Catholic Bishops Wisely Let New Mexican Voters Decide this Election

In chastising Catholic bishops for not trying harder to influence our recent election, Louis Biad errs in several respects.

Biad scolds the New Mexico Conference of Bishops for choosing not to endorse anyone for governor – and for correcting a conservative group that, without permission, used a Conference statement on abortion in a Steve Pearce endorsement. 

Our country is founded on the separation of church and state. We have a secular government. When a church throws its weight around unduly, that offends others, may alienate church-members, and is divisive.

A church with sufficient power to change an election result should use that power with great reluctance. The church could further lose credibility even among its faithful. Biad himself concedes that a majority of Catholics voted this year for pro-choice candidates. Gotta figure they know the Church's official position. 

Not everyone worships the Christian God; and not all Christians, even all Catholics, interpret God's words identically. The Catholic Church may view abortion as murder; but Jews, some Christian faiths, and non-theists don't. If Biad lived in a state where Muslims were a majority, or large minority, would he appreciate them tipping the scales to make adultery a capital offense? 

Biad's assertion that the Church should have endorsed Mr. Pearce because of abortion presupposes that the Church is a one-issue entity: abortion outweighs the Church's positions on peace, climate change, refugees, caring for the poor . . . A reasonable Catholic might feel that a candidate's agreeable positions on those issues outweighed her being pro-choice.

Virtually all reputable scientists and a strong majority of U.S. citizens recognize the serious threats posed by climate-change. Likely plenty of Catholics do too – or trust their Pope on this one. Should the Church endorse someone who says it's nonsense? 

Biad complains of a bill to rescind a New Mexico criminal law penalizing folks who have or perform an abortion; but those laws can't be enforced anyway. Roe v Wade remains the law. Should the bishops endorse a candidate to the right of Donald Trump just to make a purely symbolic statement against abortion? Morally, is outlawing abortion more urgent than sounding the alarm to minimize deaths and damage from climate change? How should the Bishops assess the morality of weighing some lives against others? Childbirth and non-medical abortions both pose their dangers.

Following Biad's advice would hurt both Church and State.

Taking extreme positions increases divisiveness. A church's political involvement gives each side reason to dig in. (“God says I must fight to outlaw abortion,” and “I have to support free-choice because I support the church-state separation.”). This diminishes the already slim chance of compromise. 

But maybe Biad intends divisiveness. While pleasant and reasonable in person, he writes such lines as “abortion, a sacrament of the left.” That's an insult. Some voters hate abortion but also care about other issues; some would never have or approve an abortion but doubt the State should tell a woman what to do with her body; and some view abortions as necessary, though perhaps unfortunate. Mr. Biad must know that.

Too often he writes not of actual people but of “progressives.” He quotes something crazy that a progressive says, he builds it into a straw man, and lights it on fire. Maybe I should write “the capitalists” or “the plutocrats” in every paragraph – instead of addressing issues.

I'm glad the bishops' counsel decided to let voters decide.

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 30 December 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week both on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[For readers who live beyond Doña Ana County, Louis Biad is a local businessman who writes a regular guest column in the Sun-News, where my columns also appear.  As I mention in the column, he's a reasonable gentleman in conversation (which we've had on my radio show and I hope will have again), but his columns are sometimes not so reasonable.  Quite possibly, he'd say the same about me.  The column that sparked this response appeared in the newspaper on 20 December, headlined "Bishops Should Lead Fight against Ferrary Abortion Bill". 

Louis is one of us who have strong views on certain issues but enjoy a collegial discussion of our differences, and he and I will discuss the issues discussed in these columns, and likely others, on my weekly radio show on 23 January, on KTAL 101.5 FM, either at 8 a.m. or at 9 a.m.  The show airs weekly, Wednesday mornings from 8 to 10, and with co-host Walt Rubel we discuss various issues with various people.  (If you disagree with my columns and might want to do so on radio, feel free to let me know, by commenting on this post or emailing me care of the Sun-News.)] 

[Obviously I don't believe abortion should be criminalized.  Or that men should primarily be deciding that issue.  However, I also believe strongly that endorsing Pearce would have hurt the Church itself a bit.  The Church's moral authority is already somewhat limited: it advocates a lot of positions, including prohibiting birth control, that many of its own adherents don't follow, which estranges them slightly; and, obviously, it's in the news these days mostly for tolerating and even covering up priests' sexual misconduct with kids a huge abuse of authority and trust.  Non-Catholics already don't like the Church's tendency to influence our secular politics.  To the extent that the Church has moral authority with non-Catholics, that authority should not be squandered.  Using it to advocate a purely symbolic statement of an unpopular position, can be squandering it.  (Of course, I'd have loved to see the Church taking an unpopular position in favor of ethnic equality and against the huge and destructive U.S. mistake in Viet Nam, back in the day.)]  

[Each of these columns goes through a rigorous editing process, in which the smartest person in our house reads it and leaves it looking like a mediocre fourth-graders paper, with an abundance of red decoration.  Then the rewrite gets the same treatment.  One small paragraph that survived till the final draft, despite comments in each earlier draft that it was "Boo! - too extreme" or should be rethought, was this one:

Following Biadian logic, the Church could not have endorsed an electoral opponent to Adolph Hitler if that opponent were pro-choice. (No, I'm not likening Steve to Adolph.)

Maybe it is too extreme.  Or discourteous.  Maybe Adolph Hitler is now something one can't say in polite company, and will soon be replaced by "AH" -- just as folks say, "the N-word."  But both the N-word (which I agree we should generally avoid) and AH are or were important realities, and losing sight of their realness is the first step toward forgetting that they didn't happen by chance; that God-fearing Christians shouted "Nigger!" or muttered it semi-audibly or still think it in the privacy of their minds; and that God-fearing Germans voted AH into office.  
AH and his crew got a lot of votes by capitalizing on reasonable discontent felt by people getting the short end of the economic stick and experiencing their country's decline in word affairs.  DT -- whose mere name depresses many readers -- did the same.  DT, like AH, made effective use of scapegoats to distract voters; and each promised to improve voters' lot, appeared briefly to do so, but in fact did the opposite. Each also took "Nationalism" to the point of destroying (AH) or substantially weakening (DT) the nation he purported to be serving.
Yes, there's a vast difference between Hitler and Trump.  Hitler was cagier and had a truly ugly master plan, and committed genocide. Both are somewhat demented, but Hitler was more violently so (and likely insane, which I don't believe Trump is); and Trump probably doesn't hate anyone the way Hitler hated Jews; He's more of a casual racist. 
Anyway, I liked the line.  (Well, I wrote it.)  My point was simply that choosing a leader based on one narrow issue can have huge consequences, whether those consequences are the killing of six million Jews (and many more in a world war) or further failure to try to minimize climate-change's devastation of our world.  I certainly do not mean to say that Mr. Trump's motives (or Mr. Biad's) bear any resemblance to Hitler's, except that both AH and DT certainly are self-absorbed, readier than even most politicians to cause vast damage to further their ambitions and self-aggrandizement,  inclined to appeal (quite successfully) to the less healthy parts of us, and very wrong-headed.]

