What will "running NMSU like a business" turn out to mean?

It is difficult

to get the news from poems

but men die miserably every day

for lack

of what is found there.

                         – William Carlos Williams

Many at NMSU and in our community are aghast at the sticker price of the new Garrey Carruthers: $950,000 (vs. $373,000), and two sets of benefits; but we get two brains and four hands. Faculty raises have been rare and minimal, some profs are concerned, and now we hear more high-priced administrative positions are planned.

Originally, the “university” was Socrates sitting under a tree with younger folks who thought they could learn something from him. As more students came, and maybe Plato started teaching too, they needed someone to collect the trash (or water the tree). That's the origin of college administrators -- an origin too few of them care to recall.

I've heard some good things about Dan Arvizu. 

I've also read Sun-News stories on his plans to “run NMSU like a business.” 

I second his urging that New Mexico improve K-12 education. Then improve it further. It's central to everything else. A state's financial return on dollars spent on early-childhood education is extremely high.

I might also agree with “teaching students to think like entrepreneurs.” I hope that means “creatively” or “outside the box” or “open to innovations.” But what if it's limited to “think greedy” or “how can I manipulate others to get absurdly rich”? Those are understandably prized in our capitalist system; but they have their limits, and unpleasant byproducts. (Without the ethical base and wider perspective you get from the humanities, why not destroy natural resources or other people's lives if it helps the bottom line?) 

There's a lot of knowledge that really matters, even if it doesn't pay for itself in any obvious way.

If you haven't read history, and don't care about it, you end up like Donald Trump, basing decisions on whims. Or, if you're cagier, like Vladimir Putin: quite successful but with a defective moral compass.

I understand times change. Latin and Greek used to be required, then optional, but encouraged. Now most kids wouldn't know what they are. That would appall some of my teachers, but it's how things are. 

Poems don't sell. Reading history won't teach you the electronic equivalent of how to hammer in a nail or weld a pipe. Shakespeare doesn't specifically mention antitrust law or arbitrage.

But thinking creatively and logically and having a wide and deep base of knowledge can be helpful, in any field. There are few careers where speaking coherently and writing clearly and concisely aren't incredibly important. 

Scientific research? Scientists at universities used to do independent and relatively unbiased research. They experimented – and found what they found, whether or not it supported their hypotheses. Now research in medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and other fields is increasingly bought and paid for (openly or otherwise) by large entities who have already spent bundles on their products – and aren't real open-minded about how the research will turn out. 

What might “running a university like a business” mean in that context? (Some profs would say the Regents are already imitating business, by paying NMSU's top execs disproportionately.)

Chancellor Arvizu has his mantra: STEM; but science and engineering won't teach us what to use them for.

I hope he understands that a stem exists to support fruit and flowers. 

                                                   -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 August, 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL-LP 101.5 FM, streamable at www.lccommunityradio.com.]

[I look forward to meeting Mr. Arvizu.  I've invited him on my radio show.  As I mentioned above, I've heard some good things about him from folks who've talked to him.  And I do recognize that we live in a world where it takes a whole lot of dollars to run a university, and improve that university.]

[Meanwhile, "Happy Birthday!" to J. Paul Taylor.  He's 98!  The Friends of the Taylor Family Monument will celebrate with him at their annual membership party, from 3:30-5:30 at the Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum.  A local hero and a great friend!]  

  

[

Not with a Bang But a Whimper - the Apodacas Can't Handle Losing

Lives, like the world in T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men, often end not with a bang but a whimper. Same for political lives.

The sad spectacle of Jerry Apodaca, our long-ago governor, endorsing Steve Pearce, poles apart from Jerry politically – and invoking John F. Kennedy, who'd have made short work of Pearce – reminded me of a better day.

On June 1, 1974, I was sitting in a hot tub with Jerry after we'd run 13 miles through the streets of Albuquerque.  It was a campaign event.  Jerry, who loved running, got to run and campaign simultaneously. And he shaved eight minutes from his previous best time! Not a runner, I stupidly bought new sneakers for the event. After a mile or two, blisters on the tops of my toes were unbearable. I tossed the sneakers into the back of a truck and ran the rest of the way barefoot.

I was a young reporter, spending much of that weekend with Jerry and Clara Apodaca. They reminded people of the Kennedys, because they were young and liberal and charismatic. I liked them. Had to be objective in my reporting. But I liked them. 

More recently, I'd been aware Jerry had serious health problems. Then I heard rumors that Clara wanted their son, Jeff, to run for Governor. When Jeff ran, I interviewed him. Engaging guy, although I didn't know how much to trust him.

Now Jerry (or someone) has written an endorsement comparing far-right Congressman Steve Pearce to Kennedy. The JFK comparison is silly. Pearce helped found the extremist “Freedom Caucus” in 2015 and is one of the most extremely conservative current Congresspersons. (Government shutdown, anyone?) JFK went to an early meeting of the Americans for Democratic Action and championed relatively progressive ideas. On most issues, Lujan Grisham's positions are much closer than Pearce's to the ones Jeff Apodaca ran on.

Jerry's endorsement claims Pearce is a moderate, reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. Half the time Congressman Pearce can't even work with Republicans. Is Jerry hallucinating?

Jerry's example of Pearce reaching across the aisle is that when Jerry called, Pearce answered. (Jerry says Michelle Lujan Grisham didn't. Her office says Jerry never called.) 

Meanwhile Jeff has a new radio gig on a conservative pro-Pearce program. As a radio host, I'd be the last to say he shouldn't do that. We need civil inter-party discussion. However, watching the first show on Facebook Live, I noticed that Jeff criticized Lujan Grisham, but never criticized Pearce. As to Donald Trump, whom Pearce follows like a dog but wants voters to forget, Jeff said what Pearce's campaign would have him say: “The President has less to do with New Mexicans' daily lives than their Governor.” In other words, please ignore Pearce's support of Trump's dangerous policies. And please listen to what Pearce says this week, not what he's done and said for years.

Jeff posed as the Progressive alternative to Grisham. Now he's getting friendly with her far-right opponent. Eloquent testimony that he's about ambition, not conviction.

Assuming your brains aren't addled, you don't write something like Jerry wrote unless you're peeved that someone whipped your son in the primary, scoring three times as many votes; or unless you're desperately ambitious for that same son, who may want something from Pearce. Either way, it's kind of a sad last political gasp from someone who once commanded respect.

                                                              -30-

[The above column appeared on Sunday, 19 August 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 KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org).]

I started this column  with sadness.  The sadness deepened as I read the El Paso Times article I wrote about that 1974 half-marathon.  Sixty-three of the 70 runners finished the race.  I remember running right along with Jerry, listening and watching the folks interacting with him, until my blisters stalled me.  Jerry finished in 1:48, I in 1:58.  But the old article strengthened my memory of the energy in his campaign for governor.

The evening before the run, we'd been in Taos, where (as I described it in the paper). "Both the towns rally and the race were symbolic of the kind of campaign Apodaca has run.
"He has declined to seek endorsements, and almost intentionally avoided them at times, he says.  'We didn't think that was what we needed to win,' he said Saturday.  'People are reacting against that.  What we needed was a groundswell of popular support.'
"In Taos, where the Democratic Committee had endorsed [gubernatorial candidate] Tibo Chavez, Apodaca was greeted enthusiastically and feted by an overflow crowd at Los Compadres.
  It was an Apodaca type crowd in a casual, warm, almost homey atmosphere.  One man read a poem to the candidate in Spanish, several young pwople joked with him about next morning's marathon, and one local political leader recovering from a heart attack surprised Apodaca and worried his doctors by showing up at all.
"Typically, Apodaca was taking the time and spending his energy on thiskind of rally in a small town.  He expects to do well in such areas both in the north and in the south, but he still will have to run strongly in Bernalillo County to win.
"Although he has spoken frequently on issues, he seems to be banking on personal appeal -- as in the Taos rally -- and energy -- like the energy he displayed Saturday morning."
It's ironic, in the context of this blog post, that in 1974 Apodaca said he spurned endorsements in favor of the kind of "groundswell of popular support" Pearce is not seeing across the state.  (i'm sure he was exaggerating when he said that to me, but certainly in Taos he wasn't the choice of the County Democratic Committee.)  My memory, which may or may not be accurate, is that Jerry was an underdog in seeking the Democratic nomination.  He was vigorous and articulate and progressive.  I didn't know him well, but I liked and respected him.

