Hell

Study the picture carefully. Men clad only in white shorts, each sitting with his butt on the floor between the knees of the man behind him, all shackled, in a place that tortures people.

You’re a decent sort. Can you imagine putting anyone into that situation? Take the young fools who started firing guns at each other among vulnerable bystanders in Young Park. I couldn’t put one there.

Study the picture. Imagine being one of those men. Stripped of your individuality; freedom a vague memory, no ability to stretch your body or move; never a book or newspaper or chocolate bar, from now until death frees you. Take long enough to let yourself truly imagine it. Imagine that your brother, lover, father, or son is there too, suffering, and knowing there could be no mercy or escape. Ever. Never even a game of chess of dominoes to exercise your mind – and damned sure no tennis or softball.

Imagine that vividly enough to form YOUR opinion of men who would put other men, most not even criminals, into that picture and into the custody of folks who violate human rights regularly, and perhaps enjoy it.

It’s like some old photographs we’ve seen. After months and years, these men will resemble those scared and skeletal Jews and socialists the Allies [our fathers] freed from Nazi concentration camps in 1945.

Understand that these same authorities could put us exactly there if we speak up against them. “But I’m a citizen!” you protest? Their jefe – our jefe – has said “homegrowns” are next. He considers Congresswoman Liz Cheney a criminal traitor.

We had a country where folks could speak up, right or wrong, agreeing or disagreeing with the government, because we had no King, Fṻhrer, or dictator but a democracy, where airing diverse viewpoints in New Hampshire town meetings was our founding dream.

Now contemplate that scientist arriving for a meeting here, getting her computer searched, and getting deported for writing something el jefe might not approve of. Nazi Germany wasn’t quite as paranoid; but, like the Nazis, we’re discouraging visitors, making decent folks uncomfortable and suggesting visitors are vulnerable; and decreasing our commitment to quality education and openness, which helped make us great. Hitler destroyed Picasso’s paintings and Donald Trump now chairs the Kennedy Center.

Just studying the details physically sickens me. Most of those men have absolutely no criminal record, anywhere. Of the men we sent to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorsimo, 90% have no U.S. criminal record, and just a dozen have serious charges against them. 90%. (The one admitted “administrative error,” Salvador’s jefe, sitting with ours, announced will not be returned.)

What evil could someone do to deserve a lifetime of this, 7,300 days of this torture, if a man lives 20 years. Or perhaps more than 10,000 “days!” A quarter of a million hours.

Can Christians read this and accept that YOU AND I are doing this to men who have never been shown to have murdered or raped, many of whom have never even been brought to trial on any charge? What mental gymnastics make this something Jesus would accept? Wouldn’t your just God sentence el jefe and the rest of us to his Hell, for putting these folks through ours?

Sometimes we have a duty to scream. Loud as we can. Hope some neighbors and friends awaken. Historians still argue about how much the average German knew.

                                                       – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 20 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper’s website (more politely headlined, Watching Deportations and Considering Humanity and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[There’s so much more to say about all this, of course. For a fig leaf of legality, Trump’s people reached back to an inapplicable old statute, last used during World War II, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This rarely used wartime statute grants the president authority to detain or remove nationals of a hostile nation during times of war or invasion. We are not at war with Venezuela; and Venezuelan migrants have generally come here to escape Venezuela’s government, not as an invading force on its behalf. So the law is clearly inapplicable; and the terrible harm to the wrongly deported individuals sure warrants preliminary injunctive relief while the court consider that question, particularly since the U.S. and Salvadorean dictators have refused to return one person known to be wrongly deported, despite a court order. They seem to be saying that although they have a contract for Salvador to house these folks, for money, the U.S. can’t require the individual’s return as part of the contractual compliance. The U.S. Supreme Court didn’t act as it should have regarding the first group, but apparently has delayed and may prohibit transfer of another group. The courts have required that affected persons have a reasonable opportunity to contest deportation in court. Stay tuned. ]

[Meanwhile, Trump is chortling, “homegrowns next.” If he can deport U.S.-born alleged gang members to the Salvadorean prison notorious for violating folks’ human rights and due process, and every torturing folks, he can deport any of us there. Then pretend he can’t get us back if the courts so order! End of constitutional due process; and since he’s trying to use the justice system (and the IRS) against anyone who thinks or speaks independently, rather than only against criminals, a whole lot of people should feel threatened. That includes anyone who disagrees with Trump-Musk-Vance about anything, but also anyone who disagrees with some future president, of any party, about anything, because if Trump breaks down our legal protections, some successor could (though I hope and trust they wouldn’t) use abuse Trump-supporters in the same way.]

