Guns and People

Part of why we can't talk to each other any more is that we rely on memes and slogans – particularly about guns.

We have a problem. It is not desirable that people walk into schools and massacre as many people as they can. I think we all agree on that. 

Traditionally, what a democracy does about a serious problem is discuss it and try to solve it. Many problems we can't solve. Some aren't sufficiently high-priority to solve without expenditures thought to be disproportionate. Others, while we can't completely solve them, we do what we sensibly can.

Too many gun “discussions” descend, on both sides, into slogans. The venerable “Guns Don't Kill People, People Do” sounds great. But it's a false dichotomy. Without a person, no gun can kill dozens of people. Without a gun no person can easily kill dozens of people. 

People also argue either that “we need a return to Christian values” or that “mental illness is the root problem.” A friend wrote today that the trend toward mass shootings coincided with a decline in disciplining children. Well, it's also coincided with technological improvements in weaponry and increased availability of especially deadly weapons. 

Yes, let's improve mental health treatment and prevention, for this and other reasons. And let's improve how we raise our kids, so that they are more tolerant, treat others as they'd like to be treated, and, above all, are not wounded creatures whose insecurities or parental abuse haven't primed them to seek revenge or fame (or acceptance by some hate group) by killing.

But those are challenging problems, and solving them wouldn't decrease school shootings anytime soon.

In the meantime, with any other problem, particularly a deadly one, we'd discuss what we can do to decrease the death toll.

Certainly banning some of the most deadly weapons could help.

If, as Mr. Trump suggests, mental illness is the key, changing the rules to let more known mentally-ill people get guns, as Trump did a year ago, probably won't help.

With other useful but dangerous tools (cars, trains, airplanes, maybe even pesticides) we are required to learn to use them competently and safely, demonstrate (repeatedly) some proficiency and an understanding of the rules. (My friends who use guns certainly train their kids.) We're also required to register our cars and motorcycles, so that if one gets misused or stolen there's accountability; and insurance is mandatory. 

Why do these requirements not apply to guns? Unlike cars and trains, guns are specifically designed to kill. Some will argue that such regulations would get violated; but people violate DWI and mandatory car insurance laws, yet those still have a positive impact. 

Last night at a public gathering, one speaker's young daughter asked to share her mom's two minutes at the microphone. She said her school had been “locked down twice this week. That was very scary for me, and I'm hoping that will get solved and our schools will be safer.” 

In Florida, grieving schoolmates asked Florida legislators to act. The vote was one-sided against even discussing the issue; and equally one-sided declaring pornography “dangerous to health” – and, reportedly, to require schools to post a sign saying “In God We Trust.” Thank God! That should take care of everything. (Violate the First Amendment – but never the Second!)

I don't claim to have answers; but I wish we could at least start asking the right questions.

                                                  -30-

[The column above appeared Sunday, 25February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air at times during the week on KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM.]

[This is a hell of a vibrant and interesting discussion -- when it actually gets discussed, not just speechified about.  I hope to discuss it a little Wednesday morning on my radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces," on 101.5 FM (Que Tal Community radio -- streaming on www.lccommunityradio.org) if some people call up, during the 8-9 hour. (9-10 we'll be talking about the Las Cruces International Film Festival)  Call us at 575-526KTAL, or 526 5825, to express your views on the air.  I'm also planning another show, with in-studio guests and pre-recorded short statements by people, to try to discuss the subject very fully, like a townhall on the air, sometime soon.]

A Cogent Voice from the Past

“Too often, we find ourselves living in monologue rather than dialogue.”

Though this aptly describes our current scene, it was said on March 12, 1961, in a Boston synagogue, by Martin Luther King. Thanks to a long chain of events (see today's blog post), a bunch of us listened to a recording of that speech last Sunday afternoon at Temple Beth-El. 

