Sunday, July 31, 2022

Captain Picard, the Glebes, and Us

The monarch butterfly joining the endangered species red list and our state’s oil and gas operations likely need to alter practices to help lesser prairie chickens recover remind me of a Star Trek episode.

The Enterprise, under Captain Picard’s command, is cruising the Milky Way seeking to do no harm. Deanna then Riker start having dreams and getting telepathic communications urging them to stop at a planet in the system they’re approaching.

Picard is reluctant, but, after several trusted crew-members recount moving dream-scenes and desperate pleas which seem to suggest the planet’s population may soon be destroyed, agrees to stop.

They find the planet populated primarily by Doms, reasonably intelligent beings with whom they can communicate. The Doms don’t object to their visit, but reassure Picard they are doing fine, and know of no imminent disaster.

A curious fact is that for each Dom there is a corresponding Glebe. The Glebes exist to protect and serve the Doms, and can shift shapes at will. If a Dom child is walking toward a cliff or other danger, the Glebe will get in the way, or grow hands and arms with which to grasp the child. If a Dom pauses somewhere, and wants to sit down, his or her Glebe immediately takes the form of a comfortable sort of seat, and retains that shape as long as necessary.

Initially, it’s not even clear whether Glebes are sentient beings or just tools the Doms have invented that obey wordless commands. Doms explain that the Glebes are living creatures who cannot speak, write, or reason. Glebes sense Doms’ needs and respond. Doms treat them in ways ranging from kind and grateful to careless and contemptuous. When a Dom is born, a Glebe appears. When a Dom dies, his Glebe disappears.

Eventually, the crew realize that it’s the Glebes who’ve been telepathically pleading with them. Smoke from a substance the Doms have started smoking will, in time, kill off the Glebes. When Picard tells Dom leaders of this danger, they shrug it off. Glebes are convenient nonentities whom some Doms even regard as an annoyance. However, it turns out that when a Glebe dies, its corresponding Dom dies. The Doms resolve to give up the substance they’ve enjoyed smoking.

This episode never aired. At the time, I was watching Star Trek because of a teenager who never missed it. I conceived the episode. I even sent for the “Bible” that contained the complete backstories of all the characters, but I was a busy lawyer. Then the series ended.

The monarchs remind me of that “almost” episode. We may not care much about the lesser prairie chicken; but we are rapidly losing bees and other pollinators, as well as birds and many species of trees. The trees, without particularly intending to help us, supply us with oxygen and help cool the planet, a critical part of our water/rain cycle. Bees, birds, and insects are essential to much of what we consume. Despite all our science, losing these species could endanger us. Even without that danger (and without our wonder at other creatures’ variety and beauty), what right do we have to destroy species wantonly?

But I’m an old man mumbling into his beard, recalling childhood’s plentiful lightning bugs. And protecting a butterfly or a bird seems almost quaint when we are willfully ignoring the stunted lives our descendants will suffer because of our careless selfishness.

                                                              – 30 --


[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 31July 2022, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper’s website (Humans' Role in Endangering Species Is No Science Fiction) and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both station’s websites.]

Sunday, July 24, 2022

Our Police Kill too Many of Us

I believe this city needs a Citizens Police Oversight Committee. Our police kill too many of us for a town our size; the Valenzuela and Baca cases raised serious questions of possible criminal liability; and on Baca, the administration stonewalled – and released a misleading PR video.

We need a CPOC; but incremental improvements are worthy of discussion.

A retired DASO deputy says too many traffic stops for vehicular defects get misused by officers.

Officer Smelser attempted a hold LCPD had trained him on, though it’s now disapproved. (Could a CPOC have helped LCPD reach that decision earlier?) The men were battling. Should they have been?

Valenzuela had a warrant pending, so the cops were meant to bring him in; when he ran, it was natural to pursue him; but his alleged crimes were nonviolent. The system suffers if folks can ignore warrants; but a warrant could be for unpaid traffic fines or a codes violation. (Authorities often don’t know whether you’re thumbing your nose at your obligation, or have moved, or are incarcerated on some other charge. Maybe you slept in someone’s garden, urinated on a sidewalk, or owned property with too much junk or unsafe conditions.)