[The poor legal excuse for all this, and the Trump Administration's disregard for court orders, let the Supreme Court not only to set speed records in putting on a hold on another shipment of humans to hell, but to make clear its distrust for the Administration.  A prior order said that any more deportations must be preceded by an opportunity for the prospective deportee to challenge the action in court; but with the newest planned shipment, the administration gave folks a few hours, on Good Friday, to raise legal challenges, and had some already on buses.  The Supreme Court could read that as well as anyone and ordered the pause; and it do so even before the appellate court had offered an opinion on the ACLU's request for a stay.]

 

 

Protecting Jurors and Justice

Juries are on my mind because my radio co-host recently served on two and because of concerns raised by lawyers’ efforts to undo the jury verdict that former LCPD Officer Brad Lunsford was guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

Those efforts could endanger the jury system, by subjecting a juror to a wide-ranging inquisition; but Lunsford is surely entitled to a fair trial.

On April 1, the state supreme court granted a temporary stay that Attorney-General Raúl Torrez said was needed to protect the juror from harassment, calling the proposed questioning “an ideological witch hunt.”

I can’t judge Lunsford’s guilt or whether this is an ideological witch hunt. Most of what Juror #8 has said about hoping for equality, seeing racism in our society, and being glad other white moms were facing up to that racism after George Floyd, many would say – and still be able to judge fairly a specific police officer in an individual case. (Does saying people shouldn’t kill others mean you’re barred from Luigi Mangione’s jury? Does saying cops shouldn’t kill people without some justification mean you’re barred from Mr. Lunsford’s jury?)

Federal law strongly discourages such post-trial questioning. Even where a juror intentionally gave dishonest answers during jury selection, the U.S. Supreme Court has strictly limited lawyers’ questioning of jurors. To overturn a verdict, lawyers must prove a deliberate lie when the truth would have elicited a valid challenge for cause. No fishing expeditions.

We should avoid intrusive post-verdict questioning unless it’s absolutely necessary, partly because we want private citizens to give readily of their time when asked to serve on juries. Knowing that jury service will likely trigger public scrutiny won’t encourage that. Our modern predicament, with almost everyone filtering almost everything through a partisan political lens, heightens the dangers. Here, pro-Lunsford folks started an on-line harassment campaign, publicly accusing the juror of “a disgusting and blatant bias,” and being a Black Lives Matter activist, and lying to infiltrate the jury so as to convict a police officer.

The jury system depends upon frank and robust deliberations; but if chance comments are likely to lead to intrusive post-trial questions, deliberations will be far less open. If manditory post-verdict questioning were a routine part of jury service, some juries in controversial cases might reach verdicts designed to avoid hassles, not verdicts designed to do justice.

I hope the New Mexico Supreme Court sharply limits post-juror questioning. If Juror #8 intentionally answered falsely to a material question in voir dire, even lying by omission, questions directly relevant to that could be appropriate; but harassing jurors with post-trial fishing expeditions isn’t. This may be particularly urgent where a juror has dared to vote for criminal conviction of a police officer, when the local police chief publicly urged folks to support the defendant after the verdict. In all cases, we need jurors to feel free to vote as their consciences dictate, without fear of repercussions.

If I were a judge, I’d likely allow some questioning about her SURJ membership, what that meant, and why she didn’t mention it during voir dire; but, judging from Defendant’s brief, Defendant’s lawyers know most of the relevant facts. Let the courts decide whether or not they’re things she should have articulated in voir dire; and then decide, keeping in mind that she was one juror among 12, whether a new trial is warranted.

Hears hoping the New Mexico Supreme Court finds the right balance.

                                         – 30 – 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 13 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website and the KRWG website (under Local Viewpoints). A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version aired during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[Sorry not to post this six days ago. I usually post the Sunday Sun-News columns here on Sundays, but didn’t manage it this time. It’s also a still-developing story I may return to, for discussion of related developments.]

Reflections on "Government Efficiency" -- and Wondering Whether Trump's Stupid Tariffs Are Kind of Clever for Trump

Efficiency is like speed: it doesn’t matter how fast you go if you don’t know where you’re going.

We’d all like government efficiency. Folks working reasonably hard,

only spending our money wisely; and not having seven management types directing someone how to replace a light bulb. And three checking her work.

But we might stop and ask, “do WHAT efficiently?” Having our government looking out for our best interests, whether in national security, criminal justice, overseeing medical care or fostering scientific development, or helping folks survive, we’d all like government to save the most cancer-ridden kids or build the most intimidating weapon as efficiently as possible.

Efficiency for us would mean getting an honest day’s work for a day’s pay from all public employees, protecting us from foreign attack without spending huge bucks on fancy but badly-designed weapons corporations can profitably sell us, treating the poor and disabled with compassion but not getting conned; and protecting us from the air and water pollution, dangerous or ineffective drugs, overly sharp business practices, and unhealthy food corporations plague us with, without endangering our economy. It’d mean government encouragement of science and quality education, because those are how we became pre-eminent in the world.

