Guys, Let's Not Take it All Personally

Recently, many old white guys feel under attack. U.S. citizens, white folks, and males have come down in the world.

U.S. citizens still have it way better than most; but our absurd preeminence during my youth – 6% of the world’s population with 60% of its goodies – couldn’t, and shouldn’t, last.

Whites still have it pretty good (see last week’s column); and men still generally have it better than women.

Change is happening. Most white males would agree, some grudgingly, that equality is appropriate.

But while it’s obvious that whites/men have generally had easier paths to wealth and power than Blacks/women, what if you’re a white guy who started out poor, in a broken home, got shot up in war, fell pretty low, then found your way, worked your tail off, and became highly respected – and someone on Facebook says you’ve been coasting on your gender and or color? That feels personal, and unfair. Nothing came easy.

Guys, it ain’t personal, nor is it all wrong. Most of us, at some point, got a job callback or avoided a jail sentence or police harassment based on color, gender, and/or class. I sure did. If someone says gender/color/class helped me accomplish something, or “Coming from a home with two sane and well-educated parents who loved you and loved each other gave you a hell of a head start,” I can’t disagree. Didn’t ask for it, didn’t deserve it, sure was lucky.

Did my gender, skin color, and genes give me tremendous advantages? You betcha. But I can still take pride in what I made of that, and criticize myself for what I didn’t.

I wouldn’t want someone to hit me or steal my motorcycle because I’m privileged; but charging me with being privileged only hurts if I’m weak enough to let it.

A Black friend suggests that sometimes Blacks, Hispanics, or Native Americans should be hired ahead of a white guy, even with slightly lower qualifications. Hiring for jobs that matter, I want the best. However, the “less-qualified” gay Black woman could be the best. First, she brings diversity of experience and a fresh point-of-view. Secondly, if the white guy from an upper-middle-class family, scores 600 on our “objective” scoring system, while a Black woman brought up in the projects, who waited tables at the same school while studying, scores 580, she might easily be the far superior employee very soon. He’s on the way from 5 to 6, while she’s moving from 3 to 8 over time. If his father got gentleman’s Cs at college and stayed employed because of color and connections, while her father wasn’t around, then hiring her seems both fair and wise.

Still, much depends on individual cases; and I’d agree some white males have reason to complain.

To fellow white guys who feel aggrieved when “others” question whether they deserve what they have, or assert some privilege based on having been oppressed, you need not roll over, but don’t take it personally. We’re each unique, and may have accomplished many things of note. Others’ words shouldn’t undermine that. Those words reflect pain life has dealt them. Maybe that’s not my fault, but understanding others’ realities is good – for all of us. If you feel you’re being treated unfairly, fight it – but maybe only after reflection. Trying to see the other side might soften your reaction, even inspire you to join the fight for change.

                             - 30 -

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 31 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[ A friend said, “This will rile folks up!” I kind of hope not. Don’t mean to. And it’s a beautiful autumn Sunday morning!] The column grew out of conversations with friends. It seems pretty unarguable that certain classes of people, generally, have had easier paths than certain other classes of people, for reasons unrelated to their personal characters or abilities. There’s a huge, long-term change underway. It’s generally beneficial. There’s also some real silliness articulated, some conscious abuse of the general issues, and perhaps a certain cultural fanning of the flames of victimhood.” All huge and complex. I just wanted to address this one realization, that men of quality were taking stuff too personally. That’s unnecessary (I love the Buddhist maxim that another’s anger-producing or potentially hurtful words are a chalice of poison s/he offers us, which we are free to reject, in the sense of not taking it inside us emotionally.) and counter-productive (hinders both a reasonable understanding/evaluation of what’s being said by the Other, which may be true or false or irrelevant as to you personally, but arises from experiences you may not have had or witnessed, and one’s healthy recognition of one’s own good points).

Anyway, another friend question the word “weak” as too strong, too unsubtle, and off-putting. I’d agree. What I meant is that stuff like that hurts us only if we choose to let it, in the sense of the chalice of poison analogy. “Weak” is a loaded sort of word, and an oversimplification. ]

[Separate subject: if you haven’t already, please vote! That’s standard advice, but this year, with just a few local races and no state or federal office involved, turnout is low, even compared to two years ago. Meanwhile there’s a conscious, unified effort by some to elect folks who love Donald Trump, view mask and vaccines as purely a matter of personal freedom, and think the 2020 election was fraudulent and should be reversed in some fashion. Most Las Crucens do not agree, unless there’s been a massive shift in public opinion in the past year.

Public health and equity in education, among other values, are important – and potentially endangered. Further, should we elect to local office folks sufficiently credulous or dishonest enough to press the “frauditors’” view that the election was a massive fraud, after the courts have universally concluded otherwise, or folks who oppose the vast weight of scientific opinion on climate, maks, and/or vaccines, and would place their personal or ideological preferences above science in regard to public health?

In the nonpartisan city council races, if your district is involved, I’d urge a vote for Yvonne Flores, Becky Corran, or Becki Graham; on the nonpartisan school board, I’d urge a vote for current chair Ray Jaramillo, Pam Cort, or Bob Wofford; and in the Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District board election (you may vote for 2) Gill Sorg is a proven and trusted person with ranching experience, science experience, and now several terms of City Council experience who cares about our community and the environment; Josh Switzer is young and extremely apolitical, but is dedicated to organic farming and our local environment. (You may have bought vegetables or eggs from him at the Farmers Market.)

I say “nonpartisan” because they’re meant to be, and should be. However, the Republican party has endorse candidates it likes; I could not find such endorsements from the Democratic Party, although I saw a report that Senator Heinrich endorsed Flores; and we should not vote for or against a candidate because of party endorsement, but a candidate who endorses the extreme view that the 2020 election was fraudulent is probably not the best choice for a public position with policy responsibility.]

© Peter Goodman

 

 

Equity in Education?

 There’s a human race. One, homo sapiens.

The malarkey about black, white, yellow, or red races was a false construct used to justify slavery and other forms of exploitation of fellow humans.

That construct was central to (and a massive flaw in) our democracy. U.S. citizens held slaves. States enforced enslavement with laws, and vicious slave-catchers. Our Constitution denied blacks, women, and poor folks the right to vote, and made each southern slaveholder’s vote more powerful than a northerner’s vote.

Systemic racism. We’ve battled to escape that, even fought a war. We’ve made great strides.

Anti-Black (and -brown and -red) bias is still systemic, not only in certain states’ new voting laws, but all around us. Hiding photos of a black family and removing Afro-American-themed books and art can double their home’s appraised value. Prospective employers call job candidates named Emily Grandchester and Greg Wyndham 50% more often than they do Latisha Washington and Jamal Jones, despite equal qualifications. Researchers say a white-sounding name is worth about eight years of work experience. (Heard of Jon Gruden?) Saying our country has grown colorblind says the speaker’s willfully blind.

Some educators are trying to get more real. But some folks can’t bear admitting our nation’s flaws, or their own. Texas reacted so severely with H.B. 3979 that frightened teachers are scrambling to find books giving “the opposing perspective” on the Holocaust. (Will they have to teach both sides of the “controversial view” that we revolve around the Sun?)

We all know, whether or not we always follow it, that expressing and discussing problems and negative feelings can clear up misunderstandings and spark a frank discussion that helps everyone, while holding negative feelings inside, can let them fester into something worse. Married folks know that. So do sports teammates and office co-workers.

Even kids know it. Most couldn’t say why, but they feel it. Fear of the other is somewhat natural, but getting to know strangers can help. Understanding that racism is in most all of us, and is something to outgrow, is healthier than leaving questions and confusion lurking about in kids’ hearts. Doesn’t mean it should be a big deal, or detract from learning the rules of grammar or who signed the Declaration of Independence, but learning how notions of superiority fed our thinking could be thought-provoking. “When we talk about race with our children, we don’t burden them, we free them.” That’s from "What I Learned from my White Grandchildren" – a Ted Talk I recommend.