Former Sun-News columnist and veteran Michael Hays suggests five changes: 1.    Police may not pursue anyone because of non-vehicular misdemeanors or non-violent felonies.

2.    Police may not use any weapon—taser, pistol, rifle, spray—or body-damaging or life-endangering technique to stop or subdue anyone because of misdemeanors or non-violent felonies.

3.    Police may use a weapon only in response to the actual use of a weapon.  Any use of a weapon by any officer(s) will be proportionate to that use.  (The Army rule—do not fire unless fired upon—would apply.)

4.    All tickets must include certification to the truth of the charge(s), under penalty of perjury, and altering charges would amount to tampering with evidence.

5.    Quarterly public accountability sessions attended by City Council, managed by the City Manager, and staffed in person by the Chief of Police, to answer questions or address criticisms posed orally by members of the public.


These are the sort of issues on which a CPOC could hear a variety of views and make recommendations to the LCPD. Some form of #5 seems particularly important. Police Chief Dominguez has conceded there’s no public trust in the police. (Neither stonewalling nor moves like the PR video about Sra. Baca’s killing foster trust.) Such sessions, are precisely what Earl Nissen has witnessed at Albuquerque CPOC’s monthly meetings; but Hays is also right that quarterly sessions would be an improvement. Internal Affairs is not an answer, even short-term. An ombudsperson might be; but without a CPOC, some other steps need to be taken to convince folks the sessions are unbiased, and possibly to protect against retaliation.

These are promising ideas that deserve more discussion. One problem is that “hindering, obstructing, or evading an officer” and battery (including battery on a police officer) are misdemeanors. Some defendants are not reasonable. Some are drunk, hear voices, believe they’re agents for the CIA or NATO, or did it because God said to. Taser or spray may be the appropriate and safest tactic.

We need improvements. Now. We should be discussing those. We need a way to discuss them with police. So far, LCPD enthusiasm has been disappointing. We clearly need some way to make dialogue happen.

                                           – 30 --


[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 24 July 2022, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper’s website (slightly mistitled as Las Cruces Needs a Citizens Police Oversight Committee ), in that I wrote a column on CPOCs a while back and this one, after mentioning my position, mentions several promising suggestions for incremental reform efforts) and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both station’s websites.]

[First of all, I want to pass on the URL to Michael Hays’s blog, where he discusses his suggestion: http://firstimpressionssecondthoughts.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-futility-of-police-reform-in-las.html. Michael and I do not always agree, but he usually has an interesting perspective and has dug up some interesting information about the police and the shooting of the Sra. Amelia Baca. He and others doubt that, given Mayor Miyagashima’s past opposition to anything resembling a CPOC, Las Cruces can create one. Others of us are more hopeful.]

[Folks interested in looking into CPOCs and how they’ve worked elsewhere might start at http://www.nacole.org/the National Association of Oversight for Law Enforcement.]



 

Sunday, July 17, 2022

Bobby Byrd

On a recent Sunday evening in El Paso, about 30 young folks from Basketball in the Barrio followed a musician to a small house on Louisville Avenue. Just outside the bedroom door they read a poem, “Basketball Is a Holy Way to Grow Old,” to the man lying inside who had written it. As they read the poem, thunder and rain shook the windows.

The man lying in the bedroom was Bobby Byrd. A few months ago, he’d celebrated his 80th birthday in the backyard of that house, with live music and poetry. The day after they read his poem to him, he died.

With a perpetual attitude of bemused surprise over how it all happened, he had led a hell of a good life. Happily, lovingly, productively married for decades; the father of three wonderful kids, one of whom was an El Paso City Council Representative for years. Lee and Bobby had not only produced a fine family, but also created in 1985 Cinco Puntos Press. Cinco Puntos (named for their neighborhood) mattered, because it published many Borderland writers, often Hispanic or indigenous, whom the world had ignored but to whom the world now gave prizes. Many fine voices we’ve heard only because of Lee and Bobby, and their bookstore was a great feature of their neighborhood. The National Endowment for the Arts once promised them a $7,500 grant to publish a children’s book by the leader of an indigenous uprising in Chiapas – then cravenly withdrew it for fear of offending the Mexican Government. They published i anyway.

