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: