told him the BoCC needed to approve the security contract. Sources at 3JDC (and DASO) say different. After seeing two versions and discussing them with Macias, 3JDC signed the one the sheriff had signed. So 3JDC knew of the intra-County bickering and signed with DASO. 

How did Macias, whose job includes helping elected officials such as Stewart to do their jobs, not sit down and discuss this with her? That's bad government – although, individually, these are good people, who care about the county. 

We also learned that Stewart filed an EEOC complaint against Macias, alleging that he discriminates against female county elected officials. I have my doubts about that EEOC claim, but wonder whether the County followed proper procedures. County officials referred it to an outside law firm. That firm rejected the Complaint without investigating. In three days. Like a judge granting summary judgment, essentially announcing that even if the plaintiff's factual allegations are correct, there's no legal case. But is that appropriate here?

Personalities complicate things. Although Macias is smart and charming, and brings a boatload of relevant experience, I keep hearing allegations that as judge and as county manager he doesn't always play well with others. Macias might say he is sticking to laws and policies others may not understand or like.

The larger issue is inherent in our mixed system in which elected officials are autonomous – but not really. Certain things aren't spelled out in our laws, which go back to territorial days. (For example, no statute or court decision clearly says whether or not a sheriff can sign a contract without commission approval.) A county manager wants to make sure things run right (as he sees right) while elected officials say they were elected to run an office, and county management shouldn't use purchasing procedures or legal review of contracts as a way of dictating to them.

But “can't we all get along?”

                                               -30-

[This column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 August 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG, Thursday afternoon on KTAL (101.5, FM / www.lccommunityradio.org ) and is available at the KRWG website.  Comments, including criticisms, are invited, here and on those sites.]

[This continuing issue will likely warrant a further column in the foreseeable future.  I should say, these issues, involving the relationships among county officials, the conflicts between elected officials and the county manager, and the degree to which those may be hindering effective county government.]

[Ultimately, the Commission moved to postpone the court contract discussion to its next meeting.  One thing still not clear to me is why the contract with signatures by Third Judicial District Court and DASO was not presented to the Commission, to make clear that one option was to approve that contract as such, after the fact (or if the Law Department insisted, add a signature line for the County Commission, or sign it again -- whatever!).  Also unclear is who at the County is trying to insist on two additional provisions unacceptable to the Court: one involves allowing DASO to hire private security guards in a pinch, and the other would allow either side to cancel the contract in 30 days instead of 60.  If I were the court I'd sure refuse that, lest some political madness at the county lead to a cancellation that left me less than a month to get a new deal in place with someone else. There's also an issue about a provision in the signed contract regarding cost of living increases for deputies -- when the County has a union contract with them.]

[Meanwhile I do want to mention, for folks interested in local government, that preceding the 5 November local election, we've scheduled discussions with candidates for some local offices, and will schedule others, on my show (Wednesdays, 8-10 a.m.) on KTAL, 101.5 FM Las Cruces.).  Walt Rubel and I will question candidates for Las Cruces Mayor on 2 October from 8 - 9:30, and candidates for City Council from 8 to 9 on the last two Wednesdays in September (District 2 on 18 September and District 4 on 25 September.  On 9 October from 8-9 we'll talk with Las Cruces school board candidates.  We have signed up all the candidates for those offices whom we know about, and even reached out to some we've heard may join races.  (If you know of someone planning to run, please tell him or her to contact me!)   We hope to add other races shortly.  Again, those will be on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (or stream us) starting at 8 a.m. on the stated Wednesdays, repeating from midnight to 2 a.m., and the station almost certainly will re-air them at some other time; and we'll also add them to our archives on the website.]

"Memory" -- copyright Peter Goodman

[By the way, Sunday I spoke w Lynn Ellins, Chair of the County Commission.  
He stated, as to the discrimination complaint, that "It came directly to me.  I sat down with Human Resources and the Legal Department.  Each of us concluded independently that she failed to state a cause of action.  She never sated that men would be treated differently.  But I decided to send it to an outside attorney, and she reached the same conclusion.  Procedure was followed.  On the face of the complaint, there was nothing to investigate.
On the issue of whether or not the sheriff had authority to sign, he stated [as an experienced lawyer] that he'd made his own independent search and concluded that she did not, that the Commission is responsible for all county matters fiscal in nature.]
[I remain concerned about how things are going in county government, and so stated to Mr. Ellins. As I see it, sometimes a discrimination complaint is made by someone who has fair reason to complain, but the grounds don't quite fit that legal hook.  A court or hearing officer might dismiss it on that grounds, and in some cases should; but that doesn't mean a good manager should ignore it.  Such complaints are crafted by non-lawyers, and if the complaint didn't include the allegation that Mr. Macias treated or would have treated a man differently, but didn't exclude that, maybe the investigator should have asked Sheriff Stewart.
Too, while Mr. Macias may be giving some county employees reason to complain, that doesn't mean he's evil, or ill-intentioned.  Good communication -- with all parties genuinely open to it -- might go a long way.]

Trump and the Shooter and Us

Donald Trump didn't slaughter 22 human beings in El Paso, wounding and traumatizing many more. He didn't write the killer's racist “manifesto” that tracked Trump's rhetoric while seeking to protect Trump from blame. 

Trump mischaracterized the flood of asylum-seekers as “an invasion,” portraying these would-be immigrants as dangerous. (They're not.) The shooter called the Hispanics he sought to kill “invaders.”

Trump lashed out at Hispanic and Muslim congresswomen, telling them to “Go back where you came from!” – when three were natural-born U.S. citizens and the fourth a citizen longer than Trump's wife. When a Trump mob chanted “Send them back!” Trump wallowed in it. The shooter wrote of Hispanics that “one reason to send them back” was to minimize intermarriage.

The shooter knew so well that he was following Trump's lead that he made a lame effort to protect his hero. Having just turned 21, he stressed that he'd held his racist beliefs since he was a teenager. He added, “I am putting this here because some people will blame the President . . . I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump's rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news.” 

The killer shared Trump's view, echoed Trump's thoughts and language, and sought to protect Trump's political image. That he was a racist in his teens tells us nothing about the role Trump's overheated, racist rhetoric played in this kid's demented desire to kill Hispanics – or his illusion that doing so was somehow justified, even patriotic. 

I don't think Trump wanted such a thing to happen. Someone careless with fire on a dry day likely doesn't “want” a deadly wildfire. 

I can only say that if my column reamed out some local company for polluting streams or killing workers, portraying the owners as vile and dangerous, and some kid with that column in his pocket killed the company's owner and his family, I'd feel pretty miserable. And stupid. And apologetic. (Which is one of the many reasons I seek no high office.)

Trump's racism isn't news. It doesn't answer any important questions. It poses them.

First, what must we do? Nail down the background checks requirement. Prevent private individuals from buying what are essentially weapons of mass destruction. Strengthen laws keeping guns out of the hands of men who beat their spouses or significant others. It's not that any or all of these restrictions would end these mass killings; but if they prevent some deaths, they're worth it. Further, these restrictions don't prevent people from keeping guns for hunting, protection, and other legitimate uses. 

Will anything happen this time? I think something will. Politicians talk about such steps briefly after each tragedy, then do nothing. Trump's talk of compromise elicited a blunt warning from the NRA that his core constituency wouldn't be pleased. But as time passes, with more senseless deaths, support slowly increases. One poll showed that 90% of us support universal background checks – 80% “strongly supporting” them, with five per cent opposing.

We also need, though we are angry, not to let our hearts fill with hatred for Trump, these shooters, or the NRA. Hatred is a poison the hater offers, but we need not drink it. As to our opponents: even hardened skinheads and passionate white supremacists, have learned and changed. Our tattered democracy needs all the civility and thoughtfulness we can give each other.

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 August, 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website (where a spoken version is also available).  The spoken version will air Wednesday and Saturday on KRWG and Thursday afternoon on KTAL Community Radio, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org.)

[The shooting had extra impact on us because it was so close to home and because the shooter so obviously echoed Trump's rhetoric.  One acquaintance has already told me he lost family in the shooting, and we likely know others.  The especially clear tie to Trump's rhetoric is sad confirmation of our fears, and we may soon see more such incidents.  I wonder if the sudden Republican willingness to consider at least some action arises directly from Republican embarrassment over their leader's role in this one.]

[Too, about Trump's overbearing "visit" to El Paso, the less said the better.  Survivors still in hospital either were in too bad a condition to meet Trump or flatly refused.  However, some family and first-responders met with him, and posed for photos and video for the Trump re-election campaign, even though Trump was unwelcome generally in El Paso -- and still owes El Paso more than half a million bucks for his last campaign rally there.]

[Interesting:Just after finishing this column, I received a copy of this Vanity Fair piece on right-wing terrorists arguing for lesser sentences because of Trump .A defense attorney for the gent who sent (defective) pipe bombs to Trump's enemies argued, "In this darkness, Mr. Sayoc found light in Donald J. Trump" and that Sayoc was a Trump "superfan" who began to believe leading Democrats were "imminently and seriously dangerous to his personal safety."
The piece cited "at least a half-dozen such cases," including a man convicted of plotting to bomb Somali refugees who argued that Trump (as a candidate) had inspired him.  Attorneys for a man who posted anti-Muslim threats on a mosque's Facebook page said he was just using language like Trump's to express thoughts like Trumps, while another defendant cited Trump's  travel ban.
A man accused of groping a woman on an airplane told arresting officers that the President said such conduct was okay, while attorneys for a man who "assaulted a child for not removing his hat during the national anthem" said he hadn't realized it was a crime because "his commander-in-chief is telling people that if they kneel, they should be fired."
As the Vanity Fair piece notes, "Trump and his allies have dismissed any suggestion that his words contributed to the violence, arguing that mental illness is to blame."
A quote in the piece might apply to this shooter.  One expert says that for a person who feels "aggrieved or persecuted in your whiteness, . . . hearing the president say these things validates your feelings and it provides, in your own warped mind, an excuse to go out and act on your grievances."

Below, I've included two paragraphs from the Vanity Air piece, though I recommend reading the entire piece. 


Take for example when Trump entertained the notion of gunning down immigrants at a May campaign rally in Florida. “How do you stop these people?” he mused, to which an audience member shouted, “Shoot them!” Trump and his audience laughed it off. “That’s only in the panhandle you can get away with that stuff,” Trump said. “Only in the panhandle.” A supporter of sound mind might shrug off Trump’s remarks as a joke. But, Schouten explained, “For these particular individuals at risk—and it is only a very small percentage of people—that is encouragement. That is a license. That is an endorsement of not only their feelings but their fantasized actions going forward. And for sure, the higher up that endorsement is coming from, the more substantive the impact.” And when that perceived encouragement is coming from the president of the United States, “Well, it is hard to unring that bell,” he added.


A common thread among the mass shootings in El Paso, Christchurch, New Zealand, and Poway, California, is that the alleged killers bought into a racist conspiracy theory dubbed “the Great Replacement,” which falsely claims that white people are being “replaced” by immigrants or other ethnic groups. It is also a story that has been told, in a more diluted form, by Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers including Iowa congressman Steve King and Texas senator John Cornyn. “You could literally pull out excerpts from—I hate calling them manifestos—but the San Diego, the Christchurch, and now the El Paso manifestos, you can just crib from them the tropes and the narrative they are attempting to espouse and compare them, side by side, with comments from the president, in regards to immigrants to congresswomen of color to muslims to whomever,” said Nate Snyder, a former senior DHS counterterrorism official. “And you literally see, coming from him, that our southern border or other areas are under attack and are being invaded by others.”]

Reflections on How to Be

At Saturday's farmers market, three men asked whether I'd thought about becoming a Catholic.

One turned out to be the son of two close friends of mine from the 1970's. We spoke energetically of our love for them – and of the plane crash that killed them so young. 

“At each moment, do not rely on tomorrow. Think of this day and this day only, because the next moment is uncertain and unknown,” wrote 13^th Century Japanese zen master Dogen. I first read that while riding on a train through North China. Just then the train lurched to a sudden stop, on a bridge. Outside my window a peasant lay dying, hit by the train. Point taken. I have Dogen's words on a T-shirt.

Constant awareness of our fragility and individual insignificance seems important. Most religions teach the transitory nature of this life, yet organized religious groups pile on the pomp and pompousness their founders eschewed. Sometimes Christian kids fall in love with the pure loving-kindness of the Buddha's words as a refuge from churches' hypocrisy. Sometimes Japanese kids appalled by hypocrisy in temples love the purity of Jesus's words. 

Jesus advised us to take the lowest-status seat at the table, not the highest, and let others raise us up if they choose. Too, if you harmed “the least of these my brothers,” you harmed Him.

Patrul Rinpoche lived that way. An erudite and much-admired (Tibetan Buddhist) lama, he wandered the country, dressed in an old sheepskin, not as a lama. When traveling to some great religious event where he or another lama was to teach hundreds or thousands, he walked. Alone. No fine horse. No retinue. Once a poor woman with three children was traveling to hear Patrul Rinpoche speak. A poor stranger started traveling with them, helping her with the kids and sharing food he begged. When they reached their destination, he excused himself. Next day she was shocked to see him on the high platform, teaching mindfulness and compassion.

Were Jesus and Patrul not brothers?

Seems we're all pathetic humans, struggling to make our way. If being part of a group helps, fine! That's not my style, but I can use all the help I can get, whether the words are Lakota, Biblical, Buddhist, or Taoist. Most religious folks are deeply convinced of their Truth, but can't all be right – unless each religion is groping toward describing something none fully comprehend, and being Hindu, Moslem, or Christian is like using the words “moloko,” “leche,” or “milk.” Nothing to fight over. 

Most religions teach humility, which atheists learn from their awe at natural wonders. Some teach mindfulness, or even that mindfulness means nothing without compassion, faith nothing without good works. Admirable thoughts. But faith, not reason, brings us to religion. One doesn't learn it from a tract. We can't create it on demand, like regenerating an amputated finger.

Humility and loving-kindness are good, and greed and hatred unhelpful, whether we seek a spot in heaven, a better rebirth, or neither. I think Jesus and Buddha would look askance at good conduct motivated by self-interest.

My guess? Deep inside we sense that we are a small part of something bigger, and would like to preserve it, and our kind. I think we crave harmony; but life erodes our consciousness of that craving. We join religions to revive it – disguising our personal insignificance and muting death's finality.

                                                  -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 4 August 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on both KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM, www.lccommunityradio.org. and be available at KRWG's website.]

[Patrul Rinpoche lived most of the 19th Century (1808-1887), in Kham (eastern Tibet, a wonderfully wild place I got to wander through briefly in 1985, a journey strictly forbidden by the Chinese authorities back then).  Wild, beautiful, tough, cold, mountainous country.  Dogen, the 13th Century Buddhist teacher quoted early in the column, kind of revived Zen in Japan in his time.]

[The image is © Peter Goodman,]

[I mentioned young people appalled by the hypocrisy of "Christian" churches, which I saw particularly in the 1960's, with racism and civil rights issues.  Just didn't make sense that people could be so strict in their observance of Christian rites and customs yet not see that giving blacks a fair chance was something Jesus would have supported pretty strongly.  But one friend was half-Japanese, and had been born in Japan.  We were born soon after World War II, and her father, a U.S. serviceman, had skipped out on her mother.  Her mother was a Christian.  a decade or so after my friend's birth, her mother met a Christian man.  Very Christian.  She dated and married him, planning to move to the U.S.  Texas, maybe.  Excited about it, because he said his whole family was Christian.  Fundamentalist Christian, which must mean they were truly, deeply Christian.  (You can see where this is going.  She couldn't.) When they arrived, her husband's mother set her straight, that being Japanese (and an unwed mother, perhaps) she was unacceptable and unwelcome.  "He married you, we didn't!"  Uhhh . . . ?]

[ Ran out of space, but originally intended to express wishes that (a) public figures from Trump to Ocasio-Cortez would display more humility, tolerance, and compassion and (b) we, including this columnist, would display more of those qualities in our comments on those figures and our debates on public issues.]