Long ago, I knew the Byrds slightly, as mutual friends of poets Keith and Heloise Wilson. The last decade or so, I’ve known (and loved) them better, and, since COVID, Bobby has been a welcome addition to our (ZOOM) poetry workshop. I hope Bobby wouldn’t mind my reprinting here the middle of one of his poems, “What’s it Like Not Being Here?”


And what’s it like not even being here?—

this here would not be here,

no here, no now, my world, all

gone away, nothing, empty,

the darkness my mother’s womb

pushed me through, a burst

of amniotic fluid into light,

like this light here, like this now,

a dream, which is not a dream,

the same dream my father whispered

in my little boy ears, the day

so many years ago, his plane flew

too close to the earth,

crashed and erupted into flames,

Clarksdale, Mississippi,

goodbye, he said, maybe he said,

maybe he didn’t say, leaving this light,

this earth light, this human light.


And now you are not here, my friend! Wonderful kids and grandkids miss your touch, your laughter, your easy delight in their quirks and yours. You ambled through life in your own way, doggedly loyal to truth, beauty, family, and friends, and managed to do a lot of good while staying humble and spontaneous.

Is that Ferlinghetti’s dog howling?

                                                     30 --

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 17 July 2022, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper’s website (We Will Miss Bobby Byrd - Poet, Publisher, Friend) and KRWG's website. A related radio commentary will air during the week on KRWG (90.7 FM) and on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both station’s websites.]


[A poem by Bobby that I particularly liked was “Ferlinghetti’s Goddamned Dog.” Ferlinghetti's poem, "Dog," was one of the first Beat poems Bobby heard and loved as a kid, as he recounts in this May 2021 blog post:


When I was 16 or 17, like in 1958 or 1959, my friend Harvey Goldner, my first mentor in the community of poets, guided me to a basement listening room in the Memphis Public Library. There we listened to the San Francisco Renaissance poets—Rexroth, Ginsberg, Snyder, Whalen, Lew Welch, Spicer, Ferlinghetti, and all the rest. We spent the whole afternoon there, the 78rpm records spinning round and round. The poem that opened my heart the widest was Ferlinghetti’s “Dog.” (Please listen before reading my poems.) That poem, with its street-talking wisdom, was revelatory for me, a young man wanting to be a poet. I keep it in my heart and mind all these years. Likewise, his City Lights Bookstore and City Lights Publishing were also inspiration for me when Lee and I began Cinco Puntos Press in 1985 and then in 2001 when we bought our own storefront in downtown El Paso. Around the time of his 100th birthday, thanks to our friend Elaine Katzenberger (publisher, City Lights Publishing), I met and talked with him at the Poetry Project at St. Mark’s. He was like an old friend. Indeed, he was an old friend.”

[What I’ve called Bobby’s “bemused surprise” at his successful life was evident in his manner, whenever we talked, but also in his introduction to Otherwise, My Life Is Ordinary, a book of his poems: "This poetics of mine is like a three-legged donkey. A goofy-looking pack animal that stumbles along beside me. Damn thing just materialized haphazardly when I was growing up.” His 80th birthday party, with live music and poetry, was a wonderful evening.

By the way, Susie Byrd says that anyone who wants to “do something to help” or mark Bobby’s passing donate to the Both Sides / No Sides Community (El Paso Zen Buddhist Center for Engaged Practice), where Bobby was a founder and a teacher. He found much peace there and helped others find more, and would love for his passing to help sustain the community that was holy for him. You can make a PayPal donation to bothsidesnosides@gmail.com or send a check. http://www.elpasozen.org/

The Both Sides / No Sides El Paso Zen Buddhist Center is a community of people who come together to practice the dharma in the Soto Zen Buddhist tradition.

[The full text of the poem quoted in the column is:

What’s It Like Not Being Here?

Waking up groggy, dream-heavy,

the driver’s seat tilted backwards,

the Subaru in the shade of an oak tree,

windows open, a hot summer day,

the Sprout’s parking lot,

4:08PM, Memorial Day 2019—

I can’t remember why I am here.

