Science and Faith -- Recalling Robert Ingersoll

In the local March for Science on Saturday, I will march thinking of Robert Ingersoll.

Maybe I'll carry this quotation from him: “We are the advocates of inquiry, of investigation and thought. This of itself, is an admission that we are not perfectly satisfied with all our conclusions. Philosophy has not the egotism of faith.”

He said that during the last half of the 19^th Century, when he was famous – and infamous – as “The Great Agnostic.” Many religious folks hated him passionately; but he was a hugely entertaining speaker. People in the Southwest would ride miles on horses or mules to hear him. An Iowa newspaper described faithful Baptists buying tickets and laughing loudly at his witticisms, even though they vehemently disagreed with him.

Ingersoll was a self-educated man who spoke sense, an eloquent dissenter with much to say, not only to his own time but to ours. 

Ingersoll and other “freethinkers” believed in reaching conclusions based on evidence and reasoning, not appeal to ancient authorities (or, as he stated, to sacred writings by men who believed that the sun revolved around the earth). A part of his work was to explain Darwin's discoveries in a way that laypersons in the audience could “get” evolution. Many who heard him maintained their strong faith, but recognized that certain aspects of the Bible were not literally true. 

Questions about science and faith were newer then than now. Ingersoll's belief that these questions were being answered forever was a bit optimistic. Most of the western world assumed after the Scopes Trial that religious objections to the scientific evidence of evolution would fade away; but I'm still hearing them from Las Crucens.

Ingersoll applauded our Founding Fathers for creating “the first secular government in this world” when all European nations were still based on union with churches. He called ours “the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights, and no more” and said our government had “retired the gods from politics.”

Meanwhile, the Doña Ana County Commission has passed an ordinance calling for all meetings to begin with a prayer or similar statement of good wishes for the Commission and the public.

That feels like we're going backwards. We're entitled to our various gods (or none). Most beliefs are based on some beautiful words. I hope faith improves the lives of the faithful but good sense and the thought-out preferences of our Founders mandate keeping those gods out of the business of self-government.

I discussed this with an Islamic acquaintance. No one had notified the mosque, or invited anyone from the mosque to pray; and the supporting materials in the agenda packet concerning this indicate that the proponents contemplated Christians and Jews – but would allow humanists, Wiccans, etc. to give invocations, to keep things legal and “fair.” 

When I asked him how he felt about the ordinance, he said that religion and government should be separate. I wondered later whether recent Middle Eastern history illustrates the importance of separating Church and State with an immediacy we lack. I asked if Moslems should challenge the ordinance, or sign up to give an invocation. Gently, he replied, essentially, that although he felt somewhat excluded from the plan, and disapproved, he did not want to make unpleasantness. That sometimes the better course was staying quiet.

His gentle way is not always my way, but seems wiser, somehow.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, April 8, 2018, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  During the week a spoken version will air on KRWG and on KTAL 101.5 FM.] 

[I truly wish folks well in their religious faith.  There are so many appealing faiths, each of which contributes many fine ideas or practices to our collective potential.  So long as those faiths are used to unite people toward the benevolent purposes most or all faiths espouse, great!  When they are used to separate and divide, even to justify killing and other hoorrible mistreatment, that's an affront to all of us and to the god in whose name someone hates or kills.

On the other hand, science is common to all of us.  It does not know all the answers, and does not claim to; but it approaches the gathering of knowledge by rational thought, experimentation, and rigorous method.   It determined long ago that the earth revolves around the sun, which certainly seems to be true, although personally I could probably not prove it; and after some quibbling, which cost a few notable lives, the Church accepted that.  Science determined in the 19th Century that we developed through evolution, not by having a Creator design us and plop us down on this planet in our current form a few thousand years ago.  Those principles -- evolution and the fact that the planet is considerably older than some religious texts suggest -- have so far stood the test of time.  Again, I couldn't prove either, personally; but if evolution is somehow wrong, someone will prove that by using the scientific method to assemble facts and scientific observations into a powerful package that disproves evolution in a way none of us could reasonably disagree with -- not by whining, "Evolution sort of conflicts with my religion, so can we pretend it never happened or teach kids 'Creationism' instead?"  I'm aware of no scientific evidence of a Creator -- let alone that some Supreme Being wishes to be called "God," or "Allah" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah," or "the Great Spirit" to the exclusion of those other names.  Most of the religious leaders I've met tend to agree with that, but argue that what we observe in nature and national history is perfectly consistent with the existence of a God.  I'd probably agree, and I think Ingersoll did too.]

[I've picked up Ingersoll's biography again.  I hadn't realized much about his war record.  "Colonel" wasn't some honorary moniker.  He fought valiantly, once saving a large force by holding off, with a small force of mostly inexperienced soldiers, a larger Confederate force advancing; and he would have been a higher-ranked officer except that he disapproved a lot of how the war was being run, and resisted promotion. He was captured by the Confederate Army -- but General Forrest "paroled" him after coming upon a scene in which Union prisoners and Confederate soldiers alike were listening spellbound to an impromptu speech by Ingersoll, standing on a box outside where he and others were being confined.]    

Inauguration Weekend

Donald Trump lost the first weekend of his presidency.  Big-time.  Or did he?

Headline items were his fixation (and misjudged response to) a smaller-than-hoped-for inauguration crowd on Friday; a tasteless stop at CIA Headquarters Saturday; and a huge national "women's march" against his misogyny, personal conduct, and public policies.

His crowd wasn't huge.  Some folks credited that to his remarkably low public approval, for a gentleman elected two months ago and just taking office.  Trump, upset, sent a minion out to deny reality.  His P.R. guy said the crowd was unusually large, despite clear photographic evidence to the contrary.

The incident was significant not because it was a lie, or even because it was a stupid lie, but because it was also such an unnecessary lie.  Obviously it was psychologically necessary to contest a perceived effort to de-legitimize Trump's victory; although to any perceptive person the fixation with legitimacy serves only to let us know that Trump is insecure on that score. (I'm surprised Trump didn't blame the low turnout on sabotage of public transportation by liberal residents of D.C.)  But in any practical sense, it was unnecessary.  First, there was no need to address the whole crowd issue.  Second, there were ready and reasonable explanations why Obama's 2009 crowd, and even Obama's 2013 crowd, dwarfed Trump's 2017 crowd.  Two such explanations stand out: Obama's 2008 win was historic, the first successful Presidential run by a person of color, and there were a whole lot of people who wanted to witness that piece of history, whether or not they liked Obama; and in particular people of color wanted to be there, and D.C. is conveniently full of those.  The second, and quite reasonable explanation, is that the bulk of Trump's voters were working-class folks who live in rural areas far from D.C.  For them, it wasn't a trivial matter to take a couple of days off to travel to D.C. and attend an inauguration.

Instead, Trump chose a fight with the media that he couldn't win.  Dumb.  Or maybe not?

He doubled-down on that by lying again at the CIA.  After tastelessly bragging instead of acknowledging with any real respect the names of CIA officials killed in the line of duty, instead of trying to bury the hatchet with the CIA (which was still investigating his and his cohorts' Russia connections), he ludicrously denied there was any hatchet.  The media made it all up.  Despite plenty of tapes of him saying what he said, he now claimed it was all media bullshit.

Seems a bad start to a Presidency, if you think a U.S. President should tell the truth or at least limit himself to vaguely plausible lies.  Trump loses, with anyone who studies evidence and reasons from it.  But there's a pattern here: what if sufficient attacks on the media convince his followers (who are already half way there) that everything they see on the media is liberal propaganda?

