Let's Build an Art Hive!

I was stuck in Albuquerque for a day recently. There were a lot of homeless people in Robinson Park, so I bought a bunch of pizzas to give away. Food. Warm – and unexpected. 

When I returned with six pizzas, only a couple of tables were occupied. I took a pizza to each. 

Driving down the block, I saw a guy with a backpack and a knit cap on the opposite side of the street. “Excuse me, are you hungry?” He was. Emphatically so. He thanked me profusely. When I asked where there might be others who could use a pizza he praised the community arts storefront I'd noticed earlier while hanging out at Java Joe's. 

So I wandered back there. On the way I gave another pizza to two more gents walking in that direction. As I parked, a cheerful fellow came out. I held up the pizza. He said they usually gave out snacks, but could certainly give out pieces of pizza.

Inside, an art class was in progress. At least a couple-dozen people were painting or doing crafts or just hanging around. Folks of all ages and ethnic groups and at least two sexes. At one table a guy I'd passed on the street was eating the pizza I'd given him.

The Community Arts Center (formally, Offcenter Community Arts Project!), felt like a place people were grateful to be. It's funded by community donations and grants, including one from McCune. It's open to everyone – but especially those “at the lowest incomes or marginalized due to age, mental health issues, physical disability, immigration dislocation, or other complex social challenges.” The Art Rules posted around the place start with “Respect Each Other and Yourself,” “Come Ready to Work on Art,” and “Be Creative, Make Art and Have Fun,” but also stress cleaning up and delicately discourage stealing. 

I gabbed with the cheerful guy for awhile. He was the Director, Robert Allen. He stressed the importance of “having a safe place to come and explore self-expression,” which is particularly important to “people who are marginalized.” Everyone sometimes feels isolated, and being able to share artistic self-expression can be incredibly healing. Agencies bring people to the Center, as sort of a half-way stop – or, as Robert calls it, “an integrative point for people with disabilities.” As a writer/photographer I know how essential to our person-hood art is. As someone visiting Albuquerque, I see clearly that a whole lot of people, some obviously marginalized but most not, are here working quietly, alone or together, in an particularly peaceful way.

The Albuquerque Community Arts Center is the first of 60-80 “art hives” around this country and Canada. There are thirty in Montreal alone. (The lady who started this one in 1996 later moved back to Montreal. 

There oughtta be one in Las Cruces. We know what art and self-expression mean to people. We have a vibrant art community, great artists and teachers, and also folks who feel isolated or maginalized. 

We have some vigorous and imaginative nonprofits. I know our city council has to emphasize grander stuff that supposedly will bring in big bucks and a bunch of jobs; but maybe it could look at hleping form an art hub, or something similar.

At a time when we need to help make life better for all, why not consider an art hive? It would enrich the lives of many citizens, and not just marginal ones.

                                                         -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 28 January 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air periodically during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.com for streaming)]

[If you're interested in further information about the Offcenter Community Art Project, check out its website or drop by 808 Park Avenue.  It's just down the street from the Blue Hotel or Robinson Park, before you get to Java Joe's, a fun place for coffee or breakfast.  (And there's a good pizza place next door.)]

The Race to Replace Pearce

Here's hoping Progressives keep their eyes on the ball.

Steve Pearce, despite losing our county to less experienced candidates, has held Congressional District 2 for years, using it as a platform for spouting far-right ideology most folks here don't share.

We need to get the seat out of ReTrumplican hands. For everyone's sake.

We have some highly promising candidates. Xochitl Torres-Small is someone I've long thought has promise. Angel Peña comes highly recommended, and I look forward to meeting him. David Baake, a bright, committed environmental lawyer, campaigned hard, despite limited connections to New Mexico. (All three are professional environmental watchdogs.) I don't yet know Mad Hildebrandt, but she'll appear on my radio show soon.