Locally, an organized right wing effort seeks to use the present election to rescind Policy JBC, which would increase openness and equity in education.

LCPS Chair Ray Jaramillo (District 1) has tried thoughtfully and courageously to navigate through such issues. So has Pamela Cort (District 2) during her brief tenure. Longtime Las Cruces High teacher Robert Wofford (seeking the District 3 seat) expresses clear support for this policy and for mask requirements.

Opponents Alberto Balcazar, Henry Young, and Eloy Francisco Macha Camborda all seem to want the schools to punt on ordering mask-wearing and on the difficult questions involved in offering a fair education to all, even students from historically disenfranchised groups.

Your vote for school board could be the most important one you cast this November. Our kids are our future. They deserve the best we can offer, not fact-denying ideological zealots. I’m sure those zealots are sincere; but they’re dangerously wrong.

                                       - 30 -

  

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 10 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[ I do recommend the Ted Talk I mentioned, available by clicking here. One point it makes is that while we often act as if “race” is real but not important, in fact it is not at all real, but quite important.  The children's questions he cites, and the context, might broaden one's understanding of these matter.

If “racism” sometimes influences some people trying to hire workers or appraise houses, and police effecting traffic stops, it might also influence some teachers and school administrators. That much seems not open to much question. That schools should (and arguably must under law) try to redress the balance, and ensure equitable education to all as far as that’s possible, also seems obvious.

There seem three basic points in opposition to that: (1) it’s none of the school’s business and could distract from teaching grammar and arithmetic; (2) open discussion of such issues could be counter-productive, by unduly focusing kids on racial differences rather than erasing those; and (3) it’s somehow unpatriotic.

(2) I think what JBC opponents miss, when they criticize discussing “race,” is that for the victims of unconscious bias, “race” is already present. It’s perceived and felt. It’s likely in the minds of white kids too: they see a difference, they’ve heard what they’ve heard at home or from peers, they’ve seen movies with vicious black villains and cheered wildly for black ballplayers they love and admire. They might have questions. Fearing that discussions could be counterproductive, as opponents do, is reasonable. Citing Martin Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society as if King would agree with their position on these issues is sly and misleading.

(3) Loving our country does not require whitewashing its every flaw, or contorting our consciences to excuse its every wrong. I admire our founders, generally, as great men. (and, yeah, they were almost all men, so far as I know.) To fight for the view that all the kings and emperors had not been installed by God, and that citizens could and should run their own kingless government, was courageous. It was an idea that was around, among thinkers and philosophers, but all the other countries had kings, emperors, shahs, or a kaiser.

Like all of us, they were limited by what was known or admitted generally in their time. From my own, I find it difficult to imagine holding another person as a slave. Impossible, maybe. In theirs, it was commonplace. If you loved and married a woman whose family plantation had slaves on it, how did you act? Likely few even asked that question. Men who did, often balanced competing impulses and tried to treat the slaves relatively well then freed them when they (or the wife) died.

I can’t justify any of that. Don’t mean to. But my ability to judge it is limited by awareness that our descendants may feel similarly about things we take for granted today, or grudgingly acknowledge. They’ll likely be living in worse conditions than ours, maybe much worse, because of climate change: might they curse our names, knowing that even those of us who acknowledged imminent climate change, and advocated preventing or mitigating it, hardly devoted our lives to it, and still took airplanes, waste gallons of water daily, and contributed to the problem by moving tons of metal and rubber along with us when we could have bicycled or walked? Certainly I’m appalled by how animals are treated; I happen not to eat meat, but let’s give folks who do a pass. Eating beef, chicken, or pork does NOT require torturing and poisoning the animal in its lifetime, denying it freedom to range on the land and cooping it up where it can’t move or suckle its young, and injecting poisons into it. Perhaps our descendants will see the cruelty even more clearly, and curse our names. Or, as the right-wingers might have it, perhaps we will have come to a much more compassionate position about foetuses – or, as they say, unborn children. I happen to value a woman’s right to choose above some stranger’s disapproval of abortion. Should that right be absolute, or is there some point in the pregnancy when abortion should be more regulated? Whatever my view, it’s conceivable to me that some day society may see that quite differently. (It had better be a society much more equipped and/or willing to take charge of unwanted babies and give them a warm, loving, and nurturing infancy and childhood!)