The Freedom to Live, the Freedom to Die

My father was a public servant honored for his integrity. A WWII Marine pilot in the Pacific. Twice during my childhood he got sued for speaking frankly. He won. I was rebellious, and we disagreed, sometimes loudly. But each year I appreciate more deeply what Father taught me about how to live.

His father died young, from heart disease. Father had it too. In 1980 he had open-heart surgery. We talked about the fact that he might die. He'd lived with that possibility in the Pacific, and faced it head-on – without letting it distract him.

In 1996 the heart was finally giving out. Doctors could do nothing more. He had between two weeks and six months. He would keep getting weaker. No more bridge, swimming, reading the Times, or making love to his girlfriend. (They'd each maintained a long, loving marriage that ended with the spouse's death.)

Father decided that, although life had been a wonderful party, it was time to leave. 

He asked me to help him depart. I did. 

That night he ate supper with my sister, her husband, and me. After supper, in his bedroom, he asked me to help him to the bathroom to brush his teeth. I guessed he'd changed his mind. We said good night and started to leave. He said, “Wait! Aren't we going to . . .”

So we did. He did. He died a beautiful death. Talking and joking with us, telling us he loved us, then putting his head down on his pillow. 

His death was against the law. We couldn't procure medical assistance or even information. As he lay dying peacefully, I was hoping desperately that nothing would go wrong and cursing Florida's archaic laws. He could wake up wanting to live – or survive with a broccoli brain. 

Father died as he lived, with courage and honesty. Later I mused that just as he'd helped me learn how to live, now he'd taught me how to die. His death led me to join a legal team fighting Florida's law. We failed.

I think often of Father's death and others in similar situations who had no way to manage a graceful exit. So I sure thank our City Council for unanimously urging the Legislature to allow terminally ill adults to end their lives with a physician's help. Several states have done so. Special thanks to Councilor Gabe Vasquez for valuing what life has taught him over his Catholic upbringing. And to Representative-elect Micaela Lara Cadena, who will co-sponsor the Elizabeth Whitfield End of Life Options Act (H.B. 90) named for Mark Medoff's sister, a former judge. 

The bill would allow terminally ill and mentally competent adults (18 or older) who have six months or less to live, to get a prescription for life-ending medication.

I watched my strong, amazing mother die in pain and confusion. So did Father. Imagine watching your loved one being carried aboard a train, kicking and screaming, uncomprehending, as against watching him/her find a seat, put hat and gloves on the overhead rack, sit down, then wave good-bye, smiling.

I understand people's fears, and I agree that we need strict safeguards against euthanasia, and greedy heirs.

Father insisted on dying as he'd lived. As a painful life ebbs, who would sentence someone to stay imprisoned inside a failed body?

We all deserve a choice. Father earned the right to choose.
                                                   -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 23 December 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on both the newspaper's website and KRWG's website (which already has the spoken version up as well).  During the week, a spoken version will air on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[I believe in people's freedom to make these personal decisions without significant interference by the government -- and certainly without being restricted by the tenets of religions other than their own.  The experience of my own parents' deaths strengthens my belief and illustrates the reasons for it, but didn't create it.]

[So many moments stand out from the days before his death -- from which I'll include three here:

He made no secret of his desires when talking with his doctor and the hospital.  I remember a nurse saying they were going to perform some tests.  "What are you doing tests for? I'm dying.  We know that," he replied.  "Well, we need to assess our options," she explained.  As she wheeled him away, he commented loudly, "Aahh, c'mon.  The only option is Dr. Kevorkian."

A day or two before he died, I must have looked sad.  "What are you sad about?" he asked.  I said I would miss him.  "I'll miss me too, but it has to be done," he replied.  

During his last hour, my sister, I think, asked whether he had "last words" -- or perhaps he said he felt he should have something profound to say.  I know that he allused to Simon Bolivar's "last words" as "I plowed the sea," to which my sister replied that he had plowed the sky.  His actual last words were joking.  I asked how he was feeling, and he said, "Fine.  I could still beat you in a game of chess!"  (Bolivar's last words are disputed, but the ones one of us attributed to him were actually from a letter written 17 days before his death: "He who serves a revolution plows the sea.")]

We Can Do Better

It felt like sitting down to a great meal and finding someone's tooth in it, or like getting to know someone then hearing him or her make some racist remark. 

I was pleased with the election results. We needed a more progressive governor; and when I talked with Michelle Lujan Grisham I liked her immediately. 

Thursday I read that Stan Rounds was under consideration for Secretary of Education. That sparked memories of spending many hours looking into many complaints about Rounds, the superintendent of schools here until mid-2016. 

There are complaints about most anyone with any power, anywhere.

But most of what I'd heard about Rounds checked out. He was a “my way or the highway” type; and his way appeared to involve appointing or retaining too many employees for the wrong reasons. One apparent example was MacArthur Elementary while his fiancée was employed there.

He also seemed to bristle at the very idea a newspaper columnist might be investigating him. Teachers and administrators were fearful of talking with me – sounding like workers at private companies I investigated as a lawyer, and like Doña Ana County sheriff's deputies more recently. The fear level shouldn't be so high in a school system.

Rounds has his fans. Folks seem to either love him or hate him. Some think he'd be a great choice for secretary of education. Others say he'd be the worst choice ever. 

I can only say that for a lot of the people involved in education in Las Cruces, there'd be a huge whoosh as the air went out of their enthusiasm for the new state administration.

I called school board member Maria Flores to ask how likely a Rounds appointment was. She didn't know. I asked for her thoughts on the position. “I'm looking for a visionary. Someone who would take us into a new model with a more progressive and more inclusive view. Education is not a business. It's not about making money. It's about teaching students and showing them how to be successful in the world. I don't think that is his vision.” Ms. Flores also taught for a couple of years during Rounds's tenure.