March 1961? Six weeks after Jack Kennedy's Inauguration. Five years and a week before Texas Western (now UTEP) shocks the world by starting five “Negro” players and upsetting Kentucky, and its racist but famous coach, to win the NCAA Basketball Championship. 

A Kenyan graduate student and his pregnant white wife, just married in February, haven't a clue that the son who'll be born in August will someday be the 44th President of the United States. In 23 states, they could be arrested and jailed for getting married. March 1961 is six years before the U.S. Supreme Court will decide Loving v. Virginia, striking down a law forbidding “interracial” marriages. If Barack Obama's parents had married in Virginia or Texas, not in Hawaii, they could have been sentenced to a year in prison. 

King discusses “whether there has been any real progress” in race relations. He notes “there are three possible answers: “the extreme optimism” that points proudly to “marvelous strides” and concludes “we can sit down now comfortably by the wayside and wait” for the inevitable equality; the “extreme pessimism” that calls those strides “minor,” notes the insurgence of the KKK and the White Citizens Council in the South, and concludes “that we have retrogressed rather than progressed” and that “there can be no progress” in race relations; and “the realistic position” that “combines the truths” of the first two positions but avoids their extremes. He concludes, “We have come a long, long way” but “We have a long, long way to go.”

He adds, “To put it figuratively in biblical language, we have broken loose from the Egypt of slavery Editand we have moved through the wilderness of segregation and now we stand on the border of the Promised Land of integration. Now the great challenge facing the nation is to move on.”

I recall those times. I recall how strange the neatly dressed young black men “sitting-in” seemed to most whites. Nonviolently, they integrated lunch counters in more than 100 southern cities. I recall that even in my northern high school, Italians and blacks were at odds. When a white girl dated a black boy, the principal called her parents to make sure they knew. That angered a few of us. In August 1965, just back from going south in the civil rights movement, I was drinking beers with our softball team. A black man briefly came into the bar to buy cigarettes and one of my teammates muttered “Nigger!” under his breath. When I spoke up, I nearly got attacked by my own teammates.

March 1961 was a pause along a steep mountain path with a lot of switchbacks and the usual mix of grand “Aha!” views and weariness. 

“Are we there yet?” 

No, but despite a racist president we have made even greater strides. Integration is mostly assumed; but equality is still somewhere around the bend. Some day, people will wonder what the fuss was ever about. But today, as in March 1961, that's a future we cannot assume, but must struggle for.

                                             -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 February 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.]

[How we happened to listen to this "lost" speech involved the Rabbi who had invited King to speak that day, and Frances Williams.  King was invited to speak at Temple Emanuel, in Worcester, Massachusetts, by Rabbi Joseph Klein, who'd served as Rabbi there since 1949 and would continue until his retirement in 1977, when he became Rabbi Emeritus.  Still in 1977, he then became the first Rabbi at Temple Beth El in Las Cruces, where he remained until 1984.  He was well acquainted with Frances Williams, and respected her work; and when she gave him a YEI Indian Rug, he wanted to give her something special in return, and gave her the tape of the MLK speech.  Long afterward, when she had extra time, she dug it out and got it enhanced by a friend.  The listening was enhanced by a video made of various stills from the time, and a choral group sang before and afterward, and some folks talked about the history of the speech and about its meaning today, and there were refreshments and lots of nice people.]

[Anti-miscegenation laws.  Most or all states had 'em at some point.  New Mexico had one from 1857 to 1866.  Many such laws forbade "whites" to marry not only "blacks" but Asians and "nonwhites," which I assume included Indians and Mexicans.   New Mexico's extend only to blacks.  Ten states rescinded such laws in the 19th Century.  Fourteen (including California, Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona) did so only during 1948-1967, before Loving.   That court decision overruled the anti-miscegenation statutes in 23 states, including Texas (where the laws extended to other nonwhites).  A 24th state, Maryland, where the law even prevented marriages between blacks and Filipinos, only rescinded its law while the Loving case was in progress, in response to that case.
So New Mexico was a star; but before we get too self-congratulatory, consider a bit of history mentioned by NMSU Professor Bobbie Greene: in 1939, when the first black woman to graduate from NMSU was there, state law required that she sit outside the classroom!  Although some of her professors (perhaps risking a possible criminal citation) let her sit inside their classrooms, but the law was what it was.
Looking at the history of those laws, one key fact stands out: that from 1877 until well into the 20th Century, no such laws were repealed and several, repealed in southern states during Reconstruction, were reinstated.  Virginia had strengthened its law in 1924.  One more bit of evidence of how far we slid back once Reconstruction ended -- which resulted partly from another cliffhanger (and allegedly stolen) Presidential election in 1876.]