Anyway, I think JBS is a reasonable effort to address an actual problem. Some of its opponents are thoughtful people who bring their own experience and points of view to the discussion. I wish they’d help tailor the policy to meet the need without the unintended side-effects they fear, rather than shout a blanket “No!” ]

[ Meanwhile, in the column I recommended votes for three candidates. For good reasons. In the District 3 race, while I preferred Bob Wofford, I found Eloy Francisco Macha Camborda thoughtful and articulate, and would bring an interesting perspective to the board. Also, while I believe in having teachers on the Board of Education, and support three in this election, I would not think it quite optimum for the Board to be all teachers. I hope in future years we see more non-teacher citizens, preferably parents, who can bring a different perspective to the Board. ]

 

 

A Look at Our Local Election Ballots

Here’s how I’d vote in this year’s city council elections.

Two city council races offer clear choices: District 2 incumbent Yvonne Flores vs. William Beerman; and Becki Graham vs. Bev Courtney in District 3, where write-in candidate Gregory Shervanick is also running because, “the City, with major projects and a large budget, needs to have ethics, transparency, and accountability.”

A retired lawyer, Councilor Flores has worked hard and effectively to improve the City. She’s open to new ideas, and studies issues critically. Graham seems an excellent candidate who supports a living wage but also helps encourage businesses as a researcher and program manager at NMSU’s Arrowhead Center. Graham is in tune with Gabe Vasquez, whom District 3 voters elected in 2017; and being married to a LCFD fireman likely provides useful insights. Courtney, who teaches shooting and gun safety, cares deeply, but has done little to prepare herself for the kinds of detailed issues the council decides. Shervanick attends many council and city advisory board meetings.

If you believe Donald Trump was a fine president, cheated of re-election by some vast, conspiratorial chicanery, you may wish to vote for Courtney (a good-hearted, longtime resident making her third run for this seat) or Beerman. In our interview, Beerman played up his past work as an auditor, but also confirmed and reasserted that he considers recently-fired NMSU professor David Clements “a great American hero.” (Clements broke NMSU vaccine-and-mask rules, spouting disinformation, then encouraged hundreds of thousands of unknown sympathizers to persecute a fellow professor, about whom he lied.) As foot-soldiers in Donald Trump’s slow-motion coup – Trump’s effort to undermine democracy by getting flunkies into positions to overrule voters and throw states’ tallies his way in 2024 – these folks are not innocuous. If Beerman truly wants to help the City, and has good ideas, there are several advisory boards on which he could usefully serve. (Beerman also sees “socialism” as one of two “problem areas” he highlights about Las Cruces.)

In the four-way District 5 race, Becky Ann Corran is the star. She’s a Professor of Public Health who’s worked with diverse communities as an advocate, and has a demonstrated interest in solving public problems. As District 5 is a “ranked-choice-voting” race; I’d list David Telford second on my ballot.

Telford, a BravoMic radio ad consultant and marketer, is a self-described moderate for whom businesses are a high priority. Normand Robert Paquette insists he’s “a public servant,” and even ducked one substantive question I asked him by repeating the “public servant” riff instead of answering. His Facebook site hints at “conservative values,” but offers mostly platitudes and a neighbor’s endorsement.