Flores makes a good point. Personal failings aside, no one could accuse Rounds of being a visionary. He's an administrator. An accountant. Even if all the complaints I heard about him were bogus, he just isn't what we need in this position now.

I don't know who else is under consideration. I'd want someone who was experienced as a teacher, had some overall vision for education here, had a demonstrated record of leading others and listening to them, tended to maintain control without unnecessarily hurting morale, and was responsible as to budget. Most of those are not Mr. Rounds's strong points.

I also looked back at my own columns [see links below]. Those confirmed that many sources gave consistent accounts of Rounds's alleged favoritism and bullying. As I wrote then, “I've also heard the fear in people's voices, a fear that has no place in a well-run organization. One person, declining to comment, said that the walls had ears, adding that someone could be listening outside the door. 'I can't afford to lose my job for answering your question.'”

Would Rounds's management style torpedo morale in the PED – as it reportedly did here? I don't see a pressing need to take that risk.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 16 December 2018.  It also appears on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website, and a spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org) ]

[Hate to rehash old problems; but these were recent (less than three years back), were obviously relevant, and reflected his character and a management pattern and practice -- not an atypical moment of inattention or an accident.  (And I held back on one point, one that particularly appalled me personally, because the source, whom I know and trust, would be immediately apparent if I wrote what he told me.)  Searching Stan Rounds takes you to this set of earlier columns mentioning Rounds, including:

Dodgeball Anyone? [26 January 2014] concerned morale problems at Desert Hills Elementary;
Teachers Allege Favoritism and Bad Management [7June2015];
Are Bullying and Favoritism Undermining Las Cruces Public Schools [12June 2015].

The "Bullying and Favoritism" post starts:
 

There's apparently a bullying problem within the Las Cruces Public School District: many employees say Superintendent Stan Rounds shows extreme favoritism toward folks he likes but has many others “very scared.”
This column is based on extensive conversations with people who will go mostly unnamed because they fear retribution from Rounds. I've found many folks convincing. I've noticed consistency among accounts from different people in different schools and in different positions. 
I've also heard the fear in people's voices, a fear that has no place in a well-run organization. One person, declining to comment, said that the walls had ears, adding that someone could be listening outside the door. “I can't afford to lose my job for answering your question.” 
Many allege that Rounds's favoritism torpedoes morale. They complain of his favoritism toward his fiancée Kathy Adams and her family. 

Several teachers and administrators complained about kids seeing the Superintendent and his fiancee in "public displays of affection," but I doubt that did any harm to the kids.  Probably humanized the guy.  If I recall my boyhood, it would have been quite amusing, and we'd have all crowded to the window to look, but no harm done.

Rounds also appears in an August 2014 column , the second of two columns concerning the poor treatment of a beloved and apparently quite competent teacher falsely accused of "inappropriate touching" of a fourth-grade girl. The first column -- A Sad Story - Part I -- doesn't mention Mr. Rounds by name.  Those two columns tell a sad story about a tough problem.  The charges were apparently concocted by the child because she was in trouble over something and wanted to distract school authorities; ultimately the charges against the teacher were all dismissed; and I'd sure not have written about the fellow's innocence of the charges unless I'd become damned sure, from all the evidence, that he hadn't done any such thing.

In the school's defense, that's a tough problem to handle, and a sensitive one; there's a duty to protect kids; but at the same time a close examination of the school's internal handling of the situation seemed to show that the school had leapt to the wrong conclusion and mishandled confidential hearings.  A fairer hearing could have and perhaps should have uncovered the same evidence that led the D.A.'s office to dismiss molestation charges.  I can only hope the school system learned something from that episode.  

The months following a January headline "Las Cruces Schoolteacher Arrested, Charged with Molesting Students" (with the usual unappealing mug shot) were hellish for the teacher and his family.  However, this story is only marginally relevant to Mr. Rounds.  In my view, he didn't conduct school business properly, but in a tough situation; and KVIA's sensationalist handling of the thing border on viciousness.]

Bottom line: Rounds brings some serious baggage to a candidacy for an important state position in education.  Choosing him would be a hint of "business as usual" and would appall a lot of the folks who dealt with him in Las Cruces.]

Michael Cohen Pleads -- Implicating Donald Trump in a Crime

Thursday, Trump's lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress to help Trump's campaign. 

 

Just months before his election, Trump was seeking a massive hotel deal in Russia, lying to U.S. voters about that, and publicly praising Vladimir Putin – and repeatedly denying the deal. “I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” 

In 2017, Trump said that the “closest I came to Russia” was in selling a Palm Beach mansion to a Russian oligarch in 2008. 

The proposed hotel deal included a $50 million penthouse for Putin, which would seem to violate U.S. laws against bribing foreign officials. 

And wouldn't Trump's involvement in Cohen's perjury constitute subornation of perjury?

Putin knew Trump was lying to the U.S. about his massive conflicts of interest. Trump's lies gave the Russians more leverage over him. And Trump's policies have continued to be oddly pro-Russia.

Try to imagine Barack Obama or Dwight David Eisenhower tilting foreign policy to help make a fortune in Moscow. Trump has inured us to the previously unthinkable. And the just-plain-wrong.

A recent headline read “U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich Charges Trump Covering up Murder.” It sounded like some National Enquirer headline screaming at supermarket customers. Then I realized it referred to Jamal Kashoggi. Trump was helping cover up murder. Openly. 

 

Still, high percentages of Republicans support Trump. People who generally say they care more about national security, law and order, and Christian ethics than others do. Will this information erode that support at all? 

Cohen's guilty plea, confessing Trump and Cohen conferred more frequently about the Russian hotel deal than they'd admitted, suggests we'll hear further significant revelations about Trump's misconduct. (Gee, what did Trump say about the Moscow Project in recent written statements to Mueller?)

Trump has hired a con man puppet Attorney-General and stepped up attacks on Mueller, a fellow Republican and ethical law-enforcement official, to prepare us for Mueller's possible firing.

But wait! Senate Republicans showed signs of life this week! Disgusted by Trump's unwavering support for Saudi Arabia, Republicans may finally force Trump to stop our participation in the Saudis' war crimes in Yemen. Republican Jeff Flake is leveraging his power as the swing vote on the Judiciary Committee to demand a vote on the Mueller Protection Act. I hope these actions are a belated reawakening of concern for our country, not merely rats leaving a sinking ship.