I'm delighted Xochitl is in the race. She's a water lawyer who grew up among us and worked on public-interest matters here – as well as on statewide matters for Senator Udall. Her parents grew up here. One became a teacher and the other a social worker. She's a lifelong resident who went away to Georgetown, then UNM Law School, and chose to return. I know her to be capable, incredibly ethical, and deeply caring. Her candidacy has quickly generated a lot of excitement. 

 

Thursday I received an anonymous letter to Democratic leaders saying that Xochitl (whose work commitments delayed her announcement) met with David to tell him she would be announcing, and that the DCCC was (understandably) enthusiastic about her candidacy. The anonymous letter bashed the DCCC, which probably deserves some bashing for not having treated CD-2 candidates very well and not being much help to Merrie Lee Soules two years ago. The letter was obviously from people still bitter – and reasonably so – over the appearance of Democratic Party favoritism in the 2016 Presidential race. That concerns me too. 

 

Unfortunately, the letter seems to attack Xochitl as well. It snidely calls her “Mrs. Small,” presumably because her husband is State Rep. Nathan Small. It refers to her as “an assigned candidate,” suggesting that DCCC encouragement and financing equates to forcing us to vote for her.

The DCCC should concentrate most on helping the Democratic candidate win the general election. 

 

But make no mistake: Ms. Torres-Small's obvious appeal, and the longstanding local support for her, created the national party's interest – not the other way around. She's well-qualified. She's locally popular, for good reason. She has every right to run – as do the other candidates. She and Peña, and perhaps Hildebrandt, are promising. I hope and trust they won't do anything that prevents uniting behind the ultimate nominee. (At least one of the letter's authors is a serious progressive who'll work hard for whoever wins the nomination.)

The letter addresses continuing issues that the Democratic Party must deal with at some point.

But those issues should not be used to attack a local candidate who may be our best chance to get the congressional seat back into the hands of the people. As Baake said, “I don't blame Xochi at all for the way the national party handles its business.” He's a fine young man. I hope he'll stay in New Mexico and do good here. 

 

Still, the letter's suggestion that Baake was “the will of the people” was a little premature. (Ironically, one of its authors was voted out of local party office.) 

 

The people of the desert will make their will known in the usual way. In June and November.

                                                              -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, 21 January 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM).] 

[This column happened more rapidly than most: I had drafted a column on a different subject, but received on Thursday evening the anonymous letter discussed above.  Along with others, I received it from Marty Rennert, whom I know and respect, and inferred that he had probably helped write it.  I pointed out that the anonymity of the writers weakened its persuasiveness, and I wished they'd signed their names.  I quickly investigated a little and wrote the column.  

The following morning, Charlotte Lipson, another progressive I know and respect, sent around copies of the letter, adding that as a supporter of Angel Peña she was unhappy with the DCCC's reported favoring of Ms. Torres-Small.

Certainly the anonymous letter, despite its bitter tone and snide references to Ms. Torres-Small, raised a reasonable issue that reasonable people could differ on: how much and under what circumstances is it appropriate for the DCCC to encourage a particular candidate in a congressional primary?  My first reaction when I heard informally that the DCCC was excited about Xochitl's candidacy was, "Gee, so am I."  However, reading the letter, my first reaction was to question the propriety of the DCCC helping one candidate in a primary.  It's legal, but is it right?  Further reflection suggested that the DCCC is doing what it should do, as I discuss below in the response I sent Ms. Lipson.  It's mandate is to help take back the House.  If it believes Ms. Torres-Small is clearly more likely to prevail in CD-2 than anyone else seeking the nomination, shouldn't it act, within the relevant legal and ethical constraints, to make that happen?

On the other hand, I'd likely be irritated if I'd been out campaigning hard for Mr. Martinez, Mr. Baake, Mr. Peña, or Ms. Hildebrandt.  I'd be all the more irritated if I'd worked hard for previous candidates whom the DCCC hadn't even been courteous to.