Ronnie Sisneros says he joined the Republican Party in 2016. Likely for Donald Trump. (I do like that Sisneros says he values the Mesquite Historical District.) The County Republican Party endorses Sisneros and Pacquette.

I can and will vote to add Gill Sorg and Joshua Switzer to the Doña Ana Soil and Water Conservation District Board. Josh is a dedicated organic farmer (whose produce we’ve bought at the Farmers’ Market since 2012) and a truly non-political person who knows this land and loves it. Josh would be a breath of fresh air. Gill ranched in Montana, and did it the right way. Gill also has a science background. (And, yeah, his years on the City Council might equip him with contacts and knowledge that could facilitate DASWCD’s work.)

Anyway, please vote!

                                                     - 30 - 

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 17 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website. 

[Normand Robert Paquette repeatedly self-identified as “a public servant,” and has been noted for his charitable work. However, I feel it’s fair to ask candidates a little about their views beyond how they’ll handle their actual local duties if elected. For one thing, sometimes everyone says all the same things (stronger community, better police force, public safety, better service to businesses seeking permits, and “I love Las Cruces!”) about those local races. Some listeners may want to hear a little more about a candidate’s wider views. (The races are technically non-partisan, but Paquette’s, Courtney’s, and Sisneros’s candidacies are mentioned with approval by the County Republican Party.) That’s particularly so now. We have just seen (depending on your view) a very dangerous and destructive presidency OR a brief interlude in which Donald Trump pushed our country back toward old-time Christian values; Mr. Trump either got cheated out of election by a vast criminal conspiracy or is involved in a slow-motion coup attempt, using bogus claims of election fraud (rejected so far by all courts and many Republican officeholders) to justify limiting voting and setting up systems in which Republican politicians could veto the choices of their state’s voters to throw the election to their candidate. January 6 was January 6. Many Republicans and most all Democrats do not favor Trump’s efforts; but many Republicans do favor them, notably in swing states such as Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. Knowing whether or not a candidate favors that anti-democratic effort seems material to a decision on local offices. So I was annoyed when Pacquette blew me off, repeating his “I’m a public servant!” riff as a response to whatever I asked, rather than answering. He referred me to his website. His Facebook page says he’s won a mayor’s endorsement for community service, and his favorite books are Dale Carnegie and the Bible. (I should note that in election fora I try to elicit information, and rarely argue with candidates.)]

[With the Dona Ana Soil andWater Conservation District races, we talked with Gill Sorg and Josh Switzer, candidates in Positions 3 and 4. (They are in separate races, but all residents of the District can vote in both district races.) As to their opponents, who did not deign to discuss their DASWCD candidacies with us on radio, Jose F Makk apparently installs irrigation systems at golf courses and homes, while Joseph A. Skaggs owns a company that drills wells. Sadly, the Sun-News didn’t do candidate profiles on this race, nor do I see any in the League of Women Voters Voter Guide in the Bulletin. But I sure like and respect both Gill and Josh. Both truly care about conservation and the community.]

[I may discuss the school board race in my next column. I’ll be talking to the candidates on Radio KTAL [“Speak Up, Las Cruces!” 8-10 a.m. Wednesday, and specifically: 8:30, School District 1 Ray Jaramillo and Alberto Balcazar; 9, District 2 Henry A Young and Pamela M. Cort; and 9:30, District 3 Robert C Wofford  Eloy Francisco Macha Camborda, all on 101.5 FM or streaming at http://www.lccommunityradio.org/], Las Cruces Community Radio. (I haven’t met all the candidates, and will wait to see if the discussions alter my initial preferences or strengthen them.)]

[ALSO: “Almost, Maine” at the Las Cruces Community Theater was fun Saturday night, and likely will amuse additional audiences this coming Friday and Saturday evenings and Sunday afternoon, the last weekend of the play’s run. Audience modest, and therefore fairly safe for folks worrying about COVID19.