In the column I refer to Jerry calling and Pearce responding.  The actual words of the endorsement are a little cryptic on that: "I know the new politicians of the 21st century don’t need my advice. But friends recently suggested I sit down with both gubernatorial candidates to discuss the concerns I outlined above. I agreed to but didn’t expect anyone to call.

"I never heard from Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham. I did receive a call from Congressman Steve Pearce. I was surprised how open he was and how we agreed on about 80 percent of the issues that plague New Mexico."
He never says he called Lujan Grisham.  Her office says he didn't.  It would appear that "friends" -- or, more likely, a son who had recently met with Pearce and spoken highly of  the congressman -- initiated the connection between Pearce and Jerry Apodaca.  
By the way, I left phone messages for Jeff Apodaca, to ask him a couple of questions.  I know indirectly that he's been defending his father's endorsement.

While I was working on this column, I also read a Facebook post by Bill McCamley that raises numerous pertinent questions about the elder Apodaca's written endorsement of Pearce:

Bill McCamley

17 hrs · 

I was asked by a constituent about my thoughts on former NM Gov Jerry Apodaca endorsing Rep Pearce over Michelle Lujan Grisham. I'd like to share my response, as the reasoning in the Alb Journal column he used doesn't make much sense.

First, I heard his son on the campaign trail numerous times as we were both running for statewide office. He spoke passionately about investing endowment resources in to a stimulus package. While Pearce two weeks ago wrote about investing some of one of our permanent funds in NM businesses, Lujan Grisham has been talking about this exact same solution for months as part of a well thought out job creation plan. Furthermore while Lujan Grisham has been a strong and constant supporter of using some of our Permanent Fund revenues for Early Childhood Education, in May Pearce came out against the idea.

Additionally, during the campaign:

Apodaca supported legalizing cannabis. Lujan Grisham does as well, but Pearce is strongly opposed.
Apodaca supported a $10 minimum wage that would be raised over time. Lujan Grisham supports a higher minimum wage as well, but Pearce voted against raising it in 2007 and 2013.
Apodaca supported equal pay for women. Lujan Grisham does as well, but Pearce voted in 2007, 2008, and 2013 against legislation that would have strengthened regulations enforcing equal pay.
Apodaca supported the NM Health Security Act. While Lujan Grisham doesn’t go as far, she does support the Medicaid Buy-In program to give New Mexicans a true public option for health care. Pearce voted in 2006 to cut Children’s Health Insurance, in 2012 to privatize Medicaid, and in 2017 voted for the disastrous health care bill that would have stripped Medicaid from over 250,000 New Mexicans.

So while Pearce copied one of Lujan Grisham’s proposals, her platform actually comes much closer to the younger Apodaca’s ideas. Therefore, why endorse the person your son agreed with much, much less?

Second, the elder Apodaca mentioned Pearce as willing to “reach across the aisle”. Yet, he referenced no proof that Pearce has ever done this in his political career. So I looked at every bill he sponsored during his four years in the State House. Not one shows a Democrat co-sponsor.

As a US Rep he helped found the ultra right wing “House Freedom Caucus” in 2015. This is the group that works against compromise on immigration and health care while constantly threatening to shut down the government because they want to gut Medicaid. And according to govtrack.us out of 435 House members there were only 30 who co-sponsored Democratic bills LESS than Pearce while he ranked the 8th most conservative member overall.

He has railed against the LGBT community, saying in 2008 they would only get married to fraudulently receive AIDS treatment. In 2014 his wrote in his book that a wife “is to voluntarily submit” to her husband. In 2017 he voted against a bill that would have protected public lands from being sold off to the highest bidder. And while Lujan Grisham has released her tax returns, Pearce has mirrored Donald Trump (whom he supports strongly) in keeping them from the public and hiding who he may be indebted to should he be elected.

So, at what point in his political career has Pearce ever expressed a willingness to work with anyone except hard line Republicans? The answer is none. He has the track record of an ideological hard liner with no will to collaborate with anyone he disagrees with.

I will stick with Michelle Lujan Grisham. Her values will translate to policies that make life better for people here. Pearce’s sure won’t.

By the way, a few days later, at least one hilarious response on Facebook to the column:

Chet Steadman · 5 mutual friends

If anyone is whimpering its you and your socialist group of losers. YOUR president has been winning since he took office and you cant handle it. You also cant handle your own democrats who see the truth of your socialist movement. And why the hell are you in a hot tub with another man. thats disturbing. Gross.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 1d

C Olivia Irwin JD Shouldn't you be out shopping for school clothes, honey? The 4th grade's just around the corner...When you get older you'll learn to use big words and actually read all about the many aspects of political science--like the difference between the socialism, communism, and fascism--democracies, aristocracies and plutocracies---Things like that. Then after sex ed, you may learn that men take baths together in many cultures including our own and it doesn't mean you have to hump them. Cheers. :)

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 23h

Peter Powers Goodman You sound like a caricature! Never been in a gym where people play ball and maybe sauna or hot tub afterward? It's funny, in writing that sentence I wondered if anyone reading it would be so uncomfortable about his own sexuality as to feel the need to be insulting -- or be, as you describe, "disturbed." Are you afraid you couldn't control your urges? Meanwhile, your president is destroying much of the best in our country, and guaranteeing a near future that'll be pretty ugly economically, probably politically, and certainly in terms of the environment and consumers and such; but, gee, enjoy.

Socialism, Civility, and Us

Hosting an intense radio show Wednesday, with guests from “Retake our Democracy” and the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, left me reflecting on socialism, civility, tactics, and my advancing age.

Socialism is a sweet concept espoused mostly by Christians until it became a curse word during the 20^th Century, when the ideology got intertwined with Russia's nationalist ambitions; and Soviet Communism's “godlessness” was a deal-breaker for many here.

Socialism means equality and democracy; turning public assets, resources, and energies to the public good, making things at least livable for all. Should everything belong to a few rich folks?

But are humans too selfish for socialism? Will the comrades running the police and the army always end up more equal than the others? (The Soviet example is cautionary. Kerala (an Indian state) and some European social democracies are more encouraging.)

Ideology is largely nonsense. No nation has long existed without elements of both capitalism and socialism. Governing is like cooking, continuously perfecting the ingredients, stirring, tasting, and adding more . . . chile! Unfortunately greedy folks usually seek and obtain more than their share, under any system. 

There's no earthly reason to fear democratic socialism. It's not witchcraft, or devil-worship. It's a pile of ideals we could use more of and values we say we support. We could use state-run universal health care, something other civilized nations have. And more democracy. Whether socialism could serve as a system of government here, successfully or for a long time, is a question we're unlikely to face during my lifetime.

We argued over civility. DSA folks had shouted “Shame!” at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen until she left a Mexican restaurant. I expressed mixed feelings about whether that was right, or tactically effective. (My DSA friends say membership numbers jum

ped when the video went viral.) As Retake co-founder Roxanne Barber said, the impolite incident was minor beside the crimes and blunders being committed in our name, by our federal government. It's also true that Trump has ratcheted up discourtesy and ethnic prejudice.