Again, I hope this doesn't become a big deal or create disunity.  We have some great candidates.  The DCCC thinks Ms. Torres-Small is a great candidate.  I hope she doesn't use that as a big point in her favor, but she also doesn't deserve to be attacked for that.  I hope no voters vote automatically for or against her based on attitudes toward the DCCC.  It's a plus for her -- in the sense that the DCCC's historical stinginess toward candidates in this district has hurt, and its excitement about her is encouraging -- but a limited one.  We should each make up our own mind about the candidates.

(One local Democrat's response to Ms. Lipson's mailing was "I forwarded this to David. He said that he already ran out of money and was already set on dropping out before he met with Xochitl at the end of December. He reiterated that he withdrew because of lack of funds and he said that uncertainty made it hard for donors to commit to his campaign. (there were rumors of 1 to 3 new people entering the race soon, which 2 later did) People were even bringing up these concerns at his last fundraiser in December. I don't think he felt fully supported in the community, many Democrats were openly giving up on CD-2 when comparing Baake and Hildebrandt. He also told me when it first happened that he thought withdrawing was the best thing for party unity.")

Certainly my impression was that David is likely to endorse Xochitl.

My response to Ms. Lipson was:

Charlotte -

             I do not want to step into the middle of something or aggravate it, but several things are pretty clear:

1. Xochi Torres-Small is a great candidate;

2. From all I hear, so is Angel Pena.  If you're in touch with his campaign, let them know I'd love to have him on my show some time.  Baake and Martinez were on it, and I think Hildebrandt will be, and Ms. Torres-Small will be on January 31.

3. Marty Rennert is a committed progressive and a thoughtful and energetic person who, so far as I know, has no agenda except to move us forward in a positive way.

4. There are lingering pockets of bitterness over the national Democratic Party's handling of the 2016 Presidential Election.

5. We could have a fair and honest debate about the proper course of the DCCC.  I believe its primary task should be helping the Democratic candidate prevail in the general election, and that it has written this race off too easily in prior years; and I could reasonably argue that it ought not to tip the scales at all in favor of anyone in the primary OR could reasonably argue that it has a duty to do so.  To some degree, our perceptions vary with our positions.  We've seen Democrats who aren't progressive, and we've seen some Las Cruces people change from R to D in order to run for a judgeship or DA position.  If a prominent Republican turned Democrat today and started collecting signatures tomorrow, to run for the CD-2 position as a Democrat, I think both you and I would hope the DCCC could help oppose that.  On the other hand, if I were running for that seat, and was considerably to the left of the Clintons (or if Marty were), and the DCCC heavily funded someone more moderate who "has a better chance to win the general," I'd be annoyed.

6. I have no firsthand knowledge, but I do not know that the DCCC has helped fund Ms. Torres-Small at all, or intends to, although I suspect they've provided some advice and I infer that they've indicated they'd help in the general. 

7. I do not want to see anyone among several exciting or viable candidates do anything that will prevent us all from uniting behind whoever wins.  

8. I don't think past sins or perceived sins of the national party should be blamed on Ms. Torres-Small.

9. I think Mr. Baake will indeed endorse Ms. Torres-Small, enthusiastically.  He seems a very bright and energetic young man who was running a great campaign, but whose limited connection to New Mexico would have hampered him in the primary and, if he were nominated, the general election.

10. I think the DCCC has not treated candidates so well; but to the extent that the DCCC has been waiting to see whether or not Martinez or Baake generated huge local support, and who else might get into the race, that's not unreasonable -- although I'd likely be irritated if I were one of the candidates who's been trying to get the DCCC committed to support me.  (Come to think of it, if Mr. Pena has been talking to the DCCC about getting more help, his supporters can hardly complain that Ms. Torres-Small apparently did so, perhaps more successfully.)

11. I agree with Larry that authors or co-authors of the letter should own up to it, but I may help with that in my blog post supplementing Sunday's column.