And what’s it like not even being here?—

this here would not be here,

no here, no now, my world, all

gone away, nothing, empty,

the darkness my mother’s womb

pushed me through, a burst

of amniotic fluid into light,

like this light here, like this now,

a dream, which is not a dream,

the same dream my father whispered

in my little boy ears, the day

so many years ago, his plane flew

too close to the earth,

crashed and erupted into flames,

Clarksdale, Mississippi,

goodbye, he said, maybe he said,

maybe he didn’t say, leaving this light,

this earth light, this human light

and it makes perfect sense—

these cars going back and forth,

Fords, Hondas, Chevys, so many cars,

so many people inside those cars,

inside those buildings, walking the sidewalks,

huddled in the shade, hot desert wind,

dust and more dust,

a mountain over there

at the edge of Mexico, topped

with dead Jesus on the Cross, stars

and planets spinning round, fucking Trump

in Japan making a mess of things,

humanity on the brink.

Sunday, July 10, 2022

Appreciating Hutchinson Testimony and Summarizing Hearsay Ruloes

Trump fans dismissing Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony in the January 6th Hearings as “hearsay” prompted a column on hearsay.

We’ve all heard trial lawyers object: “Hearsay!” So, what is hearsay, and is it always excluded?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of its contents. Testimony that “Joe told me Donald told him Mike wore a dress to the party” is inadmissible to prove what Mike wore. What if Joe testifies Donald told him that? Still inadmissible, unless offered to show Donald’s view of Mike. We need Donald to testify that he saw Mike in the dress. (If Donald testifies Sue told him, it’s again inadmissible.)

Out-of-court statement is obvious. “Offered to prove the truth of its contents” is an important qualifier folks sometimes miss. “When I woke up that morning, Donald said it was snowing outside.” Inadmissible as evidence it snowed; but if this happened in Miami, and is offered to show Donald isn’t quite sane, it gets in. Or if Donald had immediately sold the witness emergency snowshoes for $1,000 on a sunny 82-degree day, it’s admissible as evidence Donald lied to defraud someone. “Hang Mike!” or “Let’s steal that!” wouldn’t be hearsay, if the witness heard it.

Even hearsay may be admissible. There’s a complex series of rules that basically reduce to common sense. If the context and conditions strongly suggest truth, maybe it gets in. For example, judges may admit testimony to “excited utterance” made without time to think, and thus more than usually credible.

Witness says Donald asked about her cabin, saying he might need a hideout because he just robbed a bank. Donald’s admission of a crime is hearsay, but admissible as “an admission against interest.” That is, a reasonable person in Donald’s position wouldn’t have made that statement falsely because it’s contrary to his financial or other interest, or likely to expose him to civil or criminal liability. It’s also admissible if Donald is a party to the case, because a party’s statements aren’t defined as hearsay.

Donald, seeking medical care, says his stomach hurts because the damned bank guard shot him. Doc’s hearsay testimony is admissible.

In earlier times, a statement by a dying person, “Donald shot me,” was allowed as evidence because someone about to meet St. Peter wouldn’t add another lie to his record. These days, that reasoning seems weak; but in homicide cases courts still admit a victim’s statement about “who done it” made when the victim thought death was imminent.

Other admissible hearsay includes the family bible’s list of children’s birthdates, if those dates are in question.

A court may reject evidence when its tendency to inflame jurors’ passions and prejudices outweighs its value as evidence. There’s also a catchall exception that may admit statements that aren’t among the listed hearsay exceptions but offer similar assurances of credibility. Too, if Donald testifies he won an election, hearsay testimony that he said he lost can be used to impeach him, and he can be cross-examined on that.

Unlike a court trial, public hearings can and do admit hearsay. We each get to judge witnesses’ credibility, although too often we do so on whether or not we like the testimony.

Judges use the witness’s demeanor, her possible motives, biases, and interests, and the circumstances, as well as whether the testimony is internally consistent and supported by existing evidence.

Cassidy Hutchinson seemed credible to me.

                                                    – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 10 July 2022, 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 on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both station’s websites.]