[Obviously we have come an incredible distance from March 1961. But we will not be "there" yet until skin color means as little -- and can be commented on as naturally as -- hair color or the color of a man's suit or a woman's dress, or where you went to college.  We will not be "there" yet until kids are all gradations of human coloring and no one feels a need to classify someone a little dark-complected as anything.  We will not be "there" yet until none of us feel the impulse, referring to a professor or deliveryman or citizen who made a speech at a city council meeting as "the black professor" or "this black woman got up and said . . ." unless skin-color is directly material to the subject the person teaches or was talking about.  When no one is in the least surprised every by a couple who are of mixed ethnicity.  And when cops are not startled to see a black man walking in a neighborhood with expensive homes in it.  (As to that last, right now it's perhaps wroth noting that while profiling is wrong, and I was furious that my closest friend at the law firm in San Francisco, a friend I'd gone to law school with, was questioned by police in his own driveway, washing his own car, because he was black and the car was a pretty cool one, at the same time if you're a cop, you're meant to be alert, and the natural tendency to include ethnicity in the factors that go into an almost instantaneous assessment of a situation may represent not "racism" but the nature of the unequal world in which we find ourselves.)]

Note: What follows is an email I received in response to the above column.  I insert it here (without the writer's name because I haven't had a chance yet to ask him whether that's all right) not for the undeserved compliments but for his summary of his own background, and particularly the role the Gospels played in developing his character and consciousness.  It feels particularly welcome because with regard to gun issues today (following the latest school massacre) my suggestions of some reasonable responsive steps have been met by comments from other friends that the problem isn't the guns but the move away from a deeply Christian society.  (Haven't yet gotten a good answer to the question of "Okay, assuming we need to get everybody back on the Christian track, could we, until we accomplish that, take some sensible steps?")

Thanks Peter, for the long term dedication to helping us move toward peace.  It seems like the move is away from peace right now, but I think you all will prevail.

My parents were Virginian by birth, my dad being raised in Baltimore (slums), my mom being raised in an isolated hollow in in the Blue Ridge Mountains.  My dad said very little, but showed us how to live an honest, decent life.  My mom was fearful and hot tempered.  Both were always aware of the wolf at the door.  Since we lived in a remote mining camp in Colorado, the issues of race were not really present.  We had northern European, Mediterranean, Hispanic (Mexican) and Indigenous (Ute) neighbors and they were mostly kind people, with a background of poverty (our parents were WW1, Great Depression and WW2/Korean War survivors).  It wasn't until I lived in the Southeast, that I actually saw what the social conflicts were all about.  

Fortunately I received a pocket size New Testament in the military (pre Vietnam thank God).  The 4 Gospels more or less came to be the standard I looked at when I judged my own actions or assessed what I saw around me.  So I managed to live peacefully with my neighbors down through the years.  Over the years, though I noticed a schism develop in society.  It seemed to me the black churches were doing a better job of teaching than the "white" ones.  Indeed the very presence of "black and white" churches flew into the face of the 4 Gospels.  And I knew it wasn't the black churches that were driving the segregation.

The upshot of all this was I drifted along at peace with my neighbor, voting but not civically active until around 2000.  By then I felt reasonably confident that I understood what was going on.  It became apparent I needed to do a bit more than I had been doing.  It was then I began to become acquainted with people like yourself who had seen the problems decades before and had been "fighting the good fight" all along.  If people like you hadn't been persistent, I'd have been adrift when I finally figured out I should be doing more.