Voters made a massive mistake in 2016. Many did so for understandable reasons, such as lost jobs and dying rural counties Trump promised to revive. Voters are learning he can't do what he promised, and learning more about his bad conduct. Trump is steering our foreign policy in directions that will do the most good for his various businesses, not where it will further U.S. interests. 

It's hard to admit mistakes. But we sometimes get conned. Jeez I felt dumb when Lyndon Johnson escalated the Viet Nam War after portraying Barry Goldwater as a warmonger throughout his campaign!

Will we see, despite long odds, something like the Democrats abandoning Lyndon Johnson in 1968 or the Republicans dropping Nixon in 1972, realizing that sometimes values and U.S. national interests beat loyalty to a sitting president? Or is that like expecting college football fans to root for their traditional rivals because their coach is a criminal? 

I've hoped too hard for too long to feel any confidence.

                                                            -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 2 December 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org ]

[I think I may have forgotten to post this one here.  It appeared 2 December.  An irate letter about it caused me to look back at it, and now to post it.]

George H.W. Bush

People aren't saints just because they die or grow old; but honestly recognizing their defects shouldn't blind us to the good or heroic in them.

George Bush? There's a lot to admire, even love; but he also did some terrible things. It's beyond my pay grade to attempt some final accounting.

He was courageous in dangerous situations, but modest. He maintained a loving marriage for a lifetime, and seems to have been a good father. He was capable, and by all accounts personally decent. He cared more about government than about politics. He resigned loudly from the NRA and spoke out against Mr. Trump. He gains stature by comparison with Trump: Bush could read, think, and collegially talk with opponents. 

 

He was born with the proverbial silver spoon (son of a U.S. Senator from a prestigious family), with all that entails. He had self-assurance and “class.”

He also used the Willie Horton ad, considered the most racist presidential campaign ad ever, pre-Trump. He lied to the country in creating the racist War on Drugs, which most law-enforcement officials now concede was misguided and ineffective. 

 

But he was better than he might have been. 

 

I'm prejudiced in his favor regarding the first Kuwait war. I'd been in Kuwait with my Kuwaiti friends, and wanted them freed from the Iraqi occupation. The occupiers arrested and nearly executed one of my closest friends. So I'm not objective as to our getting into that war – though I do wonder about reports that U.S. officials including April Glaspie covertly signaled approval to Saddam before Iraq invaded.

Most or all of Bush's misdeeds he believed were in his country's interest – or at least in his party's interest, or his political interest. We're all partially blinded by the belief systems we grow up with and by our life experiences. 

 

Strongly opposing the bad things Bush did, or acquiesced in, doesn't keep me from appreciating a great deal about him. (I'd likely feel different if I had a black son destroyed by the War on Drugs, or if I'd been bombed by the U.S., or imprisoned by a U.S.-supported “government” in Latin America.)

A close friend posted on Facebook a lovely image of George and Barbara dancing against a starry night-sky. I understand my friend's romantic feeling about the private Bush; but he shouldn't lose sight of significant facts about the public one. 

 

Other friends have re-posted the long analysis in the Intercept of Bush's misdeeds. Many of its charges are accurate; but to those friends I'd say, if you can manage it, don't lose sight of what was good in this guy.

Yeah, I mostly opposed him, politically; but he was Yale's baseball captain, a war hero, a good husband and father, and a capable public servant, even if his skills were sometimes used for appalling purposes. He was the kind of moderate Republican that party has eradicated. He celebrated his 80^th birthday by jumping out of an airplane. 

 

I'm not convinced there's Heaven or Hell. I've rarely met anyone wholly evil or wholly good. Even Barack Obama, a very decent guy, could be considered a war criminal. So I try to see the good in folks I disagree with, and the warts on people I like or admire – and retain that vision after people die.

Seeing clearly is even more important with local political figures here at home. 

                                                 - 30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 9 December in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air periodically during the week on KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM / www.lccommunityradio.org.]

[It's interesting how the internet, specifically Facebook, affects some things.  I'm not sure I'd have written a column about former President Bush's death, but for Facebook.  I'd have noticed all what was going on, grumbled about the hagiographers, mulled over what I admired and what I loathed about Mr. Bush, and gone about my business; but all these postings and comments and links from everyone made me feel as if I had to have a "position" on Bush.]

[The reactions to Bush's death, and his life, illustrate some deeper point I can't fully articulate, about the range of reasonable perceptions people can have of anything or anyone, and do have, depending upon their vantage point and previous experience, each of which (if expressed honestly) is a truth and which, collectively, approximate something in the same zip code as Truth.  For most of us, if the person or thing matters much, we are or should be open to letting our perceptions, or our assessment or those perceptions, grow, develop, and change over time as developments or new information may warrant.  We are always blind people struggling with some elephant.]  

[fyi -- this is the image a friend posted that I mentioned in the column:

 

  

Reflections Late in a Misspent Life

Thanksgiving. What, other than to be grateful for our lives, would I tell a visiting child. (Such as my marvelous grandson,Teddy.) 

Not that he'd listen. At any age I'd have wriggled uncomfortably until allowed to go play.

In our time of renewed rancor and tribalism, what would I tell a kid, who's inheriting the horrors of unbridled climate change we caused? (But then, in the late 1940's, what would I have told little Peter, about to face a world where a Holocaust had just occurred, Hiroshima and Nagasazki were toast, and a Communist hid under every bed?) 

What really matters?

To keep in mind always that others have roughly the same needs and feelings we do. We're part of a family, a community, a nation, humanity, and some greater ecology of animals, plants, and human products that can destroy everything. Whether or not the Christians or the Buddhists are right, karma (that we reap what we sow, one way or another) – and heaven and hell (a more primitive, mechanistic version of that) are helpful ideas. 

With or without Santa or God, doing what you think is right feels better, once you've gotten some youthful craziness out of your system – to do what you think is right. Stealing and other misbehavior may tempt you; but they're not worth the consequences, or the nerve-wracking suspense wondering whether or not you'll get caught. 

Recognize what you are: an animal, though one with opposable thumbs and consciousness. You'll hear fancy nonsense about not being an animal, but you are one. However, you have the blessing and curse of consciousness. Only we humans produce symphonies, poems, or penicillin. Yet only we humans herd thousands of others of our own kind into enclosures and kill them. 

See the world clearly. It has beauty and horrors. People you love will die. You will die. Don't fall into the trap of creating some complex way of denying those realities. Face them. Live honestly and, when the time comes, face death honestly. 