Is civility lost forever? Can a democracy survive without it? Yeah, Congressmen caned each other just before the Civil War. But, uhh, that was just before what, again? 

Or am I just old? Conventional citizens thought we were impolite when we protested the Viet Nam War. We probably were. We started out real polite, as we'd been during the Civil Rights Movement; but it didn't stay that way. 

Current events often seem like repeats of old movies. Every insurgency has to figure out how to be loud and disruptive enough to wake folks up without estranging more than you inspire. Is a third-party candidacy a matter of conscience or a waste of votes? In 1968 I cast my first vote for President for a black convicted felon -- and asked everyone who got into my cab “which of the Three Little Pigs are you voting for?” But in 2000 I saw enough difference between Gore and Bush to wish Nader would end his candidacy, though my daughter worked for him. Changed circumstances – or my aging? In 2016, progressives grieving for Bernie instead of campaigning for Hillary probably helped elect Orange-Hair. 

In 2018, should we shout for abolishing ICE because in a perfect world it's right – or shut up about that because we might help Republicans manipulate frightened voters? 

I know only that we need to effect positive change.

                                                     -30-

[The column above appeared on Sunday, 12 August 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 KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[For younger readers, let me add a word on 1968.  The civil rights movement had made real progress, and the War in Viet Nam was controversial.  President Lyndon Johnson had decided not to run for re-election because the war was making him too unpopular, as evidenced by the fact that anti-war challenger Senator Gene McCarthy got a respectable share of the vote against a sitting president in the New Hampshire primary.  Robert Kennedy got into the race when Johnson left it, and might have become the nominee, but for an assassin's bullet.  Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee. The Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey -- originally a dynamic young liberal but a man who'd become Johnson's vice-president, gaining power but making compromises -- such as supporting the war -- that made him unpalatable to many of us.  Meanwhile segregationist George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, ran as a third-party candidate.  I voted for Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver.  Nixon won a close popular vote, 43.42% to 42.72%, with Wallace taking 13.53%, and a not-so-close electoral college vote, 55.95% to 35.5% to 8.55%.  Near as I could tell, the Wikipedia account doesn't even mention Cleaver.  It does note that "Other" won 243,259 votes.  And one of its sources reports that Cleaver's votes were 36,571 of that. ]

[Again, what's to fear in Democratic Socialism?  Will our government ever become Democratic Socialist?  No.  Should it?  I don't know, though I think I'd prefer it to the current situation.  Do we need to move a whole lot closer to Democratic Socialist ideals as soon as feasible, to survive and prosper as the kind of country we could be, and the kind our founders would approve of?  Yeah.  Clearly.  If you want to figure out what you might think about it, read some of the material on the DSA website, https://www.dsausa.org/.]

[On the same radio show, we talked with the co-founders of a group in Santa Fe, Retake our Democracy.  Formed in 2016, by disappointed supporters of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination that went to Hillary Clinton, it's a thoughtful group with useful ideas about how to survive in a time of Trumpism.  I recommend a look at their website, too:  https://retakeourdemocracy.org/ .  Good people.]

We Voted "Yes!" on Each Item on the Municipal Ballot

We received our mail-in ballots from the County Clerk's Office, voted, and popped them back in the mail.

There are two sets of items: four separate general obligation bonds and six proposed amendments to the Las Cruces City Charter's recall provisions. The former will increase property taxes a little. The latter won't cost anything, and could save us money and headaches if some fly-by-night group wants to undo a city council vote.

Each of the ten is a good idea.

The bonds would fund good things for the community. Replacing a deteriorated firehouse and building a new animal control facility seem pretty basic. Others would improve quality of life; and some could contribute to saving money dealing with crime, obesity, and bored kids.

City officials didn't initially propose the total package. Their proposal was more modest. A long public-input process revealed that citizens very much wanted additional improvements. The overall plan is based on community needs, not some ivory-tower concept.

Benefits include more parks, sports fields, and trails.

The four would increase real estate taxes modestly. If your house is worth $100,000 or $200,000, you'd pay an extra $70 or $140 in taxes next year, and for a few years thereafter.

If you're on a low fixed income, and feel you can't afford that, I can't argue with you. But that $70 is basically $1.35 per week. It would buy five and a half packs of cigarettes during 2019.

I'd respectfully suggest that feeling pride in your contribution to our community is worth that. 

The right to recall elected officials was a novelty during the Progressive Era a century ago. It's important – but can be abused. Rich folks, mostly from outside the city, abused it in 2014 because they didn't like the minimum-wage hike. (They used paid canvassers, some wild lies, and other tricks to garner signatures.) The city spent money dealing with the recall effort, and councilors and citizens spent money uncovering canvassers' misconduct and fighting back. We nearly had to pay for a special election. The non-financial cost was a widened chasm between people, a bitter rift in the community.

The new rules would track the state rules, which also apply to the county. We still could recall councilors; but we'd need demonstrable grounds, such as illegal or improper conduct, not just political views and actions we didn't happen to agree with. Before signatures were gathered, recall proponents would present their case to a judge. As with pre-trial criminal proceedings, the judge would determine whether there was probable cause.

I was involved in the recall fight. It was a mess. My suggestions for improvement were somewhat different from these. I think mine were a better balance of various interests. But these proposals are far better for our community than the existing charter language. They'd also give the city clerk longer to inspect petitions, and give petitioners only one shot at gathering enough signatures.

The proposed amendments on the ballot would spare us another such community-dividing and costly event. People we voted in could concentrate on their jobs, not on repelling recall attacks. (Under existing law, we could have had two or ten efforts during the past four years, not just one.) Once the community elects someone, that should stand – unless there's actual malfeasance or criminal conduct.  ("misconduct or violation of the oath of office.")

So, yeah, we cheerfully voted “Yes” to all these proposals. I hope you vote for most or all of them.

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 5 August 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 KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[The City has posted abundant information on all of these issues at http://www.clcbond.org/
and lists the ballot questions there too.]

[The recall amendments:
>require recall commissioners to file a written notice of intention with the City Clerk, with 50 signatures, stating "facts that support grounds of misconduct or violation of the oath of office" after which "a district judge shall determine if misconduct which violates local or state laws governing elected officials has occurred" before the petition is circulated; 
>give recall petitioners 60 days to collect sufficient signatures and increase by five days the time the City Clerk may take inspecting signatures and determining a recall petition's sufficiency;
>remove a provision that gave petitioners a second bite at the apple, a chance to add signatures if the number collected proved insufficient; and
>clarify that people who have signed the petition and wish to withdraw their signatures can do so by notarized letter received by the City Clerk (through certified mail or personal delivery) up to seven days after the recall proponents have submitted the petition to the City Clerk.

As I mention in the column, I could quibble with some of the details in these amendments; when I posted some suggestions in 2015,  I would have (a) amended the initiative/referendum provisions too and (b) taken more of a middle course, providing for a judge's review; but instead of having the judge's word be final, I'd have allowed recall proponents to go forward despite an adverse verdict by the judge but required them to collect a significantly higher number of signatures than if the judge had agreed with them.  I'd still have preferred that.
However, the amendments would be a great improvement.
If you've forgotten the recall travesty we experienced in 2014, search the Sun-News website or just search my blog using the word "recall" -- or google the phrase "Las Cruces" with the words "recall" and any of "Nathan", "Pedroza", or "Sorg."  (Searching my blog yields this page and the google search took me to this list.)  I should note that on this one I got involved as a lawyer, representing the three targeted City Councilors, so (a) I didn't write as many columns on the subject as I otherwise might have and (b) I wasn't an objective bystander the whole time.]