Peter and Nacho by Bernie

Saturday brought a very different event.  What started as a "women's march" to protest Trump's and the Republican Party's treatment of women, startled everyone by its size and passion, not only in major cities but all over the country, even the world.  My part of that world is a little city in New Mexico named Las Cruces.

 by Bernie Digman

We, frankly, had not really intended to participate, though we sympathized.  We did get down to the Farmers' Market, though.  It was technically closed because of cold temperatures, possible rain, and predicted strong winds, but three of our favorite vendors were there.  Since the march was to start from that area, we lingered to visit with friends.  There were speeches and signs in the new Plaza de Las Cruces, and we lingered longer, listening to speeches and gabbing with friends.

Ilana and Yosef by Bernie

The march route here was short: North on one street bounding the Downtown Mall, then a quick jog West to walk back along the south side of the Mall, then back east to where we'd started.  Quite to our surprise it turned out there were about 1,500 people marching.

A couple of things struck me, as a veteran of the 1960's.  First was that this was a march of people of all ages.  Some of the older ones I knew had experienced the 1960's and 1970's too.  The day bore similarities to those days, but was also quite different.  The energy was similar; some fellow old folks were concerned about security: one fellow old guy,

Earl and someone by Bernie D

protester then and later a lawyer and judge, said he'd used his old SDS training to advise his daughter, marching in D.C., to wear good boots, carry water, wear a bandanna in case it was needed as a bandage, etc.; and another friend, a Viet Nam vet I've known for 45 years, said he came over only because he wanted to make sure there was no problem with security.  I hadn't expected one; but I watched the cars that passed us.  Many honked; but I saw not a single middle-finger and heard not a single insult addressed to us.  People waved or put a thumb up, or just sat in their cars watching; but

Another by Bernie Digman

there wasn't a hint of hostility.   Having moved here in 1969, and witnessed the next few years of antiwar agitation in this conservative western town, I could testify to how different such a march would have been then.

I would have gone home earlier; but watching my wonderful wife, who's noticeably younger than I, made me recognize how different her day was from mine, in that she'd had few such moments.  For people under a certain age, Saturday had a special freshness to it, and they watched and listened with obvious wonder.

71? Yeah, this shit gets old.

In the 1960's, the government was way off base.  The rampant prejudice against blacks, not merely in the south, had lasted way too long; and the pointless and unwinnable war in Viet Nam was known even to those running it to be stupid and unwinnable, despite their public proclamations to the contrary; anyone could see it was not only dumb but way dumb; but it persisted.  We recognized that, initially with some surprise, and protested that, as a tiny minority, and got persecuted to some degree, and eventually saw our point of view spread among the populace and prevail.

Then we got spoiled.  Successive governments made plenty of mistakes over the years, but probably none was ever so

Same beyond 71.

completely out of tune with the majority (or with rationality) as this one promises to be.  Against such a government, there is tremendous power in average folks, standing shoulder to shoulder with each other, being there for each other.  Understanding that despite their personal concerns and preoccupations, something national needs their attention, their thoughts, their words, their feet.

I hope we will prevail.  This government is particularly out of step with its largest constituency: working-class white folks, not racist or "deplorable" but very tired of how both the wealthy Republicans and the managerial-class Democrats have given them

short shrift during recent years.  Trump instinctively channeled their very real and very reasonable anger into Republican votes, and in some ways Hillary helped him; but the dissonance between his Inauguration Day rhetoric (we stand for all Americans) and his actions (notably the appointment of universally wealthy cabinet-members sworn to fight most working-class interests) would seem to wide to hide.

But perhaps not.  That dissonance echoes the dissonance in Huxley's Brave New World or in 1984.  Lies don't usually work; but if they're big enough and consistent enough, maybe they do.  Since in the real world -- if people see what's going on with any clarity at all -- President Littlehands must lose over time, his tack must be to blind us to the real world by undermining what credibility the media has left and ignoring facts and evidence in saying whatever he chooses, loudly.  Will it work? I think not; I hope not; but no guarantees.

another by Bernie

We must also recognize that the buffoon-like president may be the head of the snake, but he ain't its brains.  We must recognize that the Republican Party, which has moved ever rightward over the years and wants to ignore such problems as healthcare, economic inequality, untrustworthy financial entities, climate change, and the need to strengthen public education, can and will easily slice Trump off it the moment he gives him an excuse.  They like Pence better.  They know Trump is dangerously unhinged and narcissistic.  They remember him insulting them or their friends all through 2015 and2016.  Some even feel they know he will commit an

Bernie Digman by Bob Diven

impeachable misstep, probably sooner rather than later, and are waiting to pounce.

Thus we must not, when that happens, let it lull us to sleep or sap our energy.



By the way, you should be able to access Bernie Digman's album of photos from the Las Cruces Women's March at: this Facebook site .


And here's the Las Cruces Sun-News's story.

A Vote for Merrie Lee Soules is a Vote for Southern New Mexico

U.S. Congressman Steve Pearce's extremism is out-of-step with his constituents, while Merrie Lee Soules promises us vigorous, competent, and thoughtful representation in Washington. 

Mr. Pearce consistently lets his ideological views outweigh our interest. He helped shut down the government, costing taxpayers at least $20 million*, simply to make a political statement he knew would fail, although Pearce poses as a prudent fiscal conservative. Even most Republicans in Washington can't stomach the nuttiness of Pearce and the “Freedom Caucus.” [* A friend informs me I was too kind to Pearce here, and that the official estimate by the Office of Management and Budge was that this senseless shutdown in 2013 cost us $2 billion.]

For someone who's taken an oath to defend the Constitution, he's way too cozy with the Bundys and others who oppose Constitutional federalism, sometimes violently, and put their personal interests above the public's.

The well-armed Bundy Bunch took over Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon last year. Already in default on public grazing leases, the Bundys wanted the refuge “returned to the state” so ranchers could do as they wished with it. (The group's slogans about freedom reduce to grabbing ranchers' freedom at the expense of birders', hikers', and environmentalists' freedoms.) That Malheur was federal land -- with authorities trying to balance the interests of campers, hikers, hunters, ranchers, and environmentalists -- meant nothing, because the Bundys loath the U.S. Government.

So, it seems, does Pearce, who voiced sympathy with the takeover: "[P]eople in the West are furious. They're furious going into this situation. We're fed up." (But he said he was “not taking sides on the Bundys”!)

In 2011, Pearce backed Otero County's dangerous and futile challenge to the U.S. Government's Constitutionally granted power to manage federal lands. Otero County threatened to “treat” 1,500 acres of National Forest, and to arrest any U.S. official who interfered.

Wyoming had unsuccessfully made the same weak argument to U.S. appellate courts in 2002. But Pearce egged these guys on, echoing their contempt for the U.S. Government and the Constitution. The U.S. sensibly caved on a minor point to avoid threatened violence, then won handily in the courts. Pearce irresponsibly boasted of his participation and encouraged “other local areas” to emulate Otero County – days before the Court of Appeal summarily trashed Otero County's legal arguments.

These are odd positions to take when you've sworn allegiance to the United States. The quaint legal positions of the Sovereign Movement make little sense and have been rejected by the courts. Even the Bundys, now being tried for their crimes, are mighty silent about their ideology. If I were a misguided “patriot” facing criminal charges, wonder how I'd feel about Pearce egging me on from the safety of the sidelines – then making political capital out of my passion?

Pearce's politics also trump his decency: Trump disparages Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and Pearce has called Trump's comments on women “horrid,” yet Pearce supports Trump. He tries to save face with his constituents by claiming he doesn't “endorse” Trump, but merely “supports” him – whatever that means. More double-talk.