Be honest but kind to others. Lying means worrying, and the burden of piling more lies on top of the first. 

Be alert for dangers; but expecting the best from people often inspires the best in them. 

There are fundamental differences between people, but not based on color or religion. One is between people who never doubted, during childhood, that they were loved – and people who did doubt that, often with good reason. If you're among the former, be grateful for a marvelous emotional head start, and be patient with others not so lucky. If not, maybe life saddled you with a deep insecurity and urges to lunge awkwardly after illusions of security. 

Be true to yourself. Parents and teachers have much to offer, but have their own insecurities and misapprehensions. They matured facing a different world, different challenges. Treat what they say like the water in a gold-miner's tin pan: sift it carefully to find the nuggets. Hear the part of the sermon about love and humility, but ignore the divisive part, and illusions that only your group has The Truth. Recognize that we live in a somewhat capitalistic society, but don't conclude that other people and natural resources exist merely for you to manipulate and profit from. 

Last, do not take or use more than you need. Enough yields a deeper satisfaction than excess. And helps preserve. 

Savor each morsel of life. Be grateful.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 25 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.   A spoken version (if I don't feel too pompous trying to record it) will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 (streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[This is the kind of thing I never write.  And the kind of thing nobody will read through who doesn't already agree with.  Too, I will not pretend my conduct in my youth -- or at various times thereafter -- was as consistent with this homily.   In particular, I always, as my parents kept saying, "had to learn everything the hard way."   And some older person telling me what to do or how to do it tended to push me into just the opposite sort of conduct.  So this is stuff I believe, but have mostly learned from a long life more devoted to creativity and adventures than to building a family or a career; and in that sort of life you experience a lot of stuff that stops you with awe or wonder, but also wander down lots of blind alleys and do things that ain't necessarily so wise or "good."]

[But the combination of Thanksgiving and that Teddy (who's 5) was visiting must have led me to write this -- though it's nothing I could say to him for many years, and nothing he'd actually hear until decades later.]

[There's a lot of additional advice I'd probably give the world that wouldn't fit into the column, but I'll stick to one important point: if you must go to White Sands the day after Thanksgiving, expect long lines to get in, or to get into the parking lot, or to get into the bathroom, and take along a sled if you have kids who may want one, because they sell out early.  "You'd think the folks who run this place would have noticed people bring family hear Thanksgiving weekend, and had both admission booths open today," I snorted, to which the wiser part of this marriage replied that I should look at how badly Washington -- under Trump but not starting with him! -- funds national parks and monuments.  Our visit was a lot better because of the chance encounter with some very fine new friends who had more sleds than kids and had good hearts -- A.W.M.L. (About Which More Later), as Holden Caulfield would have said.]

 

photo by Jacob or Jasmine

Is there a certain thematic consistency here:

2018 11 23 New Mexico

1951? New York

Voting Nine Times Each - in Disguises

Donald Trump – who insisted Barack Obama was not a citizen, wildly exaggerated his inauguration crowd, and says he really knows Matthew Whitaker and doesn't know Whitaker at all – witnessed an election the rest of us missed.

In Trump's election, Republicans would have won except that Democrats voted, then went to their cars and changed shirts or hats, then voted again. (I voted with a bushy red beard, then a purple wig.) “It's really a disgrace,” he says . [Note: did he confuse Election Day with Halloween?]

Here we are right after voting for the 9th time!

Apparently Dems fooled pollworkers and Republican watchers in sufficient numbers to affect Congressional elections. 

CD-2 Republican candidate Yvette Herrell is suggesting there was something fishy in our county's absentee-ballot count. (She hasn't returned my call, and the Sun-News has tried in vain to reach her.) I respect Ms. Herrell – who upset her favored primary opponent and ran hard against Xochitl Torres Small – but crying to Fox News while declining to comment to others suggests she's not real confident in her insinuations.

She claims the CD-2 result was shocking: she went to bed thinking she'd won.  [Note: since the Republican Party got daily reports, someone should have told her there were a boatload of absentee ballots still to be counted in this county!]

I'm a nobody, without her resources. I went to bed thinking Herrell was ahead, but twice during the night I stumbled to my office to look online, and found the 1900-vote margin unchanged with not all precincts fully reporting. I didn't know who would win; but since many uncounted votes were in Xochi's native Las Cruces, I figured she had some chance.

Come morning, it was clear that there were nearly 8,000 uncounted absentee ballots in Doña Ana County, plus a few hundred in Cibola. Xochi had gotten 60+ % of the vote here. It seemed likely she'd get at least that share of the 8,000. Dems were 51% of the in-person voters and more than 60% of the absentees, so the odds favored Xochi. Cibola was another county Xochi won big, and soon its report of absentee ballots narrowed the margin. Suddenly Xochi had a great chance to win, and I said so on my Wednesday morning radio show. None of this was rocket science!

Ms. Herrell's complaint that votes “magically appeared” seems to be magical thinking, unfounded and unfortunate. We could do with less “fake news” from all sides; and in talking with Ms. Herrell during the campaign, I'd taken her to be more reasonable. She spoke persuasively about working across the aisle. 

(The existence of a few provisional ballots doesn't indicate wrongdoing. The vast majority of provisional ballots never count. People mistakenly vote in the wrong county, forget they hadn't registered here, move without notifying officials, or find they've been purged from the rolls.)

It helps to have perceived this in real time, even secondhand. Democrat Frances Williams spent hours in the absentee-ballot counting room, as did a Republican. This wasn't 2015's 2,500 absentee ballots, or 2016's 2,900, but a massive 8,517, many delivered on Election Day.

If Herrell has real reasons to believe there was dishonesty, I hope she'll articulate them to the Sun-News and the legal authorities. If she doesn't, I hope she'll make a gracious statement saying she doesn't, and wishing Xochi well. 

Insinuating dishonesty without a solid basis may feel good; and it seems contagious nationally, particularly among Republicans; but it helps undermine faith in the democratic process. (Is that what Ms. Herrell's advisers want?) At every step, Republicans and the local press witnessed the process; and, despite unusual difficulties, it worked.

                                               -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will aire during the week on both KRWG and KTAL 101.5 FM (or stream at www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[In the column, I say that Ms. Herrell's complaint that votes “magically appeared” is magical thinking.  I knew both Republicans and Democrats had been watching the unfinished counting on Election Day.  I later learned that both parties got a daily report from the clerk stating how many absentee ballots had been cast. There were thousands.  An unprecedented number.  How could either party claim those later “appeared magically?"