Thanks very much for your persistent efforts!

Clean Air and Water Ain't "Special Interests"

Carla Sonntag's recent op-ed alleged that “lawsuits funded by deep-pocketed special interest groups [were] aimed at ending the [oil-and-gas] industry altogether.”

Dictionaries define “special-interest group” as “a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation.” Like the industry-funded lobbying outfit Ms. Sonntag runs, which has opposed raising the minimum wage and tried to weaken unions.

The phrase doesn't mean what Ms. Sonntag pretends it means. Can even she believe that folks who contribute to environmental groups “seek or receive privileged treatment?” Does she mean clean water to drink or clean air to breathe is special treatment?

I contribute to the ACLU, SWEC, and the Environmental Defense Fund. These groups aren't advocating for “special interests” but our common interests in fair legal proceedings and a healthy environment.

If you wade through Sonntag's snide rhetoric, she's attacking an effort to cut emissions 91% by 2050. With global temperatures rising, trying to do that in 32 years might be prudent. Proponents are not, as Sonntag claims, “trying to destroy the source of many jobs and livelihoods in New Mexico.” Her carping that environmentalists get contributions from rich people is ironic from someone whose source of income is wealthy businesses and corporations who (unlike contributors to environmental groups) are concerned only with personal profit.

If Ms. Sonntag used more logic and less name-calling, she might be more convincing. The people pushing the steep emissions cuts are trying to help save us from imminent danger. Yes, a side-effect of moving away from fossil fuels would be more jobs in other segments of the energy industry and fewer jobs in fossil fuels. (And more modest profits for the people who pay Ms. Sonntag's salary?)

Even fellow Republicans don't consider Ms. Sonntag a truth-teller. Harvey Yates and the New Mexico Republican Party accused her of false and libelous statements in emails attacking a candidate for party chair. The party said the “deceitful” statements showed “a lack of integrity.” Yates said private investigators had traced the emails to accounts set up by Ms. Sonntag and a son. Ms. Sonntag replied that she hadn't been involved in party politics for years. 

Sonntag sued the party for defamation in January 2017, demanding an apology, a court order, and damages. She dismissed her lawsuit in April, issuing a press release that mentions neither any settlement payment or any apology. She also stated that she'd “filed the lawsuit to obtain a report from the RPNM.” (The lawsuit's discovery phase would automatically provide her the report.) She claims that the report “proves . . . the Republican Party had no basis to attack me.” If so, the report would be strong evidence that would encourage a plaintiff to continue the lawsuit. Sonntag waved the white flag. 

Sonntag understands that words matter – when they refer to her.

Folks like Ms. Sonntag give business a bad name. Opposing any and all modest efforts to improve wages, water, or working conditions undermines credibility and strengthens the impression that businesses are bad. They're not. They're part of a healthy economy. Unfortunately, because they involve maximizing profits, they sometimes oppose too aggressively improvements that might cut into profits. Or pay folks like Ms. Sonntag, to try to convince us that fighting climate change will destroy our economy. 

Using our words honestly is a great step we all can take to improve the quality of public and political dialogue.

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 February 2018, 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 both KRWG and KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM.]