He says he can't support Hillary Clinton because of Benghazi. Pearce and his conservative pals cut budgets, endangered diplomats' security, then made Clinton their scapegoat.

Merrie Lee Soules is forthright, hard-working, and constructive. She's already fighting for us: her intervention in the El Paso Electric rate case helped save us millions. 

Soules brings progressive values and decades of real-world business experience to the possible job of representing us in Congress. She'll carry Las Cruces, and may appeal as well to politically moderate businesspersons who might be ready to exchange Pearce's costly shenanigans for a more thoughtful, evidence-based approach. 

Let's elect someone who'll fight for us, not banks and oil companies; who combines progressive values with business sense; and who weighs evidence rather than obeying ideological biases.

                                                        -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers today, Sunday, October 16, as well as on the newspaper's website and  on KRWG-TV's website.  I welcome comments, questions, and criticism here and/or on those sites.]

[I should note that I left messages for Mr. Pearce early Monday, inviting him to comment for the column, but never heard back from anyone.  There are questions I'd have liked to ask him, and I'd have liked to give him an opportunity to address what obviously seem to me problems with his candidacy; but his previous comments on these matters are a matter of record.]

[I mention the Otero County incident.  Otero County -- perhaps with reason -- disagreed about forest management.  That was a matter within Federal discretion.  Some in Otero County disputed that, even disputed Federal jurisdiction, and threatened to take action -- which could have led to violence.  The Feds compromised by allowing Otero County to take down some trees in a public "kickoff event," but only within a small area where the Feds had already marked some trees to be taken down.  This avoided potential violence while the case moved swiftly through the courts.
Pearce left no doubt where he stood: in a piece published in The New Mexican on September 26, 2011, he urged other local governments to "follow Otero County's lead so as to regain an alleged 20,000 logging jobs he claimed were lost when the spotted owl was listed as an endangered species."  His piece explained the law and the facts in somewhat idiotic fashion:

1. Despite the unambiguous Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, Pearce pontificated that "I  have continually said that forest management can only be done successfully if local government is an equal with the federal government."
FACT: The Supremacy Clause, for easy reference, reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives . . . both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

In short, legally the local government is not an equal to the federal government with regard to managing public lands.  The Constitution says so pretty clearly, adding that people in Pearce's position must support that Constitution.

2. Pearce wrote, "Recent events in Otero County prove that local governments are more than capable of managing their lands.  Their plan was legal and . . . initiated what will hopefully be the renewal of the timber industry in New Mexico . . . If we can get local governments to take the initiative and tell the federal government that enough is enough."
FACT: Some of his pals and allies threatened violence.  Had the Federal Government been less patient, people might have died or been injured.  Perhaps innocent people would have been hurt.  Showing more good-sense than Pearce and his pals, the Feds agreed under pressure to let Otero County officials do a symbolic "kickoff" in a one-acre parcel where the Feds had already marked trees for cutting.  Then the Feds quickly consulted the courts.

3. Pearce added "[T]he U.S. Constitution specifies which powers are given to the federal government.  The 10th Amendment of the Constitution states that all powers not given to the federal government belong to the states and to the people.  The right to determine how the forest should be managed belongs to states, counties or the people.  It is a local issue that directly affects our homes, our communities, and our safety."

FACT: Four days later, the 10 Circuit Court of Appeal rejected these arguments on summary judgment.  That means the court didn't even have to bother with an actual trial.  Pearce's legal arguments were that lame.  He should have known (must have known?) those arguments weren't an accurate statement of the law, because the 10th Circuit had tossed out exactly the same arguments in a 2002 case where Wyoming sued the U.S. (showing more cool-headed judgment right there than Pearce and his pals did), claiming the right to vaccinate elk to protect local herds of cows from bruccellosus.   The 10th Circuit explained that the Supremacy Clause means what it says.
So the question remains, why did Pearce incite and encourage all this anti-governmental rhetoric, which wasted court time and resources and could have wasted a few lives, when he must have known it was all legally frivolous?  (I assume he knew that because I give him credit for being smart enough to talk to a lawyer; but perhaps I err.)]

[Pearce also backed the recent Malheur Refuge takeover, at least implicitly.

It's worth recalling the "cause" that the Bundys and Pearce used to justify action: local ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond had set a fire to protect their land from an approaching fire, and had thereby damaged federal land (and endangered firefighters they knew were nearby).  Mandatory sentence for their conduct was five years' imprisonment.  A friendly judge reduced Dwight's five years to three months (and reduced Steven's I forget how much), which federal courts later rejected.
I loathe mandatory minimums.  Reading the account, it's easy at first to sympathize with the Hammonds; but the 2006 fire was their second known arson, as they had also started a fire (on federal property or their own, depending on whose view you buy) that burned 139 acres of public land.

Further, the elder Hammond apparently had assaulted a federal refuge staffer in 1994; had made death threats for years against refuge managers; repeatedly violated terms of permits and moved herds across the refuge without giving the requisite advance notice; often allowed his cattle to trespass on refuge streams for days, trampling new willow trees that crews had just planted; and evaded serious jail time only because of the intervention by the local Republican congressman.

In January 2016, Pearce voiced sympathy with the takeover, without actually condoning it: "[P]eople in the West are furious.  They're furious going into this situation.  Now I'm not taking sides on the Bundys.  I think that's a sideshow.  I think the Hammonds are the ones who have been badly treated, and that's what we're expressing in the West.  We're fed up."  It's worth noting that the tone and substance are sympathetic with the Bundy's, who are at that point committing crimes against the U.S. Government Pearce supposedly serves; and "I'm not taking sides on the Bundys" states flatly that he refuses to take the side of the U.S. Government against criminals. (Note that he did not say "I'm not taking the Bundy's side" or "I'm not taking sides with the Bundys.")

On January 7. 2016, Steve Pearce released a statement on the Malheur Refuge takeover stressing that "we understand their frustration with increasingly heavy-handed federal agencies that continue to violate the rights of hardworking American farmers and ranchers.  He stated that he did not condone the takeover; but as far as I can tell, he certainly didn't urge the out-of-state ranchers to abandon their illegal control of the Oregon refuge. 

At a NM Cattle-Growers Association meeting, a Pearce ally said of these eventa, "Two men accidentally burned 140 acres of tumblewoods and they are in prison in Oregon for five years mandatory for setting the fire." Pearce himself spoke moments later, saying "we are in a fight for our lives," adding that the government will not and cannot secure the border, they do not desire to secure it, and they have not secured it."
[FACT: the border protection is working much better than it did in the past.]]

[Few sane citizens realize there's actually a "Sovereign Movement" which holds that for some arcane legal reason having to do with the paperwork ending the Civil War, elected county sheriffs are actually the highest legitimate law-enforcement officers in the nation.  (Some county sheriffs tend to like that idea, and I learned about this stuff while I was looking into our previous sheriff's hiring of a gentleman named Seeberger.)


[If I were a Bundy cohort, or misguided patriot, pleading guilty to a crime, how would I feel about Steve Pearce egging me on from a safe spot on the sidelines -- then making political capital out of my passion and anger?]

As a citizen of this Congressional District I'll vote for Merrie Lee Soules with great delight.  She's so superior to Pearce that one friend of mine, after witnessing their recent debate in Las Cruces, said he "almost felt sorry for Pearce."  She's a longshot.  Pearce has an abundance of money from banks and oil and gas companies and the National Rifle Association.  But each vote counts.  And Pearce's support for Trump, who appalls even most Republicans, ought to weaken his credibility, particularly here.