Other than wishful thinking, how does the Party NOT know there are several thousand absentee ballots, not yet added to the totals, in a county where one candidate is winning by a landslide.  If Ms. Herrell didn't know it, her advisors should have told her -- instead of encouraging these apparently unfounded insinuations.  Her party didn't do her any favor there.] 

[The suit filed on Ms. Herrell's behalf actually undermines the credibility of her effort to overturn the election or undermine its credibility.  She references "complaints by hundreds of voters" about something.  That's pretty vague.  It's hard to see what the mysterious complaints might have to do with her problem -- or, if they have something to do with the absentee ballots, why they weren't made at the time.  There were Republican and Democratic watchers and challengers at many precincts, and watching the absentee-ballot counting.  I haven't heard of hundreds of complaints -- or even one -- from the absentee-ballot counting.]

[Not sure what Herrell is trying to accomplish, or what someone's trying to accomplish through her.  For her, the challenge is a bullet in her own foot.  She could leave gracefully, having run a good race and favorably impressed a lot of people, some of whom liked her but preferred Xochi or liked her personally but disliked her politics.  Pursuing the lawsuit very far, absent some compelling evidence, will change her image to that of a spoiled brat -- or worse.  It says that with no evidence of wrongdoing she's happy to waste public resources and undermined the credibility of election officials just to vent steam.  In fact, it will undermine her own future credibility with independents, and with Democrats who might have supposed she was a reasonable person.   Perhaps even with Republicans who like good government and responsible public officials.]

[At least Ms. Herrell's consistent -- following Trump's lead, as she said she would do if elected.]

[Meanwhile Xochi's starting a new and challenging job.]

Silver City, NM

This Week's Election

This election was an intense experience. I'm delighted by the state and local results, impressed by the strong efforts of both sides, but sad for some of the losing candidates. 

I felt a certain camaraderie with others working hard (or just rooting) for the election of progressive candidates, including Congresswoman-elect Xochitl Torres Small; there were inspiring moments; but I empathize with folks like Ben Rawson and Yvette Herrell who busted their tails, invested great energy and emotion into campaigning, and probably believed (as fervently as Xochi or Steve or Shannon or Kim) that they were fighting for the best interests of our community and country. I can't help but respect their efforts. 

Election Night, David Brooks commented, “This is a great night for humility.” Republicans, he noted, were riding a great economy (albeit a recovery initiated during Obama's tenure), and still couldn't do better. Democrats were opposing a much-disliked president with low approval ratings who struck even supporters as a buffoon, but couldn't do better.

What does all this mean?

Well, a Democratic House majority is a ray of hope for saving our republic. The House will be able to vote down some pernicious legislation and hold hearings (subpoenaing witnesses and documents) on alleged wrongdoing. (They should use that power judiciously, for only the worst abuses.) Trump will oppose them vigorously, rejecting legal requests and mocking the Congress, while hoping a friendly Supreme Court will stretch or ignore laws to protect him.

At least two more years of a Republican Senate means two more years of rubber-stamping unqualified judicial nominees who meet the far-right ideological criteria of the Federalist Society. It means automatic approval of more administrative nominees who are unqualified, inept, and/or corrupt. It means two more years of ignoring climate change, environmental concerns, and consumers. It means that if – yes, if – Robert Mueller's report, or House investigations, uncover solid reasons to impeach Trump, nothing will happen absent grounds so compelling you'd impeach your mother for such conduct.

The election won't cure our incivility epidemic or the uncompromising nature of our leaders (and us). When the Democratic House tries to do its job, Trump will ratchet up the rhetoric and so will Democratic Congresspersons. But the House-Senate split will require some conversation and compromise to keep things going. Meanwhile, Trump's firing of Attorney-General Jeff Sessions and appointment of a dishonest and unqualified puppet may require Senate Republicans to make some tough decisions. Many have said that firing Mueller would be going too far; but will they stick to their words? 

We have a lot of work to do. Money is still way too powerful in politics. Economic inequality continues to grow, which is bad for society and for the economy. We continue to ignore serious infrastructure needs, and the Trumpists have hobbled the government financially. We're missing the opportunity to take the lead in the global shift to renewable energy, so that when our rapidly changing climate forces a reckoning, and we finally try to act, we'll be buying Chinese technology, along with everyone else. (In trying to resuscitate coal and subsidize oil and gas, Republicans resemble early 20^th Century leaders putting all our money on better horses and harnesses, certain that horseless carriages are a silly notion.) 

This election, hard as it was for so many people in so many ways, is a step in the right direction.

And Ms. Torres Small is going to Washington!

                                               -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (stream at www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[When we discussed the election Wednesday morning on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" we discussed several points that didn't find their way into the column.

First, the relatively positive Democratic result occurred despite continued Republican efforts at voter suppression.  Second, the cross-section of the overall electorate that voted Democratic is the segment that's growing, and Republicans were saved from disaster by the portion of the electorate that's declining.]

[Key to the second point is that old white guys --- who dominate the Republican presence in the House and Senate and to whom Trump's bellicose racism and sexism are supposed to appeal -- are not the electorate.  Ethnically, we're increasingly diverse, and the Republican focus on Christian whites, particularly Christian white males, is out of step.  Each election, whites are a smaller proportion of the voters.
Meanwhile, political sentiments among older folks (of whom I'm one) will change.  Dems looked good among younger voters, and each year there's a new batch of those.  Republicans do well among older folks, of whom a bunch die off or lose interest each year.  This year, the Republican edge among over-65 voters was down to just 2 points.  In the 2014 voters, over-65's voted Republican by 17 points.  
That change is partly attributable to Donald Trump, but I think there's a more systemic change in progress.
I'll be 72 in a few weeks.  When I was 20, very few U.S. citizens were against the war in Viet Nam.  I'd been down South in the Civil Rights Movement in 1965, at 18, and at that time many of my white friends at home and at college didn't approve.  Many whites at my high school, north of New York City, were racist, though the degrees of racism in them varied.  Most favored the war or paid no attention.  

Within just a few years, things changed.  By 1968 the so-called counterculture was at least a significant minority among youth.  Younger kids grew up seeing and hearing the ideas of peace and equality being espoused by dynamic young men and women.  