But efficiency for Musk-Trump and their corporations differs. They, like Calvin Cooolidge, believe, “The chief business of the American people is business.” For corporations, the bottom line and corporate survival are all that matter. Maximize shareholder return. That’s a corporation’s legal duty. Good citizenship is irrelevant.

So, for them, human services, whether to injured or PTSD-plagued veterans, children with cancer, folks born with terrible disabilities, old folks, or injured workers, are inefficient, so minimize those expenditures. Regulation of business is obviously counter-productive, so toss consumer protection, the EPA, and as many tax enforcers, drug inspectors, and antitrust lawyers as you can. Particularly experienced ones.

I don’t think my pickleball friends who love Mr. Trump elected him to destroy social security and mistreat war veterans.

They elected him to lower prices – not to increase them (and destroy our international alliances and economy) by imposing pointless and wildly excessive tariffs.

Tariffs are taxes you and I pay. By gathering money from what amounts to a sales tax on our purchases of cars, computers, and food, the government can afford to lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

Some folks are starting to recognize that incompetence trumps ideas and ideologies. (yeah, pun acknowledged.) Mr. Trump wants to foster a highly-profitable and successful economy; but his arbitrary tariffs (and the uncertainty generated by having Elon Musk run the country) have the stock market in the tank, mortgage interest rates rising, and home prices falling.

Particularly since any complex product, including a pickup truck, contains parts that have crossed borders, been improved or connected, then recrossed borders, the added costs could be crazy.

Meanwhile, China is laughing. Trump’s tariffs are driving our friends into China’s arms; we’re undoing our financial primacy in the world; our “efficient” jettisoning of long-range stuff like education and science, and our absence of intelligent leadership, help pave China’s road toward world leadership. (Abruptly ending USAID programs, which quietly helped our position in the world, is just one more courtesy to China.) Meanwhile, embarrassments like the Signal “secret conference” – stupidly held on an insecure application, then including gratuitous insults to allies – is one more huge red flag for anyone thinking of trusting us.

Well, just 45 more months left.

                          – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 6 April, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website, and should be posted soon on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[There’s plenty more to say, but economists and experts are saying it better. We need focus on how devastating Trump’s combination of narcissism, greed, and stupidity could be for our government. Even if democracy survives, and even if other countries don’t take full advantage of his putting beginners into top national security positions and firing the head guy in charge of cyberdefense, and even if the tariffs leave us some friends and some vestige of a decent economy, it’ll be a long time before we regain other countries’ respect and are again able to handle emergencies, manage social security, treat veterans, oversee health care, and do all the other things we like government to do. Trump voters are not immune to disease or PTSD, but may or may not, when they can not get the usual services, recognize who’s to blame.

Long term, we’re undermining the quality of our education, frightening away foreign tourists, intimidating foreign experts and students, cutting support for scientific and medical research, and, basically, eliminating needed staff from everything. China won’t do that, and its long-term battle to match or exceed us in many areas, and to become the world’s first among equals, just got a hell of a boost from Mr. Trump. And the growth of climate weirdness, endangering our species and killing off others, goes unchecked, at least by us, Yemen, and Iran. (Other countries get it.)

I wish us good luck. We don’t deserve it. ]

Trying to Separate Sense from Nonsense on "Realize, Las Cruces!"

People seeking to undo a city council vote should tell us the truth when soliciting signatures, as laws require.

That seems basic. In the heated debate over the city minimum wage, rightists with some outside financial support tried to recall three city councilors. Signature-collectors, some hired by the hour, told some whoppers, including telling that the petition was to stop councilors from closing a popular boxing gym. Upon learning the truth, many signers requested their names be removed.

Recently in the Farmers Market, a gentleman asked me to sign a petition seeking a referendum to undo “Realize Las Cruces!” – a significant municipal zoning change that makes it a lot easier to use one’s property in different ways, such as adding a “mother-in-law” building or an office. That’s good for folks who want that flexibility, and seems good for the city generally, but could anger single-family home-owners.

The basics of the Realize local zoning plan are in the Comprehensive Plan completed in 2020. It sought to update our zoning code, which hadn’t been updated since 2001, the year Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who some thought might be a reformer, started his first presidential term. The update doesn’t ban single-family housing, as some have charged. Building permits still go through Community Development, to make sure it conforms to what’s allowed or not in a neighborhood.

To hear this signature-collector, an aggrieved citizen, say “They jammed it down our throats without asking us,” grated, because for four years, I saw so many invitations to hear or read more about it that I got tired of them. The city councilors who started this movement, mostly now gone, recognized this was important, and might be controversial, so they made extensive efforts to explain it to the public and field questions and arguments, oral and written, in many different ways. When I asked follow-up questions, he waffled, likely staying within the law.

He also said it would let someone put a McDonald’s in next to your house. In fact, existing regulations would likely prevent that; and fast-food joints want visibility, not a spot on your quiet, shady backstreet. He’d likely have preferred to avoid our lengthy discussion, but we but it was civil and collegial on both sides. He said he’d try to be more careful.