Resolutions -- and Observations

It sounds foolish and old-fashioned to make “New Year's Resolutions,” so here goes:

One is to keep writing columns. (Three columnists quit writing columns this year. I'll miss their voices.) Yesterday I heard an old phone-message from a lifelong Cruces resident I've never met, just thanking me. There are people who told me confidentially of being treated badly by powerful people. After investigating I gave voice to their pain and sometimes even improve their situations. So I'll keep doing this awhile. 

In 2016 I'll welcome criticism and people who contradict me. That'll be an easy one to keep: contradiction is more entertaining and potentially more instructive than praise and thanks, although the latter helps keep me going.

I'll savor each moment of life – and keep in mind how much there is to savor here: the recent magical snowstorm, and the birds and hummingbirds we helped survive it; the sand-hill cranes with whom we spent Christmas morning, in the Bosque del Apache; a community of people I care about; mountains I can't take my eyes off at sunset; playing pickleball at Meerscheidt Rec Center; Chope's Habañero's, and La Casita and other great eateries; First Friday Art Rambles, but also off-the-beaten-track galleries like Art Obscura; a Farmers' Market full of good people (careful in their work, warm and welcoming to us) and good food (local, fresh, healthy); the Fountain Theater; the Progressive Voters' Alliance monthly meetings, where people concisely (two minutes and an alarm goes off) tell us what they care about; Milagro's, Spirit Winds, and other local meeting-places; and our unique history and culture.

I'll keep learning. I'll play less Sudoku and watch fewer sports on TV, but read more of what interests me.

I'll continue to try to help our community talk to itself about things that matter, and I'll hope we can do so (despite PACs and recall hustlers) frankly and openly, and without rancor, understanding that none of us has a monopoly on Truth. I'll try to help Radio K-TAL facilitate discussions.

I'll use less water, less gasoline, and less electricity. Even though larger entities use way more of everything, the more I can diminish my own “footprint” the more comfortable I'll feel about writing on this subject.

I'll learn more about our local water predicament and about my own role in climate change (or global weirdness), with a hope of helping articulate the situation in ways that we can actually hear. And act on. 

I'll continue writing strong criticism of public officials, but not lose sight of the fact that we have a surprising number of capable, competent, diligent, and honest officials here. 

I'll jettison many activities that may be inherently good or worthwhile but distract me from my main purpose in life: to create, with a camera or a pen, the best images and stories and poems I can.

I'll listen more often and more carefully to readings by skillful local poets like Joe Somoza and Dick Thomas – and try to slow down more often and just watch and listen, opening my mind to whatever wants to visit it.

I'll be a better husband to the incredible wife (and editor) I've somehow been lucky enough to marry.

In 2016 I'll lose ten pounds. (Once, as a tailor in Perú measured me for a suit, I instructed him that I usually weighed less. Then I asked him how many people, as he measured them, advised him that they were about to get back down to their normal weight. He answered that pretty much all of them did.)

Anyway, enjoy the new year. Live it fully!

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared this morning (Sunday, 3 January, 2016) in the Las Cruces Sun-News and will appear shortly on KRWG-TV's website as well.  I invite comments or questions -- here, on the the Sun-News website under "Opinion", and/or on KRWG's site under News.Local Viewpoints.  Thanks for reading!]

[I'd also resolve to write fewer "political" columns, but I'm always hoping to do that and can rarely manage it because folks with power continue to abuse it, and I can't help commenting on that.  At the same time, we have some surprisingly good local officials in the mix.]

[We also have a newspaper that's seriously trying to do a good job, despite difficult times -- for all of us, but also for newspapers.  The Sun-News tries to report events fairly and let a real variety of other voices speak through the paper.   It's neither as left-wing or as right-wing as critic on one side or the other allege.  The Sound Off caller the other day who said the paper shouldn't replace Mr. Harbison with another nut-case like Peter Goodman doesn't understand what the paper is trying to do.  The paper is actively seeing a good CONSERVATIVE columnist to replace him, because they want all points of view expressed.  Mr. Harbison tried and failed to get someone to step up, and maybe co-write with him for awhile before he quit.  If you're conservative and can write, apply!  And don't blame the Sun-News if it can't find a good conservative columnist locally.  Blame conservatives who can't write very well or don't dare apply for some reason.  If you do apply, (1) try to write clearly vividly, and not too academically or generally, (2) try to do some research, and not merely in places you know you'll agree with, (3)  EDIT what you write to make sure we'll all get the point, and (4) be prepared for and welcome criticism and contradictions, and view personal attacks as amusing ways of saying you're doing a good job.]

[And have a good 2016!  And help your family, friends, and neighbors -- and the rest of us -- have a good 2016, too.]

[Oh, and one other note: if you're interested in the new community radio station, KTAL, look for confirmation of a January 16 get-together in which folks can share ideas with us, suggest shows, hear what we've been planning so far, and (I expect) see our new studio, though it's not a studio yet -- and we will probably sign the lease Monday or Tuesday.  I'm not supplying the address yet, because we can't be certain, but I think it's 10-12 or 10-2 that Saturday.]

Desert Snow --                                  © pgoodmanphotos

The Things We Take with Us -- two encounters with local creativity

A week ago we attended two inspiring events at MVS Studios: a reading by Claudette Ortiz Franzoy from her new book and the annual benefit for J. Paul Taylor Academy.

Claudette is a fine writer and we love J. Paul.

Common Ground, is a collection of Claudette's Sun-News columns about life in the Hatch Valley. Claudette is the best columnist I've seen at the paper. The book reminds me why.

It's a very human, personal collection. She makes some perceptive observations, but always in the context of her village, her valley.

The reading was fun. She reads as if she were telling us a story around a table in the Pepper Pot. Flipping to one column she's marked, she exults “Oh, this was a difficult time!” or “Arturo, remember . . .”

Here is an excellent writer who happens to live in a place most of the world has never heard of. In an old-fashioned community, a network of inter-connected families up and down the valley, many earning their livings from the Earth. A true community the like of which most of us will not experience.

She is candid, even where it hurts. Two columns deal with the rape of a middle-aged woman named Claudette. She writes of the rape openly, candidly. Her unique take on the situation had so struck me as I read them that I marked the pages to share. Describing a difficult personal experience, she retained perspective to portray everyone fairly and with empathy.

After reading a short passage, Claudette revealed that other, younger women had been raped, presumably by the same man before he was caught, and that her candor and openness may have helped them deal with the trauma, helped them speak up.

She sees her village as one who is embedded in it by a strong web of family and friends and by the years. But she was also a successful journalist Wyoming. She has the journalist's eye for detail, and the poet's skill in selecting which details will pull more than their weight in a short portrait of a man, a woman, a situation.

I recommend the book highly. The $15 price goes to the Hatch Library, to help educate and inspire future Hatchlings.

Claudette will read again on Saturday morning, May 30 at Coas Books, 10-12.

At last year's JPTA benefit I'd shot photographs of Paul and of the young students in Mexican dress dancing in the street.

This year I arrived early and wandered through the Studio. The silent auction featured marvelous, colorful bowls, made by Russell Mott after Kate has placed on them images drawn by the kids.

What fascinated me were three dozen small framed self-portraits hanging together on one wall.

The 4^th and 5^th graders varied in their artistic skills, but each portrayed not only a face but the fears and feelings behind it. This boy's head a bit misshapen but with a mischievous and defiant look, that boy jaunty and a bit cool. Girls who supposed themselves women already and pretty; girls who seemed modestly courteous and neat; and girls whose faces seemed to express the terror of being ten, in a confusing world and a clique-ish school.

Undoubtedly I read more in them than was there. But each had captured some essence. I wished I knew the kids and could watch how closely their growth over decades would match that essence.
I think the portraits also spoke to me of the creative spirit, in ways I haven't yet translated into words. I spent more money than I should have, so that they could keep speaking to me from the wall as I write.
                                                    - 30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 10 May.]

Sounding off on Sound-offs

  Opening the local newspaper, I often turn first to the "Sound Off!" feature on page 3, where residents anonymously take aim at whoever and whatever they like or don't like.  
   It's not just that as a columnist I'm sometimes a target.  I just find the entries interesting; and they help me keep current with what some folks may be thinking who don't necessarily think as I do. 
   I read one not long ago that took aim at calls to rescue a local cemetery (where blacks were buried at a time when apparently their bodies weren't welcome at some cemeteries).  The Sound-Off caller pooh-poohed the idea that the community should care, adding, "Their ancestors should take care of the cemetery!"
    Their ancestors?
    I lack space in my Sunday column to deal with "Sound-Offs", but might as well start posting occasional blog entries -- sharing some of the Sound-Offs with folks who missed 'em, and commenting on 'em.  Just for fun.


April 1: HARBISON COLUMN: While Mr. Harbison's Vietnam revisionism probably serves some psychological purpose, it would be good to keep in mind that those who best served America were those who had the courage to say no."

Harbison is a local figure with whom I thoroughly disagree about most things political.  But in person -- e.g., as a guest on my radio show when I had one -- he's a fine gentleman.  He also knows a lot more than I guessed maybe he did from his columns every couple of weeks.  He's a Viet Nam vet, as he often mentions.  As it happened, in 1965 I'd read just about everything you could read about Viet Nam, discovering that it was a war we had no business fighting.  That period happens to be something I know a little about.  To my surprise, Harbison, as a young soldier on leave before going to 'Nam, had read many of the same books (which almost no one else read in those days) and understood that maybe the war was a dumb idea; but he came from a family of soldiers, and he was a soldier, and he put his knowledge about the politics of the thing in a pocket and went off to fight.
I respect that. 

I appreciate the "SOUND OFF" caller's appreciation of those of us who made sacrifices to fight against the war; but I'm not the sort (and it's awfully late now) to make it a contest, who contributed more to the U.S., who was a better person, etc.  I did what I did, no doubt partially because of my own background and education, and so did Jim.   Sure, what I was saying turned out to be more correct than what our leaders were saying; but while I took some risks and got persecuted some, Jim took far bigger risks in those days. 

It irritates me when vets (or arm-chair soldiers) take shots at those of us who happened to see some things clearly and fell compelled to act on them; but I'm also not inclined to take shots at contemporaries who didn't happen to see the truth or weren't in a position to say no.  They too did what they had to do.  Whether they believed the lies our leaders told them about the war or just got dragged along like most grunts, they deserve to be honored.

Although the culture worships war far too much for my taste,  I don't hold with overreacting by denying the realities of veterans' suffering or the fact that many were heroes. 


April 1: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: What in the world is wrong with you people?  Don't business people have any rights at all anymore?  If they don't want to serve you, go someplace else."

Thanks, pal.
I read that and vividly see a night outside a restaurant near Somerville, Tennessee.  Summer, 1965.  We've been there once already.  Two white civil rights workers and a local girl, a Negro as folks said in those days, although another form of the word was more common where we were then.  When one of us asked the girl about the flavor of ice-cream soda she'd gotten, and took a taste from it -- that is, drinking from a paper cup a Negro girl was drinking from -- dozens of people made noises indicating disgust or shouted insults.
This night we're there again.  But although the place is normally open another hour or two, they suddenly lock the doors and turn off the lights and tell us the place is closed.  Other patrons still sit calmly inside, enjoying the spectacle.
I think too of a local kid who was going away for the rest of the summer to a school.  We wanted to celebrate.  We asked where he wanted to go.  He named a place we hadn't expected, the greasy-spoon diner where they'd knifed his brother for trying to eat there a few months earlier.
We went, though.  They let us in.  They tossed the menus on the table brusquely, and damned sure didn't welcome us.  We ate our hamburgers.  They'd put an awful lot of extra hot-pepper in the burgers, but we ate 'em without letting on we noticed.  At the end, when we were ready to pay, the lady kept waving off my efforts, shouting "The nigger pays, the nigger pays!" over and over.
So I don't agree with you that business people have a right to discriminate that way, or that the folks you're talking to should quietly "go someplace else."

More guiltily, I also see another moment.  A fellow I'd known here in 1969-1972, when we were a small band of young folks who were pro-integration and anti-war.  I met him again years later, when I visited here.  He confided then that in the old days, although we'd all been great friends, he'd felt uncomfortable, because he was gay.  He'd see me lounging out in front of Corbett Center and idly caressing my girl friend -- and dream of caressing his lover too, except that he'd have gotten the shit kicked out of him.  Not by us; but he did feel so uncomfortable that he didn't dare tell us about himself.  I think it wouldn't particularly have mattered to us.  But I look back and question whatever in me gave him the impression -- incorrect, I hope, but based on something he saw in me -- that I'd have canceled our friendship or something.

Fortunately opinions like yours are dying out.  I too would have been prejudiced some against a gay person in high school, although I quickly grew out of it.  Beautifully, most kids nowadays just don't give a damn.

Your kind of "religious freedom" is a great stride backward.  


April 1: NATURE: We just had our first hummingbird visit.  Time to put your hummingbird feeders out."

A day or so ago I saw a similar Sound-Off.  Timely.  I share your joy.  (A friend who lived on our land in Derry for more than a quarter-century kept notes, and said the hummers always returned on April 1.)
But we're blessed.  The last few winters, a small number of our little guys have stuck around all winter.  We worried the first time that maybe by providing food so late in the season we were misleading them into a disaster.  But they stuck it out.  I don't know just how.  There were mornings the bird-bath was frozen and the hummingbird feeders looked questionable; and some mornings we had to put the frozen hummingbird feeder in the garage and replace it with a warmer one that had spent the night in the garage, waiting; but they stuck around, a skeleton crew to keep us entertained.

Some Ideas on Amending the City Charter

Recent minimum-wage initiative and recall controversies have taught us that Las Cruces needs to amend its City Charter.

The initiative provision requires that when citizens gather sufficient signatures, the City Council must either pass the ordinance as it stands or schedule a referendum. Last fall, the Council did neither. The Councilors ignored the charter, avoiding a popular vote by purporting to adopt the ordinance then changing it significantly.

We need to add teeth to the charter provision. The challenge is to ensure the Council follows the citizens' mandate, while creating flexibility to adjust to changed circumstances or new information. My suggestion: add language confirming that the ordinance becomes law if the citizens vote it in, or the council does, and that it cannot be amended for a significant period of time – say, one year – except by either a citizens' vote or a petition by the Council to district court for permission. The Council would have to show the court a significant change in circumstances or new information. Citizens could oppose the showing. The judge would decide.

More than one year out, the Council could amend the ordinance. Voters could petition to nullify the amendment, but would need fewer signatures than they would if the ordinance had not been petition-initiated.

Some Councilors suggest another change. Because the petition-initiated ordinance is an unwieldy tool, making changes difficult once the petition process starts, they would require petitioners to first try to get the council to pass the desired ordinance. Petitioners unsatisfied by the council's action could then petition as they can now. The process might improve the ultimate petition.

We know the recall process can be seriously and wastefully abused.

The recent recall attempt could never have happened with county officers. State law requires that would-be recallers petition the district court, appear at a hearing, and convince the judge to find probable cause to believe there's malfeasance. Rich crackpots can't make the county waste resources on a special election unless a court agrees there's some basis.

Under the City Charter, you can recall a councilor because you didn't like one vote, or because s/he broke wind too loudly at a council meeting.

These tools – initiative, referendum, and recall, along with direct election of senators – were put in force a century ago during the progressive era, to strengthen the role of common people in our democracy. I hate to weaken them; but witnessing a small group abusing the recall procedure this winter, I kept thinking we needed change. (Fortunately the recallers are failing.)

I wouldn't eliminate the recall procedure. We should be able to recall elected leaders.

One possibility would be a hybrid charter provision that would borrow from state law the requirement of consulting a judge, but wouldn't allow the judge to nix the whole thing. Rather, if the judge agreed there was something more than political foolishness, the group could trigger an election as under the present Charter; but if the judge disagreed, the number of signature required to force an election would rise by, say, 35 to 50%. That is, absent a judge's blessing, you'd need a stronger show of interest from the community.

(A second possibility would be to increase the vote threshold, without involving a judge.)

Finally, we need a practical way to investigate and punish recallers whose operations are as rife with fraud as the current campaign to unseat three councilors. Election fraud is a crime. The Charter should provide that significant fraud can disqualify the whole campaign; and there should be a private right of action, under which voters could bring an action against recallers who commit 4th-degree felonies as freely as these folks did.
                                            -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, March 1, 2015.  Since writing it, I've already had one lively discussion with a City Councilor who liked some of the above ideas more than he liked others.  At some point soon, I'll make these suggestions in a more specific form, as a way to get the discussion going.]

[I mention the recall campaign.  Since my post the other night, I've been asked a lot of questions on that.  It now appears the City Clerk's Office will take until their deadline, which I think is next Friday, the 6th of March, to report to the City Council.  If, as I expect, the valid, in-district signatures on each petition aren't sufficient to trigger a recall election, the would-be recallers get another 15 days to increase the signatures sufficiently to reach their target numbers.  (I should note that my opinions on this do not come from the City Clerk's Office.  Those folks haven't said anything, or even winked -- and I haven't asked.)  Alternatively, they could just give up gracefully (which ain't too likely) or start some legal process that wouldn't have a chance but might buy them more time and would provide them a platform from which to keep slinging imaginary mud-balls at three good councilors.  I think we should still assume that they'll manage to force a wasteful special election, but the three councilors seem to be quite popular in their districts.]

Community Radio - for All of Us

We have a great opportunity that both political parties, the P.V.A., the Tea Party, Aggie Solidarity, churches, and soccer moms should all relish. It's called community radio, and might not exist if not for Pete Tridish (known widely as Petri Dish), who passed through Cruces recently.

I like him, 'cause he thinks outside the box.

The FCC used to insist on a wider space on the dial between huge stations, so their signals wouldn't interfere with each other.

Petri pointed out that there was plenty of space for much smaller stations – say, 100 watts – in between the 50,000-watt behemoths. The little guys could use their localized signal to do interesting local things, without harming the big guys' signals

He convinced the FCC, and in 1998 the FCC enacted a rule to open things up. (This was after he'd spent a few years moving equipment from place to place and ducking FCC raids while running a “pirate” station.)

The National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) was horrified by the rule-making. The little guys might compete for local advertising dollars. NAB lobbyists chatted up senators and congresspeople. Thus in 2000 Congress enacted a law undoing the new FCC rule.

NAB claimed the small signals would interfere with the bigs. Congress insisted on a five-year engineering study. After two years the folks charged with doing the study had gotten a look at the facts, and announced that the NAB claim was so fatuous there was nothing to study. A 100-watt station could cause problems only in the immediate vicinity of its transmitter.

It took another few years to undo the 2000 law, but eventually the FCC started issuing licenses for small stations. (New Orleans, allowed no small stations under the 2000 law, could now have five.)
Throughout history, radio authorities have favored big broadcasters, with their deep pockets. Says Petri, “Drawing the largest audience made for the largest profits, so the assumption was, build the biggest station you can. And there's nothing wrong with that.”

The behemoths can do some things very well: national elections, wars, huge catastrophes, etc.
But they can't tell you much about your city council or the quality of local education. There's no incentive. “Stories about the Iraq War or the President pay a lot better than stories about the local city council.”

Petri is quick to articulate the irony: exactly the stuff we citizens can have the greatest impact on, such as local governments and improving local education, are exactly what we're most ignorant about, since national media ignore local issues; but we're flooded with information on issues we can do little about.

And what of accuracy? Big stations belong to big corporations. If GE, a huge defense contractor, owns a network, how confident are you that the network's news is accurate regarding a possible new war --- which, if it starts, will make GE a fortune?

Community Radio has time for local discussion, local performances, and slices of local life.
So what's this mean for us?

Within the year, Las Cruces could have a new radio station most of the City and some folks North and East of it should receive. It's licensed, and soon will have call letters. Supporters have started fund-raising. A small group has been meeting periodically to help with the early tasks.

The station hopes to be a resource for everyone, regardless of political views.

Look for notice of a meeting in January to invite input and ideas from any and all. Or consider donating a little money toward space and equipment and the all-important coffee-maker.

If you want to get on the group's mailing list, email lascrucescommunityradio@gmail.com at your convenience.
                                           -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, 21 December.]
[I should probably have stressed that there's still a fair amount of work to get a new station on the air. In particular, we need to locate and lease studio space -- and the space has to work for radio.  Fund-raising for a year's operations is a definite task, although the amount needed is reasonable. 
And helping teach on-air talent something about the practicalities and non-substantive elements of running a radio show is important.
At the same time, a lot has already been done.]

[I got invited to the early meetings because I've worked some with radio and TV.  Nan Rubin ran 'em, being the most knowledgeable about starting and running a community radio station.  At the meetings were mostly people with significant radio experience.  People sounded interested in a successful community radio station representing a many facets of the community as feasible.  They weren't ideologues.  The license was procured technically by SWEC, because it was a convenient pre-existing non-profit group.]

[I think I'll stay involved in this thing.  I'm hoping that folks with something to say or discuss will use it, whether their subjects are political or not and, if political, whatever their political views may be.]

[I don't see the new station as competing with other available stations here because so much of it will be material those stations aren't interested in or don't have time for or suppose won't be profitable.  If we're lucky and work hard, the station will provide a unique service, covering Las Cruces and the County in a broader and deeper -- yet more spontaneous and lively -- way.  It'll offer a lot less prepared material from elsewhere and a lot more of what our friends and neighbors and local government are doing and thinking.  Along with music and features.  Definitely no Rush Limbaugh.]
  

Predator Masters Master Nothing

We live out where we see and hear coyotes. When they stroll past, I'm happy to see them, if our cat is inside. I'm well aware that they belong here, and maybe we don't. Often we hear a bunch of 'em howling, sometimes quite nearby. I like the sound. It reminds me of the wildness and wonder of this land, particularly as it was. Old vaqueros used to call the coyote “the prairie tenor.”

The coyote is known for his cunning, but he's also tough enough to gnaw his own paw off to escape a trap, if need be. He's a highly adaptable fellow whose kind walked this land a million years before we did but who's learned to live even in our crowded cities.

He's also a family man, somewhat. Like humans, coyotes teach their offspring how to survive in this crazy world, and perhaps even whatever constitutes good manners among coyotes. Like humans, coyotes are sort of monogamous. (Among the various species, humans are at about the midpoint between complete monogamy and complete promiscuity.) Once the female coyote picks a mate they may remain monogamous for years. They may even adopt orphaned pups. Each spring, when litters of pups are born, both parents feed and protect them.