[Part of our problem is that we cannot just disagree, we feel the need to vilify and insult each other.  Newspaper reporters are never just "mistaken" or "wrong" anymore, they are LYING.  A story this morning about Pence exemplifies that.  A gay Olympic athlete expressed unhappiness that Pence was leading the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics.  He mentioned his understanding that Pence had at one time supported "gay conversion therapy."    A veteran reporter then reported that Pence's people had reached out to the athlete, seeking a meeting, and been rebuffed.  Pence could not merely deny that.  He had to tweet that a reporter was dredging up  "an 18-year-old nonstory, to create disunity."  A simple denial would have been more graceful and persuasive.  Why call the reporter a liar?  Why insist that she was trying to create dissension.  Pence protesteth too much.  If he said he hadn't sought a meeting and had no idea where she got the idea that he had, or why the athlete was saying he had, and that the story was an unfortunate blemish on a wonderful moment of national unity, one might wonder whether there'd been some mistake and the story was inaccurate or exaggerated.  (What would have been wrong with seeking such a meeting also isn't clear to me; and regretting the gay athlete's attitude as rigid and based on inaccurate allegations about Pence's views might have made one respect Pence more than his descent into Trump-like name-calling.

Did Pence actually advocate "gay conversion therapy?"  Implicitly, but not explicitly.  While running for Congress he did "advocate funding institutions which provide assistance to people trying to change their sexual behavior."  That was on his website in 2000, so it should express his belief.  The context made it clear that he was no fan of gay sexual behavior, but he didn't explicitly refer to gay conversion therapy, at least there.  (Interestingly, some website in Nevada later alleged, with no apparent factual basis, that Pence had stated that "gay conversion therapy saved my marriage, by helping me resist certain urges."  That may have been meant humorously.  It might even accurately reflect an aspect of Pence's character, but he never made that statement and would have been stupid to make it publicly that the story should hardly have convinced anyone; but it may have fueled Pence's annoyance at the whole issue."]

Can We Make Political Leaders Behave?

How do we investigate and discipline public figures?

Some do very shady things. Some get hit by vicious but unfounded allegations. Obviously we need fair and competent investigations. 

Thus we appoint a special prosecutor for Donald Trump. We reasonably fear that the Department of Justice or the FBI, whose bosses Mr. Trump can fire, will not be completely impartial.

That process yielded Robert Mueller. A Republican. A decorated war veteran. A former FBI Director with such a stellar record for fairness and toughness that knowledgeable people from both sides of the aisle essentially said, “Wow!”

Mueller seems to be working carefully and quietly. Unlike Mr. Trump, he keeps his mouth shut. He hasn't said whether or not the investigation will bear fruit.

Trump acts as if he's scared silly by what Mueller may uncover. Some Republicans who praised the choice of Mueller are now attacking him. Trump decided to fire him (as he fired FBI director James Comey for investigating Trump's Russia connections) but reportedly backed off when his lawyer, Don McGahn, said he'd resign if Trump insisted. Trump fans in Congress concocted from a couple of snide emails by an FBI investigator (immediately fired by Mueller) the idea that the FBI was conspiring to perpetrate a coup. Facts quickly exploded that conspiracy theory.

Whatever's scaring Trump, he hopes to keep it hidden by eliminating Mueller.

Closer to home, Undersheriff Ken Roberts committed sexual harassment (even crimes) against a female subordinate. He entered her office knowing she was alone, closed the door, sat uninvited on her lap, and ground his butt into her. An investigator sustained the charge. Roberts, in the wimpiest testimony imaginable, reportedly said he “couldn't recall” the event but that the lady “would have no reason to lie.” How could you fail to recall whether or not you'd done such a thing?

Roberts's conduct was criminal. In New Mexico, “Battery is the unlawful, intentional touching or application of force to the person of another, when done in a rude, insolent or angry manner.” The felony of “false imprisonment consists of intentionally confining or restraining another person without [her] consent and with knowledge that he has no lawful authority to do so.” As I recall the jury instructions, I think Roberts was guilty of that too.

Sheriff Kiki Vigil, a biased judge at best, merely suspended Roberts for ten days and required Roberts to attend classes that would teach him his conduct was wrong. (Roberts, who's plenty smart, surely knew that already!) Frightened, the victim immediately obtained from court a temporary restraining order against Roberts. (What of the others who've complained?)

Vigil has tried to fire people over far less serious allegations. And sacked the previous undersheriff for no known offenses. Roberts, a disastrous undersheriff, has cost the county or its insurers plenty of money and may cost us more with his misconduct toward female employees. (He already got us into one lawsuit based on his apparent carelessness in dealing with a black employee.)

Vigil and Roberts are a continuing embarrassment to a wonderful county. (As Trump is a continuing embarrassment to a damned fine country!) As deputies flee an already short-handed department, Vigil endangers public safety. His litigiousness and mismanagement endanger our public purse.

Vigil faces two challengers in the Democratic Primary: Eddie Lerma, who served as undersheriff to three sheriffs, including Vigil; and Kim Stewart, an investigator who probably has better credentials than Vigil had for sheriff.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 4 February 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, 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.]

[AND THIS JUST IN, . . . The Las Cruces Women's March and other organizations have announced a Dona Ana County "Time’s Up" Protest/Rally Against Harassment scheduled for Tuesday, February 13, 2018 at 8 a.m. at County headquarters, 845 North Motel Boulevard.

The organizers say "The purpose is to advocate for change in the culture of harassment, intimidation, and abuse in the County.  The County Commission needs to stand up against these unacceptable behaviors, revise related policies, and strengthen support for safe and respectful work environments.  Bring appropriate, respectful signs or banners.  (If you enter the Commission meeting that begins at 9:00 am, leave your signs/banners in your vehicle.)
By the way, I've added some of the organizers to the guest-list for my radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces!", this coming Wednesday on KTAL-LP - 101.5 FM.  They'll be on from 8:30 or 8:45 to the end of the hour.   Earlier, we'll have Jimmy Zabriskie on at 8 to discuss local plants and trees and the new Tree Steward program at the City; County Public Information Officer Jess Williams will be with us very briefly just after 8:30 to hit the highlights of what's going on in county government; and from 9-10, a discussion of Iran with Ali Scoten and Yosef Lapid.]

[In addition to the situations discussed in the column, County Commissioner John Vasquez's intemperate and sometimes bizarre Facebook posts, insulting constituents and apparently making up some odd and inaccurate story about the mother of one constituent he doesn't like, have drawn strong criticism.  I'd initially intended to include something about that in the column.  

I understand their concern.  There were several nights (a few months ago) when he posted multiple Facebook posts about me that were more offensive than anything I've seen quoted in the paper. (They were mostly after 8 p.m., while posts the next morning were civil, sometimes even friendly.) I made no report. I thought it was funny. Some posts were somewhat nutty. I figured it was his problem, not mine.  I also probably responded with posts criticizing him or making fun of his spelling or whatever.  Or inviting him to be a guest on my radio show to talk about his criticisms of me.   

But my tolerance doesn't mean other community members have no right to complain that such treatment by a county commissioner is offensive and wrong. It's not a crime, but county policies forbid conduct that embarrasses the county.  “ _____”

That applies to commissioners. Vasquez's conduct fits. Certain commissioners quickly invoked that provision to punish employees who they thought spoke discourteously to Commissioner Solis during public input at a meeting.

Those employees' language was far less colorful than John's.  I think the Commission should have quietly and informally warned him that his conduct appeared to violate county policy, and that continuing it could get him formally warned or censured.

Before his election I thought John Vasquez a bright and promising candidate.  I understood that he had some problems, but thought he fully understood that too and was dealing appropriately with them.  Since his election, he's done some odd things and some good things.  I think he'd do better not to post a bunch of silly and abusive stuff on Facebook, agree that it undermines his credibility and arguably the commission's, but do not put his Facebook foolishness in quite the category of what former County Treasurer Gutierrez did or what Vigil and Roberts are doing to DASO and the people who work there.]    

[As to DASO, . . . it needs work.  By the way, I'm trying to schedule the candidates for County Sheriff, including Mr. Vigil, on the radio show.  Eddie Lerma will be a guest Wednesday, February 14, Kim Stewart has agreed to appear but we haven't specifically scheduled that yet; and I have calls in to Mr. Vigil.]