The merits and flaws of “Realize!” are fairly clear. It increases flexibility and they say it helps the moderate housing crisis, but a few single-family landowners could experience disappointing consequences. It gives people more choices; and by letting developers not be limited to purely single-family residential areas, it could facilitate more imaginative plans to be set within the city’s boundaries, which is better for the environment and the city’s tax base.

It’ll mostly affect new developments; but there’ll be the occasional single-family homeowner reasonably annoyed that someone’s second-unit, in the back of their quiet yard, feels too close.

I declined to sign. But seeking a referendum on such an issue seems reasonable. The current petition seeks to undo a striking change on which folks could reasonably disagree. If enough folks sign to force a referendum, the citizens will decide it. I’d likely vote to leave the new ordinance in place; but I’ll listen to both sides first. As I hope everyone will.

But I’d caution the petitioners to be sure they’re straight with the people, as the laws require.

Petitioners have turned in signatures, which are being verified.

                                --  30  -- 

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 30 March, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and on the newspaper's website, and should be posted soon on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[ Let me make this real clear: I watched at a distance as people I tend to trust proposed this change, which has worked elsewhere, and guided it through an extraordinary amount of public input and meetings, modifying and refining it. It’s carefully worked out, and people with questions or criticisms had more than ample chance to ask or voice those. The folks leading this are folks who tend too take issue with most everything the City Council or Las Cruces School Board does. They deserve to be heard. If they gain enough signatures, legally, they may trigger a revision and/or a referendum. It’s part of our local democratic system. ]

[ I’d rather it weren’t happening. I haven’t yet heard anything new, or any facts to suggest that the zoning change is any kind of disaster. I’ve heard appeals to fear, but to fears that are extremely unlikely to be realities for any large number of homeowners. I don’t like bullshit, either by the signature-gatherers or by spokespersons for the City of Las Cruces. Nor do I sympathize with folks questioning the right of other folks to gather these petition signatures. ]

A Nut-Case Goes Wild with Tariffs

What’s dumb and dangerous about Trump’s tariffs?

In 2018, Trump’s administration negotiated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which Trump personally signed. He called it "a terrific deal for all of us [2019]” and "The fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. [2020]."

It called for zero tariffs on most products. Mr. Trump violated that by imposing 25% tariffs on all goods from Mexico and Canada except Canadian oil and energy exports, which received a 10% tariff. He claimed that illegal immigration and the period epidemic had caused a national emergency.

When a Canadian official then retaliated by ceasing to supply energy to three U.S. states to which it supplies energy under the Trump-negotiated USMCA, Trump said of the USMCA that Mexico and Canada “took advantage of the United States,” adding, “‘Who would ever sign a thing like this?’” (Ontario imposed a 25% surcharge on the electricity and warned of possibly halting service altogether. Trump retracted a threat to double certain tariffs and Ontario suspended the 25% surcharge.)

This alone would tell an objective observer that Mr. Trump is not very bright, not very honest, or both; but there’s more.

Tariffs are disfavored. They not only create friction with allies but bust the budgets of consumers in the U.S.. Other countries inevitably respond, resulting in inefficiency and higher costs of doing business. Here, Trump violated a specific agreement. Most subcontractors and investors who ever did business with Mr. Trump understand.

His excuse is fatuous. No Canadians are illegally entering the U.S., although they’re urging their leaders to resist joining us, U.S. citizens are fleeing to Canada. So that’s not applicable. That leaves Trump’s claim that Canada is letting too much fentanyl into the U.S. Of course, on all such claims I always wonder why, having created a society where so many people are so miserable or desperate they get addicted to drugs, we blame someone else. But that’s me.

First, the U.S. seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border in 2024, less than 1% of the fentanyl entering the U.S.

Second, as a truck driver commented, when he takes goods into Canada, the Canadians just accept his paperwork or search his vehicle before letting him in. When he takes goods into the U.S., U.S. authorities either accept his paperwork or search his truck first. Canadian authorities have nothing to do with his entry to the U.S. As U.S. authorities stop us and inspect our vehicles entering from Juarez, but not when we enter Mexico. Canada has nothing to do with what’s in trucks entering the U.S.

In a lawsuit over the trade agreement, the U.S. would lose real fast.

Meanwhile, the tariffs, the tensions and uncertainty they generate, and the way Trump magnified that uncertainty by refusing to reassure folks that he’s not causing a recession, along with his other mad behavior and mass illegal firings, has consumers nervous and the stock market so far down that a Fox News reporter, known as a MAGA attack dog against Biden, asked Trump’s press person, “Are you sure someone in the White House isn’t shorting the Dow?” ( J.P. Morgan warns that there is a 40% chance of a U.S. recession in 2025 )

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on approximately C$29.8 billion worth of American goods, including steel, aluminum, and various consumer products further strained trade relations and increased everyone’s costs for businesses.