What that means is that the folks who are 70-72 were right on the cusp of something.  A high percentage of the folks older than that were formed more by the 1950's (which extended into the early '60's) and opposed the changes going on then, and likely accepted those changes less grudgingly than people my age.

Among people my age, I noticed that a lot of friends and acquaintances had the same conversation with me a few years later, or even decades later: "Man, you were right." They'd come around to more tolerant views (because they got to know non-whites at work, or a kid married a non-white person, or whatever) and we all learned more from the feminist movement and then Gay Liberation.   This didn't affect everyone; but the folks over 75, who are declining in numbers, boast a higher percentage of folks who grew up racist and intolerant; and the folks just turning 65 have a high percentage of people who matured in a more tolerant moment.]

 

[As to the first point, anyone who's followed Republican's extreme gerrymandering and imaginative ways to suppress poor or minority voting knows the "blue wave" could have and should have been more powerful.  The North Dakota trick of requiring a physical address -- when the vast majority of Native Americans live out somewhere rural and use a post-office box -- was just one blatant example.  As it happens, the response was a heroic effort to register or re-register Indians.]

 

Vote Tuesday! Preferably against Trumpism

Please vote Tuesday. 

This election is important. Mr. Trump is so dangerous in so many ways, his Republican enablers are so deferential, and there's so much at stake, that a Democratic majority in the House is essential. 

So, please, vote for our wonderful, home-grown Xochitl Torres-Small.

Even with local races, it's important to ask why Republican candidates don't speak out against Trump. Do they blind themselves to Trumpism's dangers, see it clearly but accept it to accomplish certain ideological goals, or simply lack the courage to speak out? Trump is making a last-ditch effort to deepen white Christian male privilege, and to “save us” from the modern world by simply denying its realities. He shows open contempt for Mexicans, Muslims, and women. Do we want local leaders who find that acceptable?

One local Republican leader told me, “I haven't spoken out on President Trump, because I'm focused on the County. I didn't speak out against President Obama, even when I disagreed with him.” That sounds reasonable; but we all have a duty to speak out when our national leaders are dangerously wrong. If someone I supported behaved as badly (and dangerously) as Trump, I'd have to speak out. Having helped empower him, I'd try to limit the damage.

A philosophical difference permeates the local races: shall we use the power of government to make our state or county as good as possible, for all of us – or strictly limit government's activities, even starve government as Republicans are doing nationally?

I'd choose the former, so long as we can pay for beneficial programs. So would most Democratic candidates. Local Republicans have deepened this divide by running folks who aren't just somewhat conservative but extremely so. (Exceptions include John Zimmerman and Kim Hakes. Ben Rawson is a closer call.)

In several state races, the Republican candidates are disastrous: Steve Pearce, who consistently puts his extremist ideology before state and national good; PRC candidate Ben Hall, whose record is beyond spotty; and Pat Lyons, who wants to recover the Land Commissioner position where he once did so much harm. Why trust any of them – when we can vote for the extremely appealing Michelle Lujan-Grisham, Steve Fischmann, and Stephanie Garcia Richards?

Our Republican former sheriff, Todd Garrison, seeks to regain the office he nearly destroyed during his Seeberger episode, while the thoughtful Democrat Kim Stewart has both experience and smart, modern ideas. (Allegations that Stewart would take away deputies' long rifles or disband the SWAT Team, are just plain false.)

Lynn Ellins should win his county commission race, and likely will. He truly knows county government and the law, and works well with others. I'd prefer Karen Trujillo to Kim Hakes, although Hakes seems sensible and good-humored on the dais. (I just think Karen has a better understanding of their district's needs.)

Although I have a good working relationship with Ben Rawson, he seems to lack the vision to make our county the best it can be for all its citizens. Although he emphasizes constituent service, he (and county government) dropped the ball on fire-fighting, sending insurance rates skyrocketing; and he resisted the UDC, an effort at coherent planning. (The last-minute Talavera uproar over trailers, which the county handled just fine, didn't have to be so last-minute.) Relative newcomer Shannon Reynolds holds more moderate views that are more in tune with a majority of District 3 voters. 

In any case, vote!

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, 4 November 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air both on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM / www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[Voting against Trumpism is a basic duty this year -- even for folks who understandably wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the system.  As I've mentioned elsewhere (see earlier posts, including http://soledadcanyon.blogspot.com/2018/10/please-vote-our-tattered-democracy.html ), Trump is doing more damage than we could have imagined, and a Democratic House majority is probably essential to maintaining our country in anything like the form it should be.]

[I've also touched at times on some of the local and state races: 
If Kim Stewart's combination of experience and modern ideas aren't enough reasons to vote for her as sheriff, glance again at these past columns concerning Todd Garrison.  (From  Questions about a Surprising Hire by the County Sheriff on 2 March 2014 to Lawsuit against Many of us Crashes and Burns on 30 August 2015, you can read the sad saga by searching "Seeberger" on my blog or just clicking here.  The misery Garrison caused the majority of employees with his Seeberger fixation was astonishing -- and heart-wrenching, if you happened to be airing that story publicly and talk to deputies suffering under Garrisonburger.  (And don't forget the contributions of Garrison's would-be undersheriff, Curtis Childress.  It was Stewart's investigation of his racist drawings that led to (or contributed to) her firing, which jurors later concluded was wrong enough that they gleefully ordered the county to pay her a big judgment.  See Jury Orders Dona Ana County to Pay (17 July 2015)) 
If Steve Fischmann's consistent consumer advocacy, record of integrity, and mix of business savvy and awareness of the urgent need to radically increase our use of renewable sources of electricity aren't enough for you to want him on the PRC, contemplate Ben Hall's record contemplate Ben Hall's record.  (And I may have just scratched the surface.)
Incumbent state legislators Nathan Small, Joanne Ferrary, Rudy Martinez, and Doreen Gallegos have worked hard and thoughtfully for our community's interests, and our state's, and deserve re-election.  To varying degrees, the Republican Party has made these choices even easier by running extremists.  Similarly in the District 33 race between newcomers Micaela Lara Cadena and Charles Wendler, she's a sharp young progressive with good ideas and he's somewhat of a Tea Party Republican with a strong ideology. I voted for her.
Lynn Ellins should and will win, but if you're a new resident or a forgetful one, take a look at this moment in our past, when Ellins recognized constitutional truth and acted, as county clerk, in a way the Supreme Court then agreed our constitution required regarding same-sex marriage: County Commission Knocks One out of the Park (1 September 2013).]

[County Commission Chair Ben Rawson has his good points.  However, his vote last year to fire Julia Brown (Julia Brown's Firing Was Foreseeable but Abrupt --  April 2017) has already led to a huge payment to Ms. Brown in settlement of her lawsuit.  (Rawson had the grace to apologize to her immediately.  I happened to be sitting at the table with her and county staff when he did, during the break after the vote, and wondered a little about what was in his mind.)  Too, I don't agree with his consistent and sometimes misleading trashing of the nascent bus system.  (Commission Ducks Transit Issue -- Citizens Shout "Shame!" -- 14 May 2017  )  I also didn't agree with the rightwing position the county (definitely including Ben Rawson) took regarding a union issue.  The deputies union consistently won in arbitration, trial, and appeal, and the County's intransigence cost us more money in legal fees and perhaps interest.  (County and Deputies Union -- 29 October 2017)   I also questioned the Commission's move to add an extra step that could slow down opposition to El Paso Electric moves to raise our rates, although the Commission's justification wasn't wholly unreasonable. (Did the County Commission Just Do El Paso Electric a Favor? 2 April 2017 )  I'd also note that while 70 to 80% of the citizenry supported designating the Organ Mountains / Desert Peaks National Monument, and the City Commission voted unanimously in support of that designation (opposed vigorously by Steve Pearce), when Trump's administration threatened to reduce the monument, Mr. Rawson was "the lone holdout" when the County Commission voted 4-1 to support keeping the monument intact -- as reported by the Sun-News on June 2017.  
Rawson works hard.  He knows the rules and procedures.  He's a very reasonable guy to talk to.  But Shannon Reynolds barked like a watchdog about the fire insurance issue, well before I got interested and well before the Commission did anything; and his views would appear to be more in line with those of the district's voters.]

[Finally, Probate Judge Diana Bustamante has done a good and professional job in that office, and should be retained.   This is not an ideological or "political" office; she has four years of experience and knowledge; and to unseat her should require her opponent to show some misconduct or serious mistakes on or part or propose some brilliant innovation in how to run the office, which he couldn't do and hasn't done. He's also a newcomer, who moved here in 2014 from California, and I don't know that he speaks Spanish or knows the country very well. ]

Freedom of Expression in 2018

Freedom of speech is endangered, but not only because of Mr. Trump. 

 

He attacks journalists verbally. He encourages folks to [body] slam reporters. When CNN gets a pipe bomb, Trump blames CNN. 

 

Divisiveness, discord, and incivility are encouraged and utilized by politicians – on both sides of the aisle, though most dangerously from one. We got angry when ISIS beheaded a journalist; but now it's acceptable if the killers buy weapons from us. And murder a mere Muslim. 

 

IF we manage to save our country, history will mention this period as it does McCarthyism -- or the Red Scare, with its Palmer Raids, soon after the Great War. 

 

This moment seems different. In earlier difficult times, people disagreed passionately, even violently; but we shared a reverence for our country's ideals. Both sides wanted to do right and thought they were; and at some point, as more and more members of the public began to learn that McCarthy was a con artist or the Viet Nam war was unjustified and counterproductive, opinion shifted. Based largely on facts. 

 

Now, it's less clear that many of us are just missing some facts and could change our minds if we learned more. Imagine trying to use facts and logic to convince a passionate Michigan fan to root for Ohio State. Besides, in the midst of this information explosion, we can find “support” for any position.

Free speech also faces new and subtler challenges. Its venues and enemies have changed. 

 

We can speak our minds at city council meetings, but much of our so-called political discourse occurs online, in privately-owned “town halls” – out of reach of the First Amendment. Billionaire owners of those fora don't like to be taxed and don't want economic equality. 

 

Meanwhile, the natural allies of free expression, the weak, are trampling on it. Progressives, including many women and ethnic minorities, are threatening free speech rights. It's not just politicians and evil capitalists. People with excellent motives, such as protecting the vulnerable from hate speech and verbal harassment, argue, quite reasonably, that we must protect people we've wronged. 

 

But vetoing a moot court topic because it involves racists burning crosses is absurd. Yeah, our past and aspects of our present are painful to contemplate; but you don't make real change by pretending racism and violence against women are ghosts under a kid's bed. Strengthening young minds to confront this world's madness makes more sense.

I favor universities imposing rules to prevent people from being targeted by hate speech or bullying; but when it comes to more general public speech, I stand with free speech. Not merely because I'm old, and have said and written unpopular things; but because booting Alex Jones from major Internet communication sites or keeping Richard Spencer from speaking this week could mean banning you or me next week. Yeah, some incredibly hateful and ridiculous things are getting said; but fifty years ago many thought that demanding ethnic equality or opposing the wanton destruction of Viet Nam was loony and dangerous. 

 

At the same time, let no one discredit the important concerns motivating these folks. Curtailing free speech is the wrong remedy, but their complaints are real. 

 

Today's brand of censorship by progressives and the legalities of cyber-speech are complex matters reasonable folks could disagree on.

Trumpitis is an acute illness we can heal – if we begin treatment by voting his enablers and sycophants out of office.

                                                 -30-

[The above column appeared this morning [ 28 October 2018] in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website, and will shortly appear on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL (101.5 FM / www.lccommunityradio.org ).]

[These ideas were particularly on my mind because when I sent in this column Friday morning, I was scheduled to discuss freedom of expression with the Southwestern New Mexico ACLU chapter in Silver City several hours later.  The folks there were sharp, committed, and extraordinarily welcoming, and I hope they enjoyed the discussion as much as we did.  We thoroughly enjoyed Silver City and the many interesting people we met, at the ACLU and wandering around town the next day.]

[Of course, the "pipe bombs" and Mr. Trump's reaction to those punctuated my thoughts as I was preparing for the Silver City event.  His handlers must be tearing their hair out again.  They got him to say a few "unifying" sentences; but he still couldn't resist saying, essentially, "Too bad CNN got attacked, but they should tell the truth as I see it more often."  Like saying we sympathize with Charlie Hebdo but those folks shouldn't have said things offensive to Muslims.  When someone shot Republicans on a Congressional softball team, I don't recall Democratic leaders saying, "That was reprehensible, but then again Scalise shouldn't have opposed health care and lied so much about it." 

The guy seems just absolutely incapable of even a moment of grace or real compassion.  But, even so, no one should shoot at him.  Not because he lives in the Casa Blanca; but because he's a fellow human being, and we are all comical, absurd, and thoroughly imperfect.]