12. Thanks, as always, for sending these pieces of important information around.  I think reasonable people could disagree with each other about this one, and I regret the anonymity of the authors.  I think there are legitimate issues here worth discussing, and that's easier to do if, say, I could invite the anonymous writers on my radio show to discuss it with others who might disagree with them. 

13. I look forward to hosting Ms. Torres-Small, Mr Pena, and Ms. Hildebrandt on my radio show at their convenience.  And/or to having coffee with any of them to discuss their campaigns. 

Thanks.

                        - peter goodman

New Developments on Bail in New Mexico

In 2016 we amended the state constitution to change long-standing bail rules. Under those rules, a poor defendant who wasn't a danger to the community or a serious flight risk could linger in jail because s/he couldn't post bond. A wealthier defendant, even a dangerous one, could post bond and be out on the street again. The new rules aimed to change that.

Bailbondsfolk complained that the change threatened their livelihood – and was unconstitutional. (A court challenge failed.) 

Prosecutors complained that to hold a dangerous felon required an immediate evidentiary hearing, which could be hard to manage so quickly and represented significant extra work without added resources. They also said that judges, by strictly construing the “clear and convincing evidence” requirement, were still releasing obviously dangerous people. But civil liberties proponents reasonably claimed that if judges eased up too much on the rules of evidence, they'd be holding folks in jail on hearsay, rumors, or a bad reputation, rather than facts.

Everyone was asking the state supreme court for clarification. 

This week, in two opinions written by Justice Daniels, the court unanimously held in three cases that a dangerousness hearing “is not bound by formal rules of evidence but . . . focuses on judicial assessment of all reliable information . . . in any format worthy of reasoned consideration. The probative value of the information, rather than the technical form, is the proper focus.”

Any reasonable person would decide (for reasons discussed on my blog, with links to the opinions) that each defendant was certainly dangerous and two were obvious flight risks. 

Evidence such as videos, text messages, witness statements, or physical evidence found at the scene supported detention; but evidentiary rules at trial require live witnesses to authenticate such evidence, not just a cop reporting what witnesses said, as would occur in a grand jury setting. The three defendants neither offered evidence nor articulated denials, but merely challenged the strength of the state's evidence without witnesses.

My first reaction was that since the defendants were obviously dangerous, the judge who released two was an idiot.

But I've witnessed and read about police and prosecutorial abuses. I've seen justice take a back seat to southern cops' distaste for civil rights workers and “uppity” blacks or get ignored by northern cops who could see only our antiwar politics. I haven't personally suffered extreme abuses, but I've been close enough to know that procedural protections for defendants are in place for damned good reasons.

Justice Daniels wrote that defendants and prosecutor took “absolutist positions” that live witnesses were always required to authenticate evidence or were never required. The Attorney-General, and the court, held that such witnesses weren't always required but that courts may require them where there's doubt regarding the evidence. 

That sounds reasonable, given limited funds. I'm not certain it's right. These cases were clearcut, but these questions are troublesome. Will certain judges, for whom each word uttered by a police officer is gospel, take shortcuts in less clearcut cases – violating the rights of people who aren't guilty? But if we required live witnesses a biased judge might ignore devastating cross-examination of those witnesses. On the other hand, if a record is made an appellate court can review that.

I come out with Justice Daniels and with prosecutors I've talked with; but somewhere inside, a younger me is shouting an obscenity at the grizzled old guy writing this.

                                                        -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 14 January 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL (101.4 FM).]

We Live in Extraordinary Times

[NOTE:  We can relax, and ignore the column below, because the President of the United States has announced that Donald Trump is a "highly-stable genius" and "like, smart."]

We live in exceptional times.

The sheer breadth of the harm Donald Trump and his cronies are doing to us is unprecedented. 

Watching the flames burn up consumer and environmental protections, health care, and the judicial system has been painful for some of us, while others have danced with delight. As the flames engulf stuff conservatives used to care about, will they even notice?

The tax bill is one example. For decades conservatives cared about the deficit. Now suddenly that's a mere pimple on the butt of progress in the urgency to lower taxes even further on the wealthy and corporations. Economists predict disaster with near unanimity? Background noise! Our strength as a nation is another. No matter how clearly military leaders tell us that the changing climate and weakening the economy are defense problems too, politicians can't hear them.

Similarly, people who pounced on the least flaw in Barack Obama's foreign policy don't seem to notice Vladimir Putin and the Chinese play Trump like a toy drum. His man-crush on Putin is a standing joke. (Well, the Russians did help save Trump from financial ruin.) While Congress pretty much unanimously votes for sanctions, Trump drags his feet.

The Chinese and the Saudis understand as well as many of us do that this is a damaged individual, a desperate narcissist more easily blinded by flattery and extreme hospitality than most of us.

Trump and his pals select personnel with more purely political criteria and less concern about competence than anyone for a long time. Appointing judges who've never even worked trials as lawyers and don't know what a motion in limine is would be kind of like appointing me (or, say, LeBron James) to perform surgery on you tomorrow. Not caring about the State Department is fine, except when suddenly people have to handle difficult negotiations and prove so inept and clueless that other nations just tune them out and cooperate without us. 

Our past competitors and enemies could only have dreamed of open hostility between the President and our diplomatic corps, the President and the CIA, the President and the FBI, the President and our judiciary and economists. Presidents who cooperated, or worked out differences as adults, projected a kind of strength we now only remember fondly. 

Other nations are consistently amazed when our personnel are too clueless to push back or too inexpert or uninterested to work together. In a host of situations, we've left the field open for the Chinese to look responsible and dependable. Making friends at our expense. Yeah, we still have a huge nuclear arsenal. But Trump's childish “Mine's Bigger than Yours” spat with Kim Jong-un merely shows other nations we're a dangerous joke. 

Maybe I grew up watching too many westerns where self-control was a manly virtue. Where reasonably self-confident heroes didn't need to act like jerks to get attention and prove something, but were ready to fight hard and well when they had to. 

It may be promising that Republicans are so concerned about possible impeachment that they're vigorously attacking Republican Robert Mueller, a decorated combat veteran whose competence and fairness even Trump fans applauded when he was appointed special prosecutor. But impeachment won't be fun for anyone.

And it's not just Mr. Trump. Pence and the Republican Congress will merely use better manners when they rob us.

                                                     -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 14 January 2017, in the Las Cruces Sun-News  and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG-Radio and on KTAL (101.5 FM).

[The bottom line is that if you'd made a film about the Trump Presidency and showed it to audiences 50or 20 or even probably 10 years ago, they'd have laughed, but not believed the film realistic.  Well, as an old guy, I wake up every morning and that movie is playing, whether I believe it or not.  That same movie.  It's kind of like when you've had a cancer diagnosis  or lost a championship final, or your spouse has left you for someone else: you get up in the morning, the sun's shining, the dog's wagging his tail, everything feels fine -- until you remember.  Awww, shit! ]

[By the way, I recommend the article "Making China Great Again" by Evan O  in the current New Yorker issue, which I started reading yesterday.  It provides further evidence that the Chinese have Donald Trump's number.   Chinese experts see Trump as our Mikhail Gorbachev -- in that they see Gorbachev as having presided over the disintegration of an empire.]

[It is a little frightening that Republicans outside the White House have started sniping more and more at Special Prosecutor Mueller.  It couldn't be clearer that whatever the truth about Trump and Russia may be, they are afraid it will be politically inconvenient for them for us to hear it.  They control the Congress (at least when they can manage to control themselves) and could sit quietly by if Trump had Mueller fired.  What a long, sad road from Watergate, where both parties were interested in the truth about Nixon's misconduct!]