Who needs this?

                             --  30 -

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 16 March, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and

on the newspaper's website, and should be posted soon on KRWG's website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

 

[Sorry - thought this got published Sunday, but it seems not to have been, so attempting that again.]

 

A Historically Slimy and Cowardly Prez

Remember the 1940 meeting in which U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt publicly berated Belgian King Leopold III for resisting the Nazi invasion, and announced that the U.S. would now work to resolve matters with Nazi Germany?

Probably not. Mr. Trump’s recent conduct is unique among U.S. presidents. (Actually, in 1940, U.S. assistance to the Allies was highly controversial, although both FDR and Republican nominee Wendell Willkie favored it.)

We all saw Russia invade Ukraine in February 2022. Senator Marco Rubio explained in a moving video why this was important far beyond Europe: not only was it illegal aggression, but when the USSR’s disintegration had left Ukraine a nuclear power, Ukraine gave up its nukes when the U.S., Britain, and Russia guaranteed Ukrainian security. Now Russia has invaded twice. Rubio correctly argued that opposing Putin was essential because not doing so would tell all potential nuclear powers they couldn’t trust our promises.

No sensible U.S. citizen can feel great about Mr. Trump claiming Ukraine started the war, voting with North Korea, against U.S. allies, on a U.N. resolution condemning Russian aggression, having an obvious crush on Mr. Putin, and attacking Zelenskyy, publicly and unfairly.

Trump doesn’t care about peace or justice in Ukraine. If he did, he’d have enhanced U.S. and Allied efforts to discourage Russian aggression.

Mr. Trump only wants Mr. Trump to look good. He seems also a uniquely cowardly man who resents courage, whether shown by U.S. prisoners of war such as Sen. John McLain or Ukrainians resisting Putin’s war crimes. Thus, Mr. Trump seeks a “Great Powers” carving up of Ukraine. He believes he and Mr. Putin should discuss peace. Ukraine and our European allies, aware that Adolfs and Vlads don’t stop with Czechoslovakia or Ukraine, needn’t participate, but must take what Mr. Putin decides. Does Trump also figure that letting Putin grab eastern Europe and letting China absorb Taiwan will smooth the way to the U.S. grabbing Greenland and Panama?

For him, Ukraine doesn’t matter. Trump feels that he and Putin have “been through a lot together.” He means the uproar over Putin’s cyber-support for Trump in 2016 and the credible reports that Trump minions cooperated in that effort. Too, Zelenskyy declined Trump’s request to dig up or make up dirt on Joe Biden’s son.

It would be hard to find a bigger single undermining of world respect for the U.S., or one less necessary. Even Republicans are embarrassed.

Trump had already squandered U.S. power to push for a viable peace, by acceding in advance to Putin’s demands. Trump acting like a spoiled child and the Ukrainian President trying to handle the tantrum as best he could was the sort of scene the world has feared for years now.

My father fought in World War II. I came to manhood during the U.S. imperialistic destruction of Viet Nam, and opposed it. Rightly, I believe. I have since learned more about World War II, and the aggression of Nazi Germany and Japan, and why sometimes nations and individuals must unite to pay the necessary cost to oppose tyranny and uphold international law. Since then, starting wars has become even less acceptable – although Russia and the U.S. have both been guilty of it.

Trump argues that Ukraine resisting Putin heightens the risk of nuclear war; maybe so; but giving Putin everything he might want because he could trigger world destruction just doesn’t sit right. Appeasement doesn’t work.

                                                    – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 9 March, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and should be posted soon on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[ I’ve not a lot to add to this one. There are many eloquent statements by people of all political complexions, pointing out additional ways Trump’s conduct was stupid, anti-freedom, anti-U.S., and subservient to Putin; but whoever hasn’t yet seen that likely won’t from whatever I add below.]

[But I will include comments by Republican David Brooks, who I think is a bit too kind to the U.S. but accurate regarding Trump:

“I was nauseated, just nauseated. All my life, I have had a certain idea of about America, that we're a flawed country, but we're fundamentally a force for good in the world, that we defeated Soviet Union, we defeated fascism, we did the Marshall Plan, we did PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) to help people live in Africa. And we make mistakes, Iraq, Vietnam, but they're usually mistakes out of stupidity, naivete and arrogance.

“They're not because we're ill-intentioned. What I have seen over the last six weeks is the United States behaving vilely, vilely to our friends in Canada and Mexico, vilely to our friends in Europe. And today was the bottom of the barrel, vilely to a man who is defending Western values, at great personal risk to him and his countrymen."

“Donald Trump believes in one thing. He believes that might makes right. And, in that, he agrees with Vladimir Putin that they are birds of a feather. And he and Vladimir Putin together are trying to create a world that's safe for gangsters, where ruthless people can thrive. And we saw the product of that effort today in the Oval Office."