Contact LCCT at https://www.lcctnm.org/ or (575) 523-1200.]

© Peter Goodman 2021

 

One fine evening

Just before dark, under a vast high-desert sky, we sit at tables around a backyard swimming pool, and Megan McQueen is singing her heart out.

Our host has lost weight, and is using a cane. Months ago, on a hot spring day, we visited through the closed window of his room in a rehab center, kidding around by phone, pandemic-style. He was lying down, weak after his stroke. Sounding like a kid whose parents had bought front-row baseball tickets, he said Megan wanted to give him and his wife a private concert once he recovered. Tonight, introducing Megan and friends, he recalls: “I needed something to look forward to.” And to share with us.

Lives, like snowflakes, look alike to the casual observer, but no two have exactly the same shape, and each affects countless other lives, in greater or smaller ways, uniquely.

To Megan, our host is a friend and fan. To his kids, he gave them life, offered an example of how to live it, and undoubtedly frustrated the hell out of them sometimes, as they did him. To his wife, he’s a huge part of everything – she was unimaginably young when they met. To the fifty of us gathered, he’s a fun-loving good friend, trusted advisor, and reliable neighbor.

Across the pool, the Preacher’s kid, maybe 10, brings a smile to our lips, his fist a microphone as he silently sings along, as expressive as the star he imagines he is, his sunglasses completing the effect. I’d photograph him if I had my camera. Others do so, with cellphones. What will this celebratory evening mean to him, decades hence? Another vague childhood memory of twilight, good music, and a loving attitude in the air, that slips into his mind now and then, never quite identifiable, with a sense that there was something special, particularly to the grownups?

One guy recalls how he and our host beat the hell out of each other in Montana high school football, half a century ago, each school so small that they played both offensive and defensive line, battling each other all game. Our hostess ran track. As they sit here, appreciating this moment with a special depth, I wonder how they would explain to their younger selves feeling, a lifetime later, both diminished and much richer.

Our host puts down his cane and asks his sweetheart to dance. You can’t miss how much they appreciate each other at this moment, dancing yet again. (Most moving dance I’ve seen since watching a close friend dance at his daughter’s wedding not long after his heart attack, the stark Organ Mountains behind them.)

We enjoy chatting with two vibrant women in their late eighties at our table. They’re longtime friends. When Megan’s husband, Matt Reiter, sings “Sweet Caroline,” they recall hearing Neil Diamond at the Pan Am Center, forty years ago, with their now-departed husbands.

As Matt sings, “Stuck in the Middle with You,” I wonder what bizarre cast of “clowns and jokers” our host met on his interrupted stroll across death’s unguarded border, just before some medical magic jerked him back into this life. “I died twice,” he says. “I didn’t even know it.”

This evening he’s fully alive, and we all share in his joy and gratitude, acutely aware that life is to savor.

Most of life doesn’t turn out quite as we’d planned. Tonight does.

                                 - 30 -

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 10 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[I just wanted to thank our host and hostess, and honor his recovery, without sharing names. They’re long-time members of the community. And we can all, always, use reminders to hug our kids, tell folks we love ‘em, and do what we most deeply need or want to do.]

 

© Peter Goodman

© Peter Goodman

© Peter Goodman

Concerns about our Crisis Triage Center

Experienced registered nurses fear that the Crisis Triage Center is so badly run it could really harm someone and harm Doña Ana County.

It’s run by RI, specifically by Karina Diaz, a certified art therapist/psychotherapist who is not a nurse. Pre-opening, one source said Diaz “kept firing employees, amazing human beings,” including Freddy Hernandez, a highly experienced nurse whom the source called “a ray of sunshine.” RI says it did not fire Hernandez, a temp, and that it has fired no CTC staff nurse.

When contacted, Hernandez calmly discussed his experience at CTC, adding he’d wanted to contact Jamie Michael because he doubted she was aware of the depth of the problem. He’d been on committees trying to make CTC happen, and was “extremely disappointed,” particularly after that long community effort. He said Diaz lacked experience with such a facility. “She didn’t know what to order, when to order, or how things should go,” but micromanaged people anyway. “She’d sneak up on us and say, ‘Why are you talking?’ and you had to ask for permission to go to the bathroom.” He warned her, “You’ll lose your nurses. You have to treat them like adults.” Psychiatric nurses are scarce. Asked if I could use his name, Hernandez replied, “Of course. It’s very important that the County know about this.”

Another nurse who joined (then left) CTC early said that Diaz was so unkind to nurses that after one incident, another employee asked, “Why is she always after you guys?”

Another nurse said, “I’m scared for our County. They’re going to wind up having some dire thing happen. We need the CTC, but we don’t need it under this woman’s reign,” adding, “the County thinks it’s going all wonderful ‘cause that’s what Karina is reporting.”

More recently, experienced RN Pamela Field, who’s pretty well-known locally, worked with CTC. She called it “dangerously mismanaged,” and “a gross waste of taxpayers’ money. There are few “guests.” One source said most guests are either developmentally disabled persons whom “the home brings in after they’ve had a fit, mostly to give the home’s staff a break from dealing with them,” or homeless folks. “It’s a safe place. They get their clothes washed and move on.” (A few are having psychotic breaks, and belong there.)

Diaz reportedly insists on admitting people whose safety requires they go into the hospital. Field said CTC tries to detox alcoholics with very high alcohol levels, without medications. That’s a serious medical situation, not merely a psychological one, and potentially dangerous, particularly without meds immediately available. CTC lacks med, but tries anyway; and some of the necessary meds aren’t easy to procure. Field said Diaz was “not qualified to be overseeing nurses. She shouldn’t be directing nurses’ discussions, or dealing with controlled drugs.” Field ultimately declined a shift because she couldn’t ethically try to detox someone with a high blood alcohol level, without meds. RI says it operates ethically and will soon apply for a license permitting storage of controlled drugs.

One man reportedly presented with congestive heart failure and serious fluid overload, and anxiety. Diaz reportedly advocated admitting him, to treat anxiety, though his situation was medically dangerous and the CTC had neither an EKG machine nor meds to treat fluid overload. (RI disagrees with this account.)

This is what I’m hearing from extremely qualified nurses who want county management and citizens to hear the truth. We should listen.

                                                      - 30 -

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 3 October 2021, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and KTAL-LP. (101.5 FM – http://www.lccommunityradio.org/), and will presently be available on demand on KRWG’s site.]

[First, let me clarify that the two RNs named in the story were not the only RN’s with whom I spoke, and that not every source was an RN.]

[Second, this is not about RI International’s basic mission of providing crisis services to anyone, anywhere, anytime, or about the use of peer counselors with “lived experience” in helping people who are addicted to substances. Peer counselors can be essential.  Nurses I spoke with didn’t disagree with the principle; but they were concerned about aspects of the implementation, including the tough line-drawing required between helping everyone and ensuring urgent medical needs are met. RI says that “a licensed MD Psychiatrist” who I believe operates by telehealth, from out-of-state, “oversees all the medical decision making for the CTC.” An off-site RN Site Director from another location also consults when necessary; and it’s my understanding that they ultimately overruled Diaz with regard to treating the person mentioned in the column who was suffering from congested heart failure. RI stated, “There is incorrect information about the guest who visited the CTC with congestive heart failure,” but noted that RI would not discuss “any services provided to any guest that could contain identifying and protected health information.”]

[Finally, I hope RI International and county management treat this as helpful criticism.  The people I spoke with are well-regarded nurses with no problem finding other employment.  By RI's account, none were fired.  Nor is is necessarily pleasant to speak out about these things.]   

 

Meanwhile, butterflies have visited the Maximilian sunflowers a whole lot, the last few days:

 

 

 

 

 

and someone slept through the whole show: