Understanding Why Folks Kill Each Other

 I’ve long believed that increasing the sentence for homicide can’t cut the murder rate because 90% of people who kill do so when they’re too damned angry, jealous, scared, drunk, or high to think straight. Acting under irresistible impulse, they ain’t stopping to think. Or can’t.

The book, Unforgiving Places, by Jens Ludwig, makes this point vividly. Our legislators and those who yammer at them about crime should read it, or at least Malcolm Gladwell’s New Yorker piece on it, as should law enforcement officials.

The book recounts as an example a 2023 murder. A woman, leaving her teen aged son in the car, goes into a cheap fast-food place and places her order. This big guy behinds her keeps telling her to hurry up. He warns that if she says another word he’ll punch her. She says something to her son, who’s now in the doorway behind the guy. The guy slugs her. Twice. Her shocked 14-year-old son shoots the man, then chases him outside and kills him.

The big guy knew (and assumed she knew) that, in order to move fast, that place didn’t take special orders. Hers was one. So he thought she was selfishly holding everyone up, and then disrespecting him for calling her on it. She thought he was just a jerk. Her son, seeing Mom get punched, wasn’t calculating the penalty for murder.

We each have two ways of thinking.

Criminologists distinguish between instrumental violence (shooting a bank guard to facilitate a robbery) and expressive violence (expressing my rage or jealousy with fists or pistol). Almost all murders are expressive, so laws designed to minimize instrumental murders won’t much change the overall murder rate.

Cops must know this; but criminal laws are written as if that guy in the fast-food joint is as rational as Warren Buffett analyzing all the facts and deciding rationally whether or not to buy a failing business. No. Mostly, people do things on impulses, out of anger or jealousy or because a sudden unexpected opportunity arises to steal some stuff or break things. Consider the recent fatal shootings in Young Park. No one was laying for anyone. No one gained anything. Just happened.

A Chicago program called Becoming a Man teaches teenagers how to handle potentially volatile encounters. In a large randomized trial, Ludwig found that at-risk students who had participated in BAM got arrested for violent crimes 50% less than their peers who hadn’t taken the course. San Francisco’s RSVP program similarly reduced recidivism in violence-prone prisoners, and Boston’s “Operation Ceasefire” (aka the Boston Miracle) achieved a 63% reduction in youth homicides within two years.

Our governor and legislators should contemplate that. It makes perfect sense, too. Sudden moments of anger or fear are tough. Some folks’ lives make those way tougher. If you can get their ears, and enhance both their ability and their motivation to forego violence, some of them will succeed in that when pushed.

Here’s another fact: in dangerous Philadelphia neighborhoods, a group beautifies vacant lots, clearing weeds, planting a lawn, removing trash. Where nothing else has changed, gun violence crime is down 29%.

Our city is actually doing some good things; but there likely are more good ideas in play out there. It’d help for lawmakers to recognize that most of the “criminals” aren’t our “enemies.” They’re us: fellow humans whose road to a calm adulthood was blocked or twisted more than ours was.

                                           – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 8 June, 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper’s webiste and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

[ The most-recent New Yorker issue has Malcolm Gladwell’s discussion of these matters and Ludwig’s book. I’m a long-time admirer of Gladwell, since reading the New Yorker piece he later expanded to the really interesting book, Blink. I still recommend it. ]

[ One BAM exercise divides young men into pairs. In each, one holds a big ball. The other is told he has 30 seconds to get the ball from the other. Each man struggles to hit the ball or pry the other man’s fingers loose. Afterward, the host asks why no one tried just asking if he could have the ball. The general answer was, “well, he’d think I was a [wimp].” The guy holding the ball, asked what he’d do if asked for the ball, said, “I’d give it to him. It’s just a stupid ball.” ]

This Big, Ugly Bill Has Both Obvious and Hidden Dangers for the U.S.

I’m no financial guy.

But isn’t this insane?

Mr. Trump and his cult are determined to pass a bill that will cost us $3.8 trillion plus interest over the next decade, per the Joint Committee on Taxation.) Moody’s Ratings just downgraded our credit. That’ll likely increase the interest rates we pay. We already pay $1.13 trillion per year interest on that national debt – compared with $997 billion on military (plus $304 billion for veterans), $70 billion on highways, and $ 1.72 trillion on people’s health.

The bill will also cut into most every non-military thing our government does: imprison criminals; help folks get necessary medical treatments; help improve the quality of education; foster scientific research that could help treat cancer, improve our air and water, develop innovations that will help us financially in the foreseeable future, help local governments with disaster relief and law enforcement; inspect food and drugs for purity and safety; and enforce antitrust, consumer fairness, white-collar crime, and other laws.

You’d figure that weakening an already pathetic national financial condition AND endangering people’s health at the same time would be done for some high priority, such as responding to Pearl Harbor, fighting the Climate Crisis, or containining a pandemic. Nope.

We must do it to decrease taxes for our richest people – who, by the way, got incredibly richer during the past year. The biggest owners of the large companies that keep poisoning us and our air, causing a lot of those health problems. (The big, ugly bill will also cut our income from oil leases.)

I’d oppose that budget. Ten million U.S. humans will lose medical coverage.

I was a kid during some of our best financial times, the 1950s. Our tax structure was different, more like other nations have: the top brackets had tax rates of 91% and 88%. Not the 37.5% to which Trump lowered it from 39% in 2017. And we were thriving!

That earlier time reflected some different views. It reflected the fact that folks making exorbitant amounts of money do so using infrastructure we all pay for; and the quaint idea that we were all, including the very rich, part of a common nation.

The Bill is huge. Hidden in it, garnering no headlines as they rush it through, the bill also forbids courts from charging government officials with contempt of court for disobeying court orders. Along with the Supreme Court’s gift to Trump of a presidential immunity our founders would have fought duels to prevent, this paves the way for Mr. Trump to become our first dictator. Our first emperor, if he likes.

Of course, the “patriots” who support this don’t realize it would give equal power to B Sanders or A Occasion-Cortez, if one got elected. Or they are pretty confident that we’ll never again have an election real enough to put in a non-Republican?

Fortunately, the courts will likely point out that our Constitution forbids such chicanery. The Constitution’s words, court precedents, and logic say so. Has Jon Roberts figured out what we should do when Trump and cult say, “Sorry, but we’ll do as we please?”

We will keep having hard times to avoid inconveniencing the billionaires. What’s a few extra dead folks and a few extra hours for each worker, when those folks need better Bentleys and have islands to buy.

Still, Missouri Senator Josh Hawley swears he’ll block folks losing healthcare. I hope so.

                                                                    – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 1 June, 2025, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

A Contentious City Council Meeting on "Realize Las Cruces!"

I watched the City Council discuss Realize Las Cruces and the conservative campaign to undo it.

I felt for the folks pushing for a city-wide referendum. That has a certain appeal, but costs money and time. In a representative democracy: we elect representatives we’re politically comfortable with and trust to do their homework, use their judgment, and apply judgment and core values to hundreds of specific issues.

The referendum proponents’ objections seemed to be: that signatures were disqualified if names weren’t identical to the names as registered; and that the City withheld critical information.

The law provides that proponents have a set period for signature collection after the petitions are finalized. After the city clerk examines the submitted signatures, rules some out, and tells the petitioners where they stand, the petitioners can opt for a second period to try to collect enough valid signatures. The proponents say they asked when they could collect signatures, and got no answer. The City Attorney says an attorney answered that question and specifically advised proponents how to cure defects.

A couple of citizens voiced my reaction: whenever I’ve signed a nominating petition, collectors told me to sign the way my name appeared on my registration. Objecting to that requirement sounds specious.

Councilor Bill Mattiace voted for a referendum, saying that obviously more than 4,000 citizens were unhappy with the ordinance. But that’s not clear. Yes, 4671 signatures were submitted, but some were duplicates. Further, how many of those 4671 had been misled or flat-out lied to?

One Saturday at the Farmers’ Market I listened to a gentleman seeking signatures. He said the City was “springing it on people,” without getting voters’ views. Not true. I could testify that I was approached many, many times over a four-year period to attend meetings, answer e-mails, or otherwise learn more about this idea and comment. I’m told there were upwards of 30 public meetings about this. People weren’t interested. Zoning? Ugghhh! Petitioners now argue that a lot of the publicity was on-line, and not everyone is on-line; but a lot was by traditional means, meeting minutes were kept, reports made to the council, and I doubt the newspapers and KRWG were hibernating all those years. Should the City have spent our tax money going house to house?

Telling someone a McDonald’s is going in across the street is false fear-mongering. If you live on a quiet street in a quiet neighborhood, what sane entrepreneur would suddenly try to put in a truck stop or a McDonald's One puts those things where they’re very, very visible and very, very easy to enter and leave. City officials also claim that the new zoning wouldn't permit that. Further, basic parking, setback, and other regulations would likely make it impossible. I gather some of the “horribles” mentioned to citizens aren’t okay under the new code.

So in my one actual encounter, I heard untruths told, very passionately and persuasively. I can’t say they were intentional lies, the kind of whoppers paid canvassers used years ago in trying to recall three city councilors for approving minimum wage increases mandated by referendum.

“Realize Las Cruces!” should make developers more creative in building new neighborhoods and help some folks add a mother-in-law or art studio out back of their existing homes, but make no difference at all to 99.44% of us. Perhaps it’ll be delayed by a likely-to-fail lawsuit over the above claims.

                             – 30 –

 

 [The above column appeared Sunday, 25 May, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). That website also contains station archives.]

[ I’m no zoning expert. I never studied Realize Las Cruces! as deeply as I probably should have.

I do know that the last time someone successfully petitioned for a referendum here was ten years ago when citizens, led by CAFe, petitioned for an ordinance that would raise the local minimum wage gradually over several years. When that happens, the mayor and council are required legally to enact the proposed ordinance unchanged. To my chagrin, they violated law to slow down the process so that the increase was more gradual. Right or wrong in theory, that was illegal.

The minimum-wage proponents opted to just live with that. However, conservatives, funded partly from elsewhere, sought to recall councilors for enacting a minimum wage. They told citizens some real whoppers, such that many citizens asked that their votes be removed. Litigation ensued, and I represented three then-councilors, and we successfully got the recall effort thrown out. ]

[ I lack such detailed knowledge of the current situation, but do know that if the anti-Realize people sued, they’d have a tough row to hoe in court. First of all, courts tend to give a lot of weight to the conclusion of the relevant public official (here, City Clerk Christina Rivera ). Secondly, if my experience was not anomalous, there might be showing of misconduct and misrepresentation in the procuring of signatures.

Obviously some of the disagreements are factual ones that may not be resolved without a court hearing; and if City Attorney Brad Douglas has the evidence he says he has, the petitioners would be well-advised to avoid a lawsuit. ]

[ I do respectfully disagree with my councilor friends who complain that any opposition to Realize! Must be racist. I’ve fought for equality and against racism all my life. I like my quiet garden. If someone is playing music insanely loud, just beyond my back fence, I don’t much care what kind of music it is. I live in a non-single-family-only area; but when a construction crew was storing equipment across the street and making noise early in the morning that shook our house, I wasn’t real pleased. ]

Talking Frankly about Issues

Wednesday I had a vigorous discussion with folks urging Las Cruces to jettison from school libraries books those folks don’t consider “age-appropriate.” Others angrily angrily said I shouldn’t have that discussion.

I disagree with the book-complainers. (They deny being book-banners, although they fought to ban one book a while back.)

I also disagree with the talk-complainers: friends and sometimes political allies trying to tell me whom I may chat with on radio.

In young manhood, I learned, to my surprise, that our society was racist, then that while we sang about freedom we were violently suppressing it in Latin America (to suit United Fruit Company), Iran, and Viet Nam, and that our capitalist system had truly negative aspects. People didn’t say such things. Local radio didn’t invite me. Rather, we got attacked, and the police sometimes joined in, or at least approved minor assaults, battery, or vandalism.

So I believe in free speech. If I can, I’ll invite public discussion with people I disagree with. (Two public official complained that we were “platforming,” these despicable people, my first inkling that “platform” is now a verb.) Yes, I recognize that right-wingers are mounting a campaign to take over the nation’s schools, locale by locale, and institute standards that I’d consider anti-educational; the local folks, whose leaders also lead a local conservative group that has sought candidates for previous years’ local elections, and who complain about “progressive” actions by local boards. I think the local furor about “inappropriate” books is related to the national campaign to put our school administrations back in some earlier century. (Some of the same folks disapprove of the Board of Education being more welcoming to ethnic minorities or kids of uncertain gender than schools were decades ago.)

But I’ll listen. I may disagree on the merits, but I’ll not ban points-of-view. To cite Pope Francis, who am I to judge? We can all be wrong, so why not listen to others? Particularly since my views were once unthinkable.

I don’t like censorship. I also fgure, in a world where kids can view any despicable act on cell-phones, computers, or even in films/videos, removing books seems a little pointless, especially when some of these books try to help kids make sense of the crazy drives, feelings, thoughts, questions, lusts, and impulses we’ve most all had, whether it’s coming to terms with sexual impulses and identifies. When our role-model-in-chief admits (and whom legal papers allege) he touches women without a proper invitation. One court jury agreed; and one wife said he raped her.

The school allows parents to “opt-out” by telling schools not to let their kids read certain books. The book-complainers think that’s not enough. I question whether it’s not too much, at least once kids are 12 or so. But I’m no expert.

This campaign seems political. A book they tried hard to ban from school libraries had been checked out by one kid, ever, with no complaint; but the book was on a national list of objectionable books. Key leaders don’t have kids in the schools at issue. They deny that it’s anti-gay; but one caller noted that they listed as an “explicit sexual passage” a plea to regard gay kids fairly, and they vote for candidates who will make being gay less welcome and would punish trans- folks.

But they’re fellow citizens who have every right to express their opinions on what our schools should do.

                                                  --  30  -- 

[I guess that in this column I offer a polite middle finger to most everyone.] 

[But I should also apologize. As plans for this show developed, I decided that rather than trying to play neutral “host,” I’d question the guests myself. However, I should either have invited someone else or done more research. I did not do an adequate job of defending the schools and freedom of thought. I apologize. Although I think one school-board member overreacted, he was reacting to an actual problem, in my view.]

[The book that Ms. Smith and Juan Garcia had tried to get removed from the shelves in 2023, Jack of Hearts and other Parts, was kept on the shelf because it had helped LGBTQ+ kids deal with the problem of their identities, natures, and experiences. Being teens is tough enough. The extra complication these kids face means they deserve help.

Fact is, the teachers who were assigned to review the challenged book generally had a very negative initial reaction; but after hearing expert testimony on how the book had helped kids, they voted (6-1, I think) to retain it. ]

[ The book had won numerous rewards and highly positive reviews. In a statement, the author, L.C. Rosen, said that the book is more than its mature language, characters, and incidents, and was written to help educate and support LGBTQ kids struggling with their identities.

“I trust teenagers. They’re the best at self-censoring,” Rosen said in the statement. “If a teenager picked it up and started reading it and felt uncomfortable, they easily could have put it down. What’s important is that they have that choice, so that the teens who need these books can find them.”   That sure accords with my thoughts – and my memory of youth. I recall reading a book (Baldwin’s Another Country) in which two major male characters slept together. I was startled, but reading it didn’t upset me, let alone tempt me to imitate them. Kids are harmed far more by the myths about sex and love that surround them, and by their ignorance of real facts, than by exposure to some book. In my day, there was much less awareness of such things; and my lack of knowledge likely caused me to hurt friends, or at least prevented me from understanding and assisting them.

Rosen wrote, “Jack of Hearts had been on shelves for years before someone tried to ban it - it had been reviewed and put on best of the year lists when it first came out, and no one cared then. I find it curious that only now do people want it gone.” ]

[ Why is this local controversy going on? Obviously it’s not because the main complainants, Smith and Garcia, of Coalition of Conservative in Action, have kids or grandkids who were hurt or offended by reading the books. Further, only one kid so far had checked the book out.

If the author is correct, it sat on the shelf years before complaints. Then there were a wave of them, including this one. Was the complaint, using a list other conservatives had made elsewhere, complaining about this book as part of a battle to wrest control of our schools from more mainstream folks? I’d guess so. Again, though, they have that right, although I personally do not think their activities in this regard are in the best interest of the community. However, my role hosting a community radio show is to foster frank but civil discussion of issues in this community. It is NOT to shush stuff so as to help public officials retain their positions, even though personally I may think they’re doing good jobs. Sorry, friends!]

Trump Administration Idiocies 2025 05 16

 Maybe it's not a waste of time to document a few pretty clear examples of administrative idiocy now and then.

 > Former FBI Director James Comey spots seashells on a beach arranged to say "8647," and realizes that means "throw out our 47th President."  It's cute, so he photographs and posts it.   Gotta say a sizeable minority of U.S. citizens would have done the same; and, a year or two ago a different sizeable minority would have done the same with "8646."   As most of us likely know, from experience or literature, to "eighty-six someone" is to throw him (or her) out, usually out of a tavern.  A convenient on-line dictionary gives as the 4th meaning of "eighty-six:" "Slang. a customer considered undesirable or unwelcome and refused service at a bar or restaurant."

Lacking in taste? Perhaps; but so what?

Desperate, Trump reads that as a call not merely to evict him from office, the obvious meaning, but as a criminal call for his assassination. Two other high officials have threatened or advocated prosecution, including the attorney-general.  Prosecution would be an extraordinary waste of time.  

[btw, although this would make little difference, i've seen no allegation that Comey actually arranged the seashells, and it apparently was just found art.]

> Is it worth pointing out that while far-right Republicans voted against Trump's budget bill, because they want to save more money at the expense of ill people, Mr. Trump is spending an unnecessary $45 million to celeb rate the anniversary of the founding of the U.S. Army, because that anniversary happens to fall on Mr. Trump's own birthday?

The Republicans are all happy with continuing all tax cuts, despite the deficit, but plan to save money by cutting Medicaid and food assistance.  Obviously I'm an idiot to wonder why it's so urgent to cut people's food and medical care without for a moment upping taxes on the obscenely rich.

> Speaking of the deficit, while Republicans work to maintain low taxes for rich folks and corporations, Moody's has lowered the nation's AAA credit rating -- for the first time ever.  Moody's is in good company: U.S. citizens just listed their confidence in our economy at the second-lowest percentage ever.  

I'm no economist, so I asked AI what the consequences of this lowering of our credit-rating are:

While immediate effects are limited, the downgrade underscores potential long-term challenges:  I was told that although immediate downturn in market prices was minimal [perhaps because Mr. Trump has already savaged that with tariff idiocy and rampant uncertainty], likely impact will be:

• Higher Borrowing Costs: A lower credit rating can lead to increased interest rates for government and consumer loans.

• Investor Confidence: Persistent fiscal issues may erode investor trust, affecting demand for U.S. debt.

• Policy Pressure: The downgrade may prompt policymakers to pursue more sustainable fiscal strategies.MarketWatch+6Reuters+6Investopedia+6

In summary, Moody’s downgrade serves as a warning about the U.S.'s fiscal health.

 

:

Will Trump's Startling Incompetence Save our Democracy from Him?

Will our democracy be saved by our president’s sheer incompetence?

No longer can anyone seriously doubt that democracy is under siege. Trump and his minions have eliminated from government offices and the military top officials more loyal to the Constitution than to Donald, appointing clowns like Pete Hegseth as our Secretary of Defense, Pam Bondi (Attorney-General), and Krish Patel (FBI Director). They illegally fired seventeen inspectors-general – a position Congress created as a watchdog in important agencies. They’ve attacked law firms, universities, and media for doing their jobs. Threatening Harvard University with losing its tax-deductible status and CBS with losing its license, to intimidate everyone into silence about what’s going on may seem absurd; but if you’ve put folks into the FCC, DOJ, and IRS who will do Trump’s bidding rather than the law’s, who knows? Meanwhile, if every entity that might do some charitable work Trump doesn’t like or report administration abuses knows that truth-telling could cost zillions of dollars in legal fees, citizens may not hear much that Trump-Musk don’t approve of.

Trump won the popular vote and took office with higher poll ratings than he’d previously had. Traditionally, newly-elected Presidents get a useful “honeymoon” period. Trump used his to sink his own poll ratings through an extraordinary run of especially stupid moves, notably his on-again, off-again tariffs. He lacks even a schoolboy’s understanding of tariffs. He’s tried a series of silly explanations. He’s aiding China’s effort to replace the U.S. in global importance. But what’s saddest is that, when the stock market tanked, apparently that surprised Mr. Trump. I could have told him tariffs would torpedo stocks, and I’m an idiot about economics; and who reading this does not know that what most frightens investors and businesses is uncertainty – such as not knowing which crazy tariffs will be implemented (or not) next week?

Trump’s popularity has declined rapidly, especially with independent voters and moderate (or sensible?) Republicans. Although Trump is idiotically proud of his tariffs, a Senate vote to undo them failed on a tie vote – with two Democrats and Republican Mitch McConnell unavailable to vote against the tariffs. (Three Republicans did.) Independents disapprove his performance 68-32%. (In 2024, independents, grown to one-third of the electorate, preferred Kamala Harris 49-46%.)

It’s an interesting race between a suddenly aroused populace, trying to awaken more of us, and Trump-Musk working to keep citizens from (a) getting reasonably accurate information and (b) voting based on it.

Indivisible is extremely popular here. The 50501 Movement, labor unions, and faith-based groups are organizing everywhere. Some number of Republican leaders with some respect for the rule of law are tiring of Trump, with a few even daring to say so. Even the Wall Street Journal and Fox News, both of which would likely consider me a communist, have seen enough of Trump to be scared – at least for our economy and maybe for our democracy.

But many get their news from X, and other sources that have historically been unusually friendly to Mr. Trump. (Doesn’t Fox mind that Trump wants its polling department fired or jailed for reporting that people see that he’s naked? ) Mr. Trump simply lies. It’s his way. Supporters don’t care if he’s truthful, while most others won’t belief him anyway. When his mistakes hurt Trump voters, they’ll blame Biden. And Congressional Democrats don’t do splendidly in polls, either.

Donald is our best hope for preserving democracy from him.

                                                              --30 – 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 4 May in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and KTAL-LP (101.5M / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/.)]

[Little more to say except: (1) that moments after I sent in the above column to the newspaper, I received news of the federal judge’s decision in the Southern District of Texas throwing out the whole idea of mis-applying the ancient Alien Enemies Act to deport people to that El Salvador torture chamber. I immediately sent off an alternate column, which is also on the Sun-News’s website and which I’ll post herre tomorrow; and (2) Trump reached a new and special level of idiocy when asked by ABC News, on camera, what the declaration of independence meant to him.

Immigrants seeking citizenship must answer a very similar question. You be the judge of whether Mr. Trump would pass or fail on this question.

Trump’s response was:

“Well, it means exactly what it says, it’s a declaration,

it’s a declaration of unity and love and respect, and it

means a lot and it’s something very special to our country,”

Fact is, it’s a blunt warning to Great Britain that men should be free of kings and emperors and that we’re free and independent states that will fight if England wants to maintain its rule over the American colonies. Trump’s blather sure wouldn’t cut it if I were judging immigrant’s answers.

I’m not sure where this ranks among his statements that we could or should nuke hurricanes into submission, that global warming is a Chinese hoax, and that wind turbines cause cancer.]

A Positive Step on Separation of Church and State

Law and fairness mandated the Doña Ana County Commission’s refusal to celebrate “religious” speeches that insult some constituents.

Separation of church and state was extremely important to the nation’s founders, and our state’s. Madison listed non-establishment of religion first in our Bill of Rights. It’s stated even more explicitly in Article II, Section 11 of our state constitution, which proclaims freedom of worship and adds, “Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship."

Whether or not sponsoring a day of prayer, without specifying the nature of the prayer, would withstand legal challenge isn’t clear-cut.

However, the context of the vote left a reasonable commissioner little choice.

I have no faith. I prize much of what Jesus and the Buddha are said to have said. I disliked religion when young, because I believed in equality and peace and saw churches hypocritically trampling all over those, although Jesus’s words seemed to suggest compassion. I learned in Tibet to respect the religious faith others guide their lives by, whether it’s Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, or the Mayan spiritual tradition, though I abhor how members of dominant faiths have sometimes treated minorities, or any violence over which god to follow how. Would Jesus want Catholics and Protestants fighting?

The non-establishment of religion our founders prized has remained important, in our modern world, where supposedly “Christian” voices abuse that faith to support exclusion, nationalism, contempt, and discrimination.

Again, Jesus’s words, and their spirit, are wonderful. Living by them is challenging but admirable. But the use of Jesus’s name to foment hatred and divisiveness, as speakers at past local “National Days of Prayer” have done, and as too many are doing across the nation, is un-Christian and un-American.

Our county commissioners represent all of us.

They represent Jews, whom the Catholic Church officially blamed for killing Jesus until about 1963. They represent Islamic immigrants, whose countries suffered “the Crusades,” European colonization, and U.S. imperialism, and who are ill-treated by our federal government. They represent Jews, atheists, and Muslims who have lost jobs or suffered discrimination for their beliefs. Probably Wiccans, too. And the tribes.

They represent women who’ve had abortions – something that was lawful and accepted in the U.S. colonies, but which rightwingers have (with no scriptural evidence of Jesus’s views) claimed Christianity abhors, and have used Christianity to criminalize – with draconian laws, in some states.

They represent gay, transgender, genderless, and just plain “queer” folks who get persecuted by some states in the name of Christianity and who’ve been the subject of hate speech at “Days of Prayer.” They represent men whose lives were destroyed as altar boys by the child molestation epidemic in the “celibate” Catholic Church. They represent Islamic or Hindu parents who wonder why their child was given Christmas-related projects and homework in public schools.

For Christians to worship, and to gather to worship, is wonderful. For Christians here to use “Christianity” (or Jews in the Middle East or Hindus in India with their faiths) as a weapon against others isn’t.

I believe all of us should be grateful each moment for life. But you may not, or may thank a god I never heard of. Great!

Given the “culture wars” and politicians’ use of them to divide and distract us, why not let everyone decide whether or not, and how, to worship. As the founders urged. And as the County heard.

                                                         – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 27 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and

on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and KTAL-LP (101.5M / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/.)]

Hell

Study the picture carefully. Men clad only in white shorts, each sitting with his butt on the floor between the knees of the man behind him, all shackled, in a place that tortures people.

You’re a decent sort. Can you imagine putting anyone into that situation? Take the young fools who started firing guns at each other among vulnerable bystanders in Young Park. I couldn’t put one there.

Study the picture. Imagine being one of those men. Stripped of your individuality; freedom a vague memory, no ability to stretch your body or move; never a book or newspaper or chocolate bar, from now until death frees you. Take long enough to let yourself truly imagine it. Imagine that your brother, lover, father, or son is there too, suffering, and knowing there could be no mercy or escape. Ever. Never even a game of chess of dominoes to exercise your mind – and damned sure no tennis or softball.

Imagine that vividly enough to form YOUR opinion of men who would put other men, most not even criminals, into that picture and into the custody of folks who violate human rights regularly, and perhaps enjoy it.

It’s like some old photographs we’ve seen. After months and years, these men will resemble those scared and skeletal Jews and socialists the Allies [our fathers] freed from Nazi concentration camps in 1945.

Understand that these same authorities could put us exactly there if we speak up against them. “But I’m a citizen!” you protest? Their jefe – our jefe – has said “homegrowns” are next. He considers Congresswoman Liz Cheney a criminal traitor.

We had a country where folks could speak up, right or wrong, agreeing or disagreeing with the government, because we had no King, Fṻhrer, or dictator but a democracy, where airing diverse viewpoints in New Hampshire town meetings was our founding dream.

Now contemplate that scientist arriving for a meeting here, getting her computer searched, and getting deported for writing something el jefe might not approve of. Nazi Germany wasn’t quite as paranoid; but, like the Nazis, we’re discouraging visitors, making decent folks uncomfortable and suggesting visitors are vulnerable; and decreasing our commitment to quality education and openness, which helped make us great. Hitler destroyed Picasso’s paintings and Donald Trump now chairs the Kennedy Center.

Just studying the details physically sickens me. Most of those men have absolutely no criminal record, anywhere. Of the men we sent to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorsimo, 90% have no U.S. criminal record, and just a dozen have serious charges against them. 90%. (The one admitted “administrative error,” Salvador’s jefe, sitting with ours, announced will not be returned.)

What evil could someone do to deserve a lifetime of this, 7,300 days of this torture, if a man lives 20 years. Or perhaps more than 10,000 “days!” A quarter of a million hours.

Can Christians read this and accept that YOU AND I are doing this to men who have never been shown to have murdered or raped, many of whom have never even been brought to trial on any charge? What mental gymnastics make this something Jesus would accept? Wouldn’t your just God sentence el jefe and the rest of us to his Hell, for putting these folks through ours?

Sometimes we have a duty to scream. Loud as we can. Hope some neighbors and friends awaken. Historians still argue about how much the average German knew.

                                                       – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 20 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper’s website (more politely headlined, Watching Deportations and Considering Humanity and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[There’s so much more to say about all this, of course. For a fig leaf of legality, Trump’s people reached back to an inapplicable old statute, last used during World War II, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This rarely used wartime statute grants the president authority to detain or remove nationals of a hostile nation during times of war or invasion. We are not at war with Venezuela; and Venezuelan migrants have generally come here to escape Venezuela’s government, not as an invading force on its behalf. So the law is clearly inapplicable; and the terrible harm to the wrongly deported individuals sure warrants preliminary injunctive relief while the court consider that question, particularly since the U.S. and Salvadorean dictators have refused to return one person known to be wrongly deported, despite a court order. They seem to be saying that although they have a contract for Salvador to house these folks, for money, the U.S. can’t require the individual’s return as part of the contractual compliance. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t act as it should have regarding the first group, but apparently has delayed and may prohibit transfer of another group. The courts have required that affected persons have a reasonable opportunity to contest deportation in court. Stay tuned. ]

[Meanwhile, Trump is chortling, “homegrowns next.” If he can deport U.S.-born alleged gang members to the Salvadorean prison notorious for violating folks’ human rights and due process, and every torturing folks, he can deport any of us there. Then pretend he can’t get us back if the courts so order! End of constitutional due process; and since he’s trying to use the justice system (and the IRS) against anyone who thinks or speaks independently, rather than only against criminals, a whole lot of people should feel threatened. That includes anyone who disagrees with Trump-Musk-Vance about anything, but also anyone who disagrees with some future president, of any party, about anything, because if Trump breaks down our legal protections, some successor could (though I hope and trust they wouldn’t) use abuse Trump-supporters in the same way.]

[The poor legal excuse for all this, and the Trump Administration's disregard for court orders, let the Supreme Court not only to set speed records in putting on a hold on another shipment of humans to hell, but to make clear its distrust for the Administration.  A prior order said that any more deportations must be preceded by an opportunity for the prospective deportee to challenge the action in court; but with the newest planned shipment, the administration gave folks a few hours, on Good Friday, to raise legal challenges, and had some already on buses.  The Supreme Court could read that as well as anyone and ordered the pause; and it do so even before the appellate court had offered an opinion on the ACLU's request for a stay.]

 

 

Protecting Jurors and Justice

Juries are on my mind because my radio co-host recently served on two and because of concerns raised by lawyers’ efforts to undo the jury verdict that former LCPD Officer Brad Lunsford was guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

Those efforts could endanger the jury system, by subjecting a juror to a wide-ranging inquisition; but Lunsford is surely entitled to a fair trial.

On April 1, the state supreme court granted a temporary stay that Attorney-General Raúl Torrez said was needed to protect the juror from harassment, calling the proposed questioning “an ideological witch hunt.”

I can’t judge Lunsford’s guilt or whether this is an ideological witch hunt. Most of what Juror #8 has said about hoping for equality, seeing racism in our society, and being glad other white moms were facing up to that racism after George Floyd, many would say – and still be able to judge fairly a specific police officer in an individual case. (Does saying people shouldn’t kill others mean you’re barred from Luigi Mangione’s jury? Does saying cops shouldn’t kill people without some justification mean you’re barred from Mr. Lunsford’s jury?)

Federal law strongly discourages such post-trial questioning. Even where a juror intentionally gave dishonest answers during jury selection, the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly limited lawyers’ questioning of jurors. To overturn a verdict, lawyers must prove a deliberate lie when the truth would have elicited a valid challenge for cause. No fishing expeditions.

We should avoid intrusive post-verdict questioning unless it’s absolutely necessary, partly because we want private citizens to give readily of their time when asked to serve on juries. Knowing that jury service will likely trigger public scrutiny won’t encourage that. Our modern predicament, with almost everyone filtering almost everything through a partisan political lens, heightens the dangers. Here, pro-Lunsford folks started an on-line harassment campaign, publicly accusing the juror of “a disgusting and blatant bias,” and being a Black Lives Matter activist, and lying to infiltrate the jury so as to convict a police officer.

The jury system depends upon frank and robust deliberations; but if chance comments are likely to lead to intrusive post-trial questions, deliberations will be far less open. If manditory post-verdict questioning were a routine part of jury service, some juries in controversial cases might reach verdicts designed to avoid hassles, not verdicts designed to do justice.

I hope the New Mexico Supreme Court sharply limits post-juror questioning. If Juror #8 intentionally answered falsely to a material question in voir dire, even lying by omission, questions directly relevant to that could be appropriate; but harassing jurors with post-trial fishing expeditions isn’t. This may be particularly urgent where a juror has dared to vote for criminal conviction of a police officer, when the local police chief publicly urged folks to support the defendant after the verdict. In all cases, we need jurors to feel free to vote as their consciences dictate, without fear of repercussions.

If I were a judge, I’d likely allow some questioning about her SURJ membership, what that meant, and why she didn’t mention it during voir dire; but, judging from Defendant’s brief, Defendant’s lawyers know most of the relevant facts. Let the courts decide whether or not they’re things she should have articulated in voir dire; and then decide, keeping in mind that she was one juror among 12, whether a new trial is warranted.

Hears hoping the New Mexico Supreme Court finds the right balance.

                                         – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 13 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version aired during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[Sorry not to post this six days ago. I usually post the Sunday Sun-News columns here on Sundays, but didn’t manage it this time. It’s also a still-developing story I may return to, for discussion of related developments.]

Reflections on "Government Efficiency" -- and Wondering Whether Trump's Stupid Tariffs Are Kind of Clever for Trump

Efficiency is like speed: it doesn’t matter how fast you go if you don’t know where you’re going.

We’d all like government efficiency. Folks working reasonably hard,

only spending our money wisely; and not having seven management types directing someone how to replace a light bulb. And three checking her work.

But we might stop and ask, “do WHAT efficiently?” Having our government looking out for our best interests, whether in national security, criminal justice, overseeing medical care or fostering scientific development, or helping folks survive, we’d all like government to save the most cancer-ridden kids or build the most intimidating weapon as efficiently as possible.

Efficiency for us would mean getting an honest day’s work for a day’s pay from all public employees, protecting us from foreign attack without spending huge bucks on fancy but badly-designed weapons corporations can profitably sell us, treating the poor and disabled with compassion but not getting conned; and protecting us from the air and water pollution, dangerous or ineffective drugs, overly sharp business practices, and unhealthy food corporations plague us with, without endangering our economy. It’d mean government encouragement of science and quality education, because those are how we became pre-eminent in the world.

But efficiency for Musk-Trump and their corporations differs. They, like Calvin Cooolidge, believe, “The chief business of the American people is business.” For corporations, the bottom line and corporate survival are all that matter. Maximize shareholder return. That’s a corporation’s legal duty. Good citizenship is irrelevant.

So, for them, human services, whether to injured or PTSD-plagued veterans, children with cancer, folks born with terrible disabilities, old folks, or injured workers, are inefficient, so minimize those expenditures. Regulation of business is obviously counter-productive, so toss consumer protection, the EPA, and as many tax enforcers, drug inspectors, and antitrust lawyers as you can. Particularly experienced ones.

I don’t think my pickleball friends who love Mr. Trump elected him to destroy social security and mistreat war veterans.

They elected him to lower prices – not to increase them (and destroy our international alliances and economy) by imposing pointless and wildly excessive tariffs.

Tariffs are taxes you and I pay. By gathering money from what amounts to a sales tax on our purchases of cars, computers, and food, the government can afford to lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

Some folks are starting to recognize that incompetence trumps ideas and ideologies. (yeah, pun acknowledged.) Mr. Trump wants to foster a highly-profitable and successful economy; but his arbitrary tariffs (and the uncertainty generated by having Elon Musk run the country) have the stock market in the tank, mortgage interest rates rising, and home prices falling.

Particularly since any complex product, including a pickup truck, contains parts that have crossed borders, been improved or connected, then recrossed borders, the added costs could be crazy.

Meanwhile, China is laughing. Trump’s tariffs are driving our friends into China’s arms; we’re undoing our financial primacy in the world; our “efficient” jettisoning of long-range stuff like education and science, and our absence of intelligent leadership, help pave China’s road toward world leadership. (Abruptly ending USAID programs, which quietly helped our position in the world, is just one more courtesy to China.) Meanwhile, embarrassments like the Signal “secret conference” – stupidly held on an insecure application, then including gratuitous insults to allies – is one more huge red flag for anyone thinking of trusting us.

Well, just 45 more months left.

                          – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 6 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website, and should be posted soon on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[There’s plenty more to say, but economists and experts are saying it better. We need focus on how devastating Trump’s combination of narcissism, greed, and stupidity could be for our government. Even if democracy survives, and even if other countries don’t take full advantage of his putting beginners into top national security positions and firing the head guy in charge of cyberdefense, and even if the tariffs leave us some friends and some vestige of a decent economy, it’ll be a long time before we regain other countries’ respect and are again able to handle emergencies, manage social security, treat veterans, oversee health care, and do all the other things we like government to do. Trump voters are not immune to disease or PTSD, but may or may not, when they can not get the usual services, recognize who’s to blame.

Long term, we’re undermining the quality of our education, frightening away foreign tourists, intimidating foreign experts and students, cutting support for scientific and medical research, and, basically, eliminating needed staff from everything. China won’t do that, and its long-term battle to match or exceed us in many areas, and to become the world’s first among equals, just got a hell of a boost from Mr. Trump. And the growth of climate weirdness, endangering our species and killing off others, goes unchecked, at least by us, Yemen, and Iran. (Other countries get it.)

I wish us good luck. We don’t deserve it. ]