“And I have — I first started thinking, is it — am I feeling grief? Am I feeling shock, like I'm in a hallucination? But I just think shame, moral shame. It's a moral injury to see the country you love behave in this way.” ]

[Others have quoted Churchill’s remark to then-Ptime-Minister Neville Chamberlain after Munich, in 1938: “You had the choice between war and dishnor. You chose dishonor, yet you will have war.” But Trump lacks even Chamberlain’s excuse. Britain did not feel ready to fight Germany; but no one is even asking the U.S. to fight Russia, but only to continue three years’ support of Ukraine and try to broker some reasonable peace agreement if that proves feasible.]

[ Finally, here are excerpts from a highly accurate and moving speech by a French Senator to the French Senate just days ago:

“My dear colleagues,

Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened.

This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. . . .

“Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media. . . .

“This is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution. . .

“We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor.

Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops.

“Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign. . . .

“What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it.

And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. . . .

“What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force.

This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favor of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries. . . . Mine is Greenland, Panama and Canada, yours are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe, [Xi’s] is Taiwan and the China Sea.

“So we are alone. But the talk that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated. . . .

“The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war.

“The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. . . . [T]he survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands and that they have three imperatives.

“We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left.

“They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin.

“Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react.

“Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical.

“The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks.

“But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads.

“Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost.

The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century.

Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”

                                           -Claude Malhuret speaking to the French Senate March 4, 2025 ]

 

A Long and Well-Lived Life -- Enrique Simon Miranda Lucero

Saturday [22Feb2025], they buried Enrique Simon Miranda Lucero across the street from where he was born in 1925.

Into his 90s, Enrique was still working the farm his father had won in a raffle after returning from World War I. Enrique graduated from Hill Public School, then from Las Cruces Union High. At 16, following Pearl Harbor, he tried to join the Navy. He obeyed his first order: to graduate from high school, then sign up. In 1942, he became a medical corpsman in the Pacific Theater.

He stayed in the Navy 20 years. He took his growing family wherever he could. They camped all across Europe, while he was stationed there.

He even signed two up for guitar lessons in Italy. Saturday, celebrating Enrique’s life, one son played the guitar and sang, a couple of Mexican songs Enrique had loved, and then Willie Nelson’s On the Road Again. The family had been on the road a lot. He and another son visited the Ryman Auditorium (original site of the Grand Ole Opry), from whence emanated the first radio broadcast, also 100 years ago), as they bonded over love of country and western music.

After his Navy service, he used his medical skills working with the local hospital, then took a medical job at La Tuna Federal Penitentiary in Anthony. Being Enrique, he worked hard and well. Years later, he was the first Hispanic warden in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons system. It was a high-rise prison in San Diego, with a big office. “You look important,” one granddaughter told him.

He was important, there and on the farm near Radium Springs, and in the northern part of our county for decades after he retired. He and his wife of 73 years, Enedina, were actively involved in making things happen, such as the Radium Springs Community Center and Radium Springs Volunteer Fire Department.

Meanwhile he improved the farm. He worked on it physically well into his 90s. Six years ago, Enedina passed away suddenly in the kitchen. He missed her tremendously, but persevered.

In his 90s, he was a strong man. He’d show grandchildren his biceps, still “hard as a baseball,” we’re told – but “It’ll cost you!” he’d proclaim, then collect five bucks – which, he secretly returned later on.

In his 90s, he was a thoughtful man, constantly reading, mostly history and geography, or writing about his life or how the day had gone, or organizing the marvelous family videos, papers, and other artifacts that evidenced a life well-lived.

In his 90s, he was always “fine,” if asked; always, “just sitting here waiting for your call,” if you phoned. All his life he’d made family and friends laugh with his unique one-liners. Several were retold Saturday – but, in case anyone forgot, he also left a two-page typed list of them.

Hill is as gone as a tumbleweed in the spring winds. Most Las Crucens have never heard of it. Nor of Enrique.

They buried Enedina outside a farmhouse window, so’s he could look out at where she was. Now they’re together again, under a tree. A while back, he showed a granddaughter a map of the spot, saying he’d be so close to his great-grandfather, who’d rolled his own cigarettes, that he’d smell the smoke as they laughed over old times, and not far from Pat Garrett, with whose kids Enrique’s father, Simon, played.

They buried a hell of a man!

                                 – 30 –

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 2 March, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, and should be posted soon on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the coming week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[ I’ve not a lot to add to this one. I liked Enrique, and respected him. I thought a column particularly appropriate because here was a boy from Hill – which, as noted, no longer exists, and barely did when I arrived here in 1969 – who died here 100 years later, but lived a very full, successful, and loving life in between. A life well lived, whether measured by worldly success [reaching a high position in his field] or loving family, or by taking full advantage of what life offers you, such as taking your kids camping all over Europe on a modest budget – or still laughing, loving, reading, and running your tractor at advanced ages not all of us reach, and by which most folks are living far more limited lives.]

 

A Local Controversy

Except maybe some in the county administration, we all want local law-enforcement slots to be filled – and filled with officers with sufficient character, skills, patience, and judgment.

Our sheriff’s department spends maybe $5,000 on checking background and character, including having applicants take a multi-phase Pre-Employment Test that’s then evaluated by a certified expert. Dr. Susan Cave. Dr. Cave also interviews each applicant before recommending acceptance or refusal of a candidate. She does this for numerous counties and pueblos. Her report includes all the relevant facts she has on applicants, good or bad. This is standard practice.

Months ago, DASO had 19 recruits who’d gone through the process. HR jumped in and terminated five,. Sheriff Kim Stewart disagreed with this unprecedented action, but there was no appeal process! By January, the remaining fourteen cadets were close to graduation. Suddenly, pencil-pushers at County HR demanded that half be fired.

Cave and several law-enforcement authorities call this “unprecedented” and “senseless.” (It’d also give seven cadets a great lawsuit.) Sonya Chavez, Director of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy, which has oversight responsibilities toward the county academy, says, “We have no official comment, but if they are at the County Academy they have been through a pretty exhaustive process and they meet the basic state requirements.” City sources say HR makes sure basic rules are followed, then doesn’t interfere.

Why did HR non-experts suddenly pick out some minor score on a small piece of the test, or some point in a recruit’s background, and direct Stewart to fire people?

Why wait so long, letting us pay these folks for months? Why arrogantly assume you know better than the expert? If Dr. Cave mentions a recruit’s bitterness toward an ex-spouse, but sees no huge red flag, why assume you can make a better judgment than she – without her education, her experience, or the personal interview? If a recruit stole beers ten years ago when working as a bartender, is some clerk best positioned to decide how important that is? And why not raise your belated concerns more collegially, by Dr. Cave or Sheriff Stewart a question?

The sheriff appealed and HR recently cut the “Fire these seven!” order to “Fire two!” Stewart said, “You fire ‘em!” (HR reportedly fired one by breaching chain-of-command and ordering Stewart’s Major to do it.)

I wondered why. HR and county management have mostly not returned my phone calls seeking some explanation.

One very knowledgeable county source, not associated either with DASO or with HR, said HR has long been a problem.

Wednesday afternoon, County Commission Chair Chris Schialjo-Hernandez told me that the County is following all applicable state laws, that he couldn’t comment because of pending litigation, and that there’ll be a public explanation at the regular County Commission meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday. Meanwhile, the County has filed a legal action to mandate that Stewart certify the graduating class, which she has done.

I hope Tuesday management will at least try to explain why this unprecedented interference with law enforcement was necessary to our safety. (We can’t see people’s personnel files; and if we were arguing about one guy HR thought was crazy and Stewart didn’t, I’d not have written a column. But 7 of 14 – actually, 12 of 19?)

That sounds more like sabotage than care. More like settling old scores than like trying to run a county properly. But maybe we’ll learn different on Tuesday.

                                  – 30 --

The above column appeared Sunday, 23 February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News , sub nom “Filling Empty DASO Jobs Now a Power Struggle,” and should be posted soon on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[I’ll be interested to see whether the county even tries to explain HR’s conduct at Tuesday’s meeting, set for 9 a.m. ]

[This week, I left messages for County Manager Scott Andrews, Assistant County Manager Deb Weir, Human Resources Director Meg Haines, Human Resources Administrator Brandon Masters, and others. No one cared to explain or defend HR’s conduct. No one deigned to tell me to go to hell, either. I did get a strange call from a nice young lady named Amanda Parra, who said she handled “public safety” for the County, but I couldn’t figure out why she was calling for me. I was going to give up. Finally when I recited some facts and said that from what I’d heard so far, the County was acting stupidly, but that I’d love to hear someone from the County explain or defend the conduct, or tell me why it wasn’t stupid, she said that she was authorized to read or send me a statement which, when she started reading it, was obviously non-responsive. I reiterated that I start columns and things often look one way, then, after further discussion, look another, and that I’d love to have someone from the county call me to discuss this, she undertook to pass on that message.

For the record, the County’s statement was,

Per our phone call, the following statement can be attributed to Doña Ana County. 

"Following Sheriff Kim Stewart's written notice that she would not commission recent graduates of the law enforcement academy, Doña Ana County filed a Writ of Mandamus in the 3rd Judicial District Court to ensure that the recent graduates are able to begin serving as deputies.  We are aware of the statement published online by Sheriff Stewart, via her personal social media account, where she states she has commissioned seven of the graduates. Sheriff Stewart has yet to confirm this to the Court or the County administration, and has not issued any other statement regarding the remaining cadets and whether she will commission them by the deadline set by the judge.  We continue to seek positive resolution with Sheriff Stewart that prioritizes the safety of our residents and the well-being of our deputies."

That doesn’t answer the question. Rather, it covers the low-hanging fruit. At some point during the back and forth, which involved other examples of what Stewart felt was HR overreaching, Stewart said some version of, “Well, then, I won’t commission anyone.” The County jumped into court to order her to do that, which in fact she did within days. There’s a hearing set for March. Sounds like someone wanted to sue – and with Stewart not having a lawyer, since the county attorney represents the County, why not?

But that doesn’t tell us much.  Interestingly, Weir and Stewart go back a long ways: https://soledadcanyon.blogspot.com/2015/07/jury-orders-dona-ana-county-to-pay-135.html. ]

 

 

Protecting All of Us as Best We Can

This week’s news events include the one-year anniversary of a crazy guy’s tragic, senseless killing of Las Cruces Police Officer Jonah Hernandez and the trial of Officer Brad Lunsford for the tragic (and perhaps unnecessary) death of Presley Eze, who was passing through town. Let me quickly add that I do not pre-judgee Officer Lunsford,. I damned sure pre-judge Hernandez’s killer, because the video leaves no room for reasonable doubt that his action was unjustifiable.

These are evidence that we need better criminal competency laws – and a citizen’s police oversight board. The Hernandez killing occurred in the context of a public demand for a better balance between defendants’ rights and the rights of citizens not to be victimized repeatedly by offenders who can’t be tried, because of their mental incompetency, but aren’t “dangerous” enough to commit, pending trial, to protect the public. The Eze killing occurred in the context of a disproportionate number of “questionable” officer killings of civilians, for which we have recently paid out tens of millions of dollars. (Wednesday, a jury found Lunsford guilty of voluntary manslaughter, a verdict sure to be appealed.)

There’s real progress toward a legislative reform of the competency issue. Since lawyer Joe Cervantes, a powerful state senator who strongly opposed the less thought-out bills that Governor Lujan-Grisham urged a 2024 special session to consider, is a sponsor of this legislation, I like its chances.

H.B. 4 would provide for “community-based competency restoration” for non-dangerous defendants, while expanding the list of crimes that could spark involuntary commitment. It would smooth out the legal process to treat rather than punish non-dangerous defendants whose mental limitations mean they can’t legally be tried, but also that jailing them may not help. This follows pilot-program experience, including here, with improving how we bring people needing treatment together with people providing treatment. That’s gotta help.

It’ll help more if we also pass three bills intended to rebuild New Mexico’s behavioral health system, savaged by then-Governor Susana Martinez ten years ago. Legislative leaders have noted that better laws regarding therapy for defendants can’t do much if therapy isn’t readily available.

We should deep-six a stupid bill that’d increase fentanyl-trafficking sentences. Jailing people often makes things worse, and the feds tried something similar that didn’t work. Too, I suspect some people selling small amounts do so to feed their own habit – and don’t deserve a huge sentence. With marijuana isn’t, I remember college friends saying “If you find some weed, buy a lid for me too.” That’d make someone a “trafficker.”

Meanwhile, we must take such sensible actions as we can to minimize chances of deaths like Eze’s, Amelia Baca’s, Antonio Valenzuela’s, and Teresa ($20 million) Gomez’s. One important step is an oversight commission. In ___, the City Council directed that proponents and city staff, including law enforcement, discuss and refine a citizens’ proposal and bring it back on the agenda. Mayor Ken Miyagashima, who’d opposed the commission’s action, slyly sabotaged the project by assigning discussions to a semi-secret committee he and fellow opponent Tessa Abeyta controlled, and permitting no discussion. The council should insist that staff follow the council’s command by having the City Attorney, Police Chief Jeremy Story, and others meet with citizens to refine the proposal for a yea-or-nay vote. Lives matter – and so do millions of public bucks.

We should all mourn Jonah Hernandez, a good guy who did NOTHING to deserve getting slaughtered.

                            – 30 --

 

[The above column appeared Sunday, 16 February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and should be posted soon on the newspaper’s website, as well as on the KRWG website under Local Viewpoints. A shortened and sharpened radio commentary version will air during the week on KRWG (90.1 FM) and on KTAL-LP (101.5 FM / http://www.lccommunityradio.org/). ]

[One stray thought: reading about Lunsford’s possible sentence, it startled me to find mention of a possible firearm enhancement. Maybe the law touches on this, but my first thought was that Lunsford should NOT be subject to that. Firearm enhancement exists because firearms are especially dangerous and most of us aren’t carrrying one during most of our interactions with others. Often, we would need to bring one specially. It ain’t so, for a cop. He’s carrying the damned thing almost always, certainly when in uniform. Therefore it’s always within reach, if there’s a dispute or he’s in danger, or thinks he is. So, I don’t think he should suffer extra punishment. It ain’t like he carried a gun specially into a discussion with an ex-girlfriend, or whatever. (This isn’t anything I’ve thought-out or researched, but a first impression.) ]