He's as loyal to his friends as the best of us. A U.S. Soldier once fired away at three coyotes with his carbine, wounding one, then watched the other two help the wounded one out of sight. A few people have seen a coyote take a rabbit or other meal to another coyote caught in a trap. Many more have seen coyotes cooperate cleverly in hunting prey. A coyote might roll in the dirt, playing carelessly to distract a few sand-hill cranes while his partner sneaks up on them from the other side. One noted naturalist saw a coyote, hidden behind a rock, lure several pelicans into range by waving her tail, the only part of her visible to them above the rock. Curiosity killed the pelicans, who approached and were blind-sided by another coyote.

In another example of coyotes' cleverness, a rancher in Durango had noticed that a chicken was missing from tree roosts each morning. One night some men kept watch. Approaching unseen, a coyote suddenly appeared beneath the chickens perched on branches. Immediately under the watching chickens, the coyote caught his tail in his mouth, then whirled around in rapid circles, making such a spectacle that one of the chickens, intent on the performance, lost its balance and fell. The coyote trotted away with supper before the amazed men could react.

He's a key player in a delicate desert ecology we'd be wise to preserve. Each adult coyote consumes more than 1,500 rodents annually. (However, he's also responsible for more than half of the predator-caused livestock deaths in the U.S. each year. I can't fault a rancher for shooting a coyote that preys on livestock.)

He's also the subject of interesting myths among the Dineh (Navajo) and others who preceded us here. He's a deity, but a mischievous one, a trickster who can sometimes be a hero.
Our predecessors saw him as a friend, mostly. Commanche legends say that some Commanches learned the coyote language from a boy who had been adopted by a family of coyotes. He taught the earliest Seri how to brush the needles of prickly pear and eat the nopales.

Initially I was going to write this column about the pathetic fellows who gathered here this week to massacre coyotes. They call themselves “Predator Masters,” which sounds like the title of a pre-teen video game.

They're not hunters.

Hunters I've talked to find them appalling. Hunters search out their prey then manage to shoot it with a rifle. These guys use GPS systems and electronic gizmos that mimic another coyote or potential prey for a coyote, and their weapons have a huge range. (If they'd use a bow and arrow instead of some high-tech system more appropriate for a war, they'd get a real challenge, requiring real skill.) Mindlessly, like the tenderfoot Easterners shooting scores of buffalo from a train, these fellows massacre excessive numbers of coyotes, bobcats, foxes, and mountain lions in a failed effort to feel like men.

But focusing a whole column on these clowns – what's the point? Making fun of them was too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel – or, like shooting coyotes the way the Predator Masters way. Besides, coyotes are more interesting; and have considerably more character and courage.

I feel sorry for the dead coyotes, and for coyotes dragging their injured bodies around toward a slower death.

But I feel sorrier for the fools doing the massacring, who are doomed to continue vainly chasing an ephemeral sense of manhood, unable to kill enough of anything to cure that irritating sense of inadequacy. Sorry, but killing the most coyotes doesn't make you John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, guys.

                                                     -30-
[This column appeared today, Sunday, 9 February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News.]

[I should add that folks here protested this invasion by idiots.  I couldn't make it; and I felt too strongly that a protest would be received by these fools as evidence of their mastery, as confirmation that they are important and kind of dangerous, which is kind of how they obviously want to feel, and if anything it'd probably add to the appeal of our county to them.  Obviously I agreed thoroughly with the protesters, with the caveat that  complaints I've read addressed to the New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum seem misplaced.  I didn't put this in the column because I hadn't gotten a chance to double-check this with the NMFRHM folks, but I'm pretty sure that as a state or quasi-state entity they hadn't much choice.  They didn't hold an event, so far as I know, or a program.  They rented space for two catered suppers.  Just as they rented space to a friend recently for a 75th birthday luncheon and rented space years ago to two other friends for their daughter's wedding.   I'm guessing that if the Progressive Voters' Alliance or the Lesbian Mothers of America asked to rent the same space at the same rate, they'd rent it to them too.  For the most part, I don't think they get to choose.  But I'll double-check.]
[In other news:
--I'm pleased and humbled by the diversity of guests and callers we've had on our radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" 
--I'm glad a few hummingbirds have chosen to winter over at our place.  We [my wife, really] must be doing something right, in that I've now read hummers will only winter over in an environment that particularly suits them.  Better an environment hummers like than one the Predator Masters feel comfortable in -- though two coyotes raced through here about sunset Saturday, at top speed.
-- Friday evening's First Friday Art Ramble was particularly a pleasure this month.   Enjoyed the furniture of Doug Ricketts at Branigan Cultural Center and the Gustave Baumann wood-cuts and other art at the Art Museum.  The Ricketts furniture is fun, well-built, useful, and imaginative.  For years he used only reclaimed wood and metal from old buildings and windmills, though now he's added some new and beautiful local woods;  Baumann (who died at 90 a while back) was famous for his New Mexico wood-cuts.  These are normally at the museum up in Santa Fe, but here for a visit and worth a look.  But there was much more this Friday: two 19-year-old boys showing at the Rio Grande, Georgina Feltha's work at Creative Harmony, "World Bazaar", show of diverse and unique objects from around the world, and interesting shows at a couple of other favorite galleries we didn't even make it to on Friday, West End Art Depot and Mel Stone's Mesquite Gallery.  We don't buy much, but we did particularly want one of Georgina's pieces (the one on the far left on the wall opposite the door, we'd readily steal some of Doug's pieces if they weren't so big, and some of the Baumann images were appealing and thought-provoking.  So was his story, from his immigration to Chicago at age 10, his father's almost immediate disappearance, which made him sort of the bread-winner, then his rapid and determined rise in the art world, his obvious love of New Mexico, and the variety of his work, from wood-blocks to marionettes, with several other media, including furniture, in between.]

A GOOD TIME TO SAY THANKS

This evening the sky, just after sunset, looks too soft and too vibrantly red in places to be real, and must have been painted by some being with a huge paintbrush.

A week ago, about an hour before dawn, it began raining so softly I could not be quite sure what I heard. I knew only that as I lay listening to that muted sound, surrounded by silent darkness, I felt more relaxed than I had for weeks, perhaps months.

We live in Las Cruces, New Mexico. That's a gift life gave us, whether we deserved it or not. Familiarity doesn't breed contempt for this magnificent gift, but it sands the novelty off it. Striving to get a child to soccer, to pick up an aging friend's medication, to meet a column deadline or finish a report . . . who has the patience to recall our gifts?

Among those gifts are the stark Organ Mountains reddening in the last rays of sunset, the warm familiarity of my neighbor sitting outdoors having his last smoke of the evening, the insouciance of the coyote trotting down our road as we return from our walk, – and the rare scent of the desert after rain and the rarer sight of the Organs and Baylor Canyon Windmill white with fresh snow.

So are the desert's little miracles: the ocotillo that forms a perfect cross near top of one spine; the rattlesnake, severed with the blade of a pick, still wriggling until it somehow reattaches its two halves, so that a casual glance would reveal nothing wrong with the “sleeping” snake.

Too, the manageable size of our city, and its remoteness from anywhere the folks on either coast consider important, allows us to form and maintain friendships most city folks are denied, because of urban frenzy, modern mobility, and the practical problem that a sudden decision to get together with a co-worker can mean an hour's drive, not the ten minutes that'll get you from most anywhere to most anywhere else in Las Cruces.

You surely have many specific gifts to contemplate.

Some of mine these days:

-- the beauty and grace of rodeo practices I photograph, the proud youth of the riders, the elemental nature of the competition, and rodeo's ties to an endangered part of our national life and history;

-- the sudden upward rush of cranes and snow geese at the Bosque del Apache, each screaming its lungs out and loudly flapping its wings, as the full moon slips down behind the mountains in the background; 

the Tortugas danzas, the guests on our radio show, the three hummingbirds wintering over with us this year for the first time, the taste of chile at Chope's, the comedic genius of our cat, and the mixed wonders of Saturday's Farmers' Market, where people who are now old friends sell us (or insist on giving us) fresh and tasty food from our own quiet corner of the world. Chuck, with mushrooms and sprouts people get to the market ri buy when it opens, before he sells out; two of our favorite couples selling local honey; the Maynards selling free-range beef – the only kind I'd be tempted to try; Bakehouse, with a bigger line each week for good fresh bread and a variety of near bagel sandwiches; and Luis, a small farmer and friend who drives all the way up from Chaparral with his greens, and lays them out irresistibly on his small table.

Yeah, I know it's all transient, we're all transient. Years ago I was riding a train across North China reading the words, “At each moment, do not rely upon tomorrow. Think of this day and this day only, for the next moment is uncertain and unknown.” As I read Dogen's words, the train lurched, then stopped suddenly on a bridge. Just below my window a blue-clad peasant, struck by the train, breathed her last breaths, while a circular pool of blood widened from beneath her, and trainmen and locals exchanged cigarettes and smoked them.

This week I planned to see my doctor, but he was dead. A surgeon in his fifties, with an infectious smile and twinkling eyes – accidentally dead up at Elephant Butte. The titanium joint he put in my knee (one of several that day) has outlived him already.

So yeah, I know friends will die or lose their wits, Las Cruces will probably run out of water.

But that knowledge sets off life's beauty like a frame around a photograph. Death, not life, makes each moment we breathe a precious gift.

My wife calls to me. I abandon the keyboard and walk to the other end of our small home. A nearby peak makes a black triangle against the dusky blue sky. Beside it the full moon has suddenly appeared. Its whiteness in the dark reminds me of a white candle burning in a dark window at Christmas – thousands of miles and several decades from here – with that same ghostly pale circle glowing softly around it.

Thank you!

And Happy Christmas.

                                                                         -30-
[The column above appeared today, Sunday, 29 December, 2013, in the Las Cruces Sun-News. 
It's a respite in a series of less gentle columns.  It just happened to be how I felt the evening I wrote it, and it seemed fitting that it would appear just before Christmas; but communications screw-up (my fault) caused it to be omitted last Sunday.  Otherwise I'd be back to my more usual mode, criticizing public officials and others.  Fact is, I'm a trouble-maker.  That's sort of how journalists kind of should be.  [Saint too; but I ain't one of them by anyone's count; and I lack their excuse of deep religious faith; I'm just a troublemaker because I always have been.  And because I have a low tolerance for bullshit (except, perhaps when it's completely insignificant and uttered in a particularly charming or amusing way).]  By next week I'll be back to pissing people off.]
[Since this is my first blog post since the New Mexico Supreme Court decision that forbidding same-sex marriage violates the N.M. Constitution's equal protection clause, I should mention, as we've discussed extensively on the radio show, I expected it and agree with the court's conclusion.  I also feel that the opinion was well-written.]

D.C. and N.M.

We're witnessing a pretty sad spectacle in Washington.

At its center, John Boehner lacks two oft-mentioned parts of the male anatomy. He knows well enough that defaulting on national financial obligations will do us serious harm, possibly for a very long time. He has assured other moderate Republicans he won't let that happen. But he's frightened of the Koch Brothers and the Club for Growth and other extremists prepared to challenge him in his next Republican primary. He's seen several moderate Republicans purged from the Senate and House by their own party.

Many callers to “Speak Up, Las Cruces!” urge President Obama to compromise, delaying the Affordable Care Act for a year and/or making other concessions.

I don't agree.

We have to pay our debts. They are legal obligations, duly approved by Congress where necessary. If we fail ? Our credit rating declines, interest rates rise for all of us, markets fall, and around the world, where everyone's accustomed to say or think “sound as the dollar,” folks grow nervous.

Why isn't President Obama as responsible for this situation as Ted Cruz and the screamers?

Imagine you and I have a partnership or business. We've agreed on many things, the business is functioning with the usual ups and downs, and we have fixed obligations – mortgage on or rent for our office, loans to repay on our trucks and machinery, and maybe subcontractors to pay every month. We've agreed to these obligations. All checks must be co-signed by the two of us.

Suppose suddenly I tell you that I won't sign any more checks unless my share of the profits rises from 50% to 70%, we hire my son as Treasurer, and we switch from one subcontractor to another. Fair? No. Legal? Sure, until and unless you go through a lengthy legal process and succeed in court, by which time our business no longer exists and we've both paid too much to lawyers.

So I shout, “Why don't you negotiate?” as Tea Party folks shout to Obama.

If you do negotiate, you've just bought another such conflict next month, and each month thereafter when I want something.

It's not about Obamacare. That program will or won't succeed. It was approved by the government, it's being implemented, and opinions vary as to its probable level of success.

It's about maintaining some semblance of ability to function as a democracy.

There are orderly ways to decide whether or not to pass laws – or rescind them. There are legal but somewhat questionable tools like filibusters (which have been overused recently) and refusing to bring up matters for a vote. Moderate Republican Congressmen say that if Boehner had allowed a straight vote on keeping the government open, enough of them would have voted with Democrats to pass it. What the Far Right is doing is legal (although the 14^th Amendment's prohibition against questioning the validity of the public debt might trump their cards), but unwise.

In the long run, such tactics:

• quite possibly destroy the Republican Party;
  
• harm the poor and middle class by increasing interest rates, delaying social security checks and other needed help, and pushing the economy back down into the gutter;
  
• increase tenfold the uncertainty that tends to discourage business expansion or the starting of new businesses; and
  
• add to the doubts most folks have that our democracy can actually continue much longer.
  

Doesn't matter to the Koch Brothers. If government can't function, it can't make or enforce environmental and other regulations they find annoying. Higher interest rates shouldn't bother them, since it's you and I who may have to borrow for our next home or vehicle. They won't.

They also don't live in New Mexico. Steve Pearce should think long and hard about the fact that New Mexico will pay more than its share of the bill for the havoc he and his pals are wreaking.

Las Cruces, more than most U.S. towns, has an economy in which the military, the federal judiciary, Homeland Security, Whites Sands National Monument, the BLM, and numerous other federal entities play a huge role. Las Cruces has a relatively high percentage of retired folks – many on military or other federal pensions, others on social securrity. New Mexico has more poor children who need the federal help they get. We're also on the border: whether you focus on the need for such protection as those folks in the green and white trucks offer or on the need for all of those southern New Mexico residents in the trucks to get paid, the border matters too.

Of course, it won't happen. I don't think there's a high enough percentage of crazy folks in Congress yet. There'll be a short-term extension to facilitate some face-saving “negotiation”, and maybe they'll toss the medical device tax off the tailgate of Obamacare.

It's already costing us money. (Note the higher discounts required on new Treasury Bonds due for payment after October 17, the pervasive uncertainty intimidating businesses, and the hit our local economy is taken from federal and tourist and other dollars not being spent.)

And perhaps some day, particularly if the right-wing can gerrymander a few more absolutely safe districts in a few more states and legislate clever new ways to minimize the voting turnout among poor people, we'll be in even more trouble.
                                                                    -30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News today, Sunday, 13 October.
This morning I wonder if it isn't a little too optimistic.
I recall intending to add some further analysis of what's going on in Washington; but there's a light breeze across the desert, the grey hummingbird is giving a dance performance, yellow butterflies are exploring some pink and white blossoms, and the baby digging snake has narrowly escaped the cat's claws and hidden under a flower pot.]