Sunday, July 3, 2022

Supreme Court on a Rampage - Wake Me When We Get Back to the Inquisition

It feels rotten to be a U.S. citizen.

I recall pre-Roe times. Although abortion’s normally a safe, simple procedure, I watched a female relative endure a life-threatening situation because abortions were illegal and hers couldn’t be done in a hospital. That sticks in your mind.

Last week’s supreme court decision is horrendous for many reasons. It will mean some people will die or be jailed for family-planning, it signifies, in itself and in the court’s unnecessarily broad language, a serious eclipse of personal freedoms.

These justices did this with glee, writing the decision the way someone walking off with your wallet might unnecessarily stick his finger in your eye as he left.

Much of my life, we’d seen (and helped create) an opening up: tolerance of ethnic minorities, even some recognition that nonwhite folks not only had rights but might contribute new and valuable insights; recognition that most women wanted to be more than brood mares, that while some relished marriage and child-rearing, many also wanted to be welders or doctors, and to be able to own property in their own right. (Women got the right to have credit cards without a man’s signature soon after the Court recognized their right to abort pregnancies.) Women sought equal employment rights and some protection against spousal abuse. We’ve gone from arresting folks to performing gay marriages, and have recognized that folks have the right in their intimate lives to do as they choose with other consenting adults. In 1965, in some states, a black couldn’t marry a white, and a married couple couldn’t buy birth control.

That openness has meant the world to many.

Essentially, our definition of “people” has broadened. As it broadened, we applied the Constitution more broadly. Written by Christian white men to protect their own freedom, its language applies as well to folks those men hadn’t yet contemplated as equals. (Well, it applied for a while.)

In my youth, the Supreme Court’s big controversy was Brown v. Board of Education, the groundbreaking recognition that separate-but-equal was an impossibility because if I banned you from going to school with my kids and “our kind,” that harmed you. Excluding someone, right from childhood, damaged that person by vividly demonstrating that s/he just wasn’t as good as others. (Too, in practice, your school was never as good as mine.) Brown overruled Plessy v Ferguson; Earl Warren worked hard for a unanimous court, and Brown explained in scientific detail why Plessy was wrongly decided.

The present far-right justices don’t care. They say Roe was wrongly decided, lie about history and previous decisions, and ignore a half-century’s reliance on the right to privacy.

Alito, Thomas, et al. are destroying the court. The court has no army, no police force. Just this widespread idea that it’s neutral and serious and follows something called the Law. As justices bother less and less even to pretend they’re honest or fair; and as their decisions get further out of tune with prevailing views, the court’s prestige shrinks rapidly. (We’re seeing that already in polls.)

What’s really weird is that all this restriction of personal freedom is being pushed by folks who scream “My Constitutional Right!” faster and louder than anyone if you mention gun-safety or granting others the right to live their lives on their own terms.

Those who applaud this court’s decisions may some day regret the vicious, intolerant nation the justices are turning us into.

                                            – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 3 July 2022, 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 on KTAL (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/) and be available on both station’s websites.]

[The abortion decision is wrong on the law. Even buying into “originalism,” it’s wrong on its claims about what folks thought and meant at the time. Abortion wasn’t something you bragged about, but wasn’t some huge crime, either; and at common law, which we inherited, it was criminal only after “quickening,” which is months into the pregnancy, when the baby “kicks.”

More critically, it is a vicious and narrow understanding of what the Founders had in mind. They sought a living document. They also did not want an established religion dictating to non-adherents about their lives. Jefferson, I believe, not only stated that Christianity was not and had never been part of the common law, he said that like all religions it was built on a fable; and others stated clearly that the government was not founded on any religion. Adams said it was not a “Christian nation, any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”]

[Meanwhile, the Court is on a rampage: with mental problems epidemic, the Court is broadening the 1988-recognized individual gun-rights and encouraging everyone to carry in public; with global weirdness already affecting us, ahead of the predictions that opponents called exaggerated, it’s wrongly weakening the EPA’s ability to regulate; and it’s diminishing Sixth Amendment (right to counsel) as sloppily as its expanding the Second. We are in serious trouble for a long time, folks.