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

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

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

Each of the ten is a good idea.

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

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

Benefits include more parks, sports fields, and trails.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 5 August 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

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

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

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

Pearce Would Give Drillers Very Free Rein on Public Lands

The Oil and Gas candidate for governor is using his last few months in Congress to tie our hands as far as evaluating what his masters do.

They drill. Often on public lands. Sometimes with potential damage to our environment. But they produce energy and make money. Government should be fair and efficient in deciding on permits for specific activities – balancing drillers' commercial needs and the public interest.

Pearce has introduced two bills that would prevent the government from even doing that, giving drillers a free pass in many situations from environmental and historic preservation laws. 

Existing law calls for environmental review of operations under several laws. The law sensibly excluded some categories of action that wouldn't endanger the environment. Pearce wants to add to those “categorical exclusions” stuff like building a new pipeline or road, putting in a whole new well pad, and other activities that potentially endanger species, scarce water supplies, or historical relics – or could pose other environmental dangers. 

The law would become meaningless. In many situations, there'd be no review under the Environmental Protection Act, the Historic Preservation Act, or the Endangered Species Act. Ironic to think that last was signed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. That environmental protection used to be a shared value.

Pearce would also give drillers a free pass where mineral rights are less than 50% federally-owned. If I'm drilling a 400-acre area, and own 51% of the mineral rights, the feds get no chance to determine whether my plans endanger public lands or public water in that area. If I want the big bucks and don't care if I'm polluting water or poisoning wildlife, the feds have to stand by and watch whatever I do on the federal portion of the area. If the state approves, I'm home free – and New Mexico has no state EPA. Plus Pearce hopes to soon be running our state.

Yeah, there's a provision allowing the Secretary of the Interior to inspect to make sure I'm not violating federal law; but under Pearce's pal Trump, hen-guarding agencies are staffed with wolves and foxes. 

Meanwhile, the Administration has cut BLM comment periods to meaninglessness. Republican Congressfolk would make us pay to file objections and let states manage federal lands.

Pearce knows that without the permitting process, federal agencies may lack adequate information to assess a site meaningfully; and that too often the laws only get enforced through lawsuits by environmentalists. He knows that these two bills, if made law, could endanger public lands and our scarce water, and possibly wildlife species. 

He needs to maximize his pals' profits. They contribute generously to keeping him in public office.

Presumably we're not smart enough to see how the bills and his candidacy for Governor dovetail: the bills would eliminate federal oversight and leave permitting to states, which currently lack jurisdiction over public lands. If Pearce heads the state government, he can make sure OUR state doesn't bother his pals much about endangering neighbor's wells or our environment. 

Most of us prefer some public oversight. 

The Republican-controlled Congress and this Republican President won't reject Pearce's bills, but Pearce has provided us another reason to reject Pearce. 

And one more reason to elect Xochitl Torres-Small to Congress.

                                                       -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 29 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on both the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air on KRWG Wednesday and Saturday and on KTAL-LP (101.5 / www.lccommunityradio.org] Thursday afternoon.]

[The column probably takes it easier on Mr. Pearce than might be justified.  Further study makes it clear this is part of a pattern not merely to make oil-and-gas producers more money but at the cost of ignoring values that once seemed deeply held by most U.S. citizens, of whatever party, such as environmental protection, protecting our resources, historic preservation, and trying to minimize the disappearance of various species.  The shortening of comment periods when the BLM considers these issues is one part of the operation; and Pearce's two bills are just the tip of the iceberg.  See Five Crazy Ways the House Is Pushing Extreme Drilling on Public Lands/, which describes Pearce's bills this way:
2. Rigging the system to benefit polluters
Rep. Steve Pearce from New Mexico introduced HR 6106 and HR 6107, bills that would limit the ability of federal regulators to review environmental, safety or public health impacts of projects. HR 6106 would stop Bureau of Land Management employees from taking a closer look at several types of oil and gas projects—including roads and pipelines—regardless of the impact they may have.
HR 6107 would similarly bar federal regulators from reviewing certain oil and gas projects regardless of impact. The bill proposes to exempt any project that taps less than 50 percent of the federal mineral resources available, so long as the land surface is owned by another party.
The other five parts of the plan are:
1. Making citizens pay to protest drilling
Rep. Liz Cheney introduced HR 6087, a bill that would require citizens and groups like The Wilderness Society to pay a fee to file comments opposing reckless oil and gas leasing. Oil and gas companies, however, would not have to pay a fee for expressing interest in these parcels.
Protesting is an important way for citizens to weigh in on projects that could jeopardize endangered species, water and air quality, or present other threats to the public’s wellbeing. Under Cheney’s bill, protesters would pay per page filed with the government. Given the technical nature of a written protest, it could cost thousands of dollars to submit a protest. Under this bill, last year The Wilderness Society would have spent $15,000 in filings.
3. Handing out drilling permits as fast as possible
Rep. John Curtis proposed HR 6088, a bill creating a new program for drilling permits on many public lands. It would make it so that after a permit has been filed, a company does not need a site inspection or environmental review to drill. All they have to do is wait 45 days. The only exception is if the Secretary of the Interior personally objects. This idea to rubber-stamp drilling permits would eliminate nearly all scrutiny of public health, safety or environmental impacts of a drill site.
4. Tying our children’s education funding to oil drilling
Rep. Scott Tipton’s HR 5859 bill would require that we expand onshore energy production to provide funds for education. It would do so by encouraging expansion of drilling on our public lands and incentivizing drilling. The bill would also potentially ignore dangerous consequences on public health, wildlife habitat, and air and water quality. It creates a false choice between selling out children’s wellbeing and funding their education.
5. Handing drilling on public lands over to the states and penalizing states that oppose drilling
Possibly the worst idea yet is the “Enhancing State Management of Federal Lands and Waters” bill. This proposal would allow states to apply to manage an unlimited number of acres of federal lands that were within their borders. It would also exempt oil and gas projects from federal environmental laws and put states in charge of all permitting and project regulation. States would then be forced to continue to drill these lands at increasing intervals, as they would be rewarded for drilling more and penalized or have management stripped from them for drilling less. The state of Utah could push drilling in the 2 million acres of land illegally eliminated from Bears Ears and Grand Staircase National Monuments.
This proposal would also penalize states that oppose drilling off their coasts. States that object to too many leases off their coasts could be charged a penalty that could reach billions or even trillions of dollars over the course of ten years. States that go along with the program would be rewarded by larger shares of royalty payments for resources that belong to all of us.]

[Pearce justifies his bills by saying the state loses about $713 million in state revenue annually due to slow permitting --he said the states of Texas and New Mexico typically issue permits within 14 days of a request, but the federal BLM has an average issuance time of 250 days.  
Well, one thing that tells me is that we can't trust Texas or New Mexico to evaluate whether the money-making plans of the drillers outweigh historic preservation concerns, threaten species, or have other potentially devastating consequences.  Can't even publicize the permit and elicit public or neighbors' comments in two weeks.   What he's saying is, the states' permitting processes don't consider some of these issues or do a godawfully superficial job.  So we CAN'T afford to do as he wants to do.
If his facts are correct, the BLM process is also probably too long.  If I were in Pearce's positions, I'd push for a fair investigation of the facts.  I'd also stop trying to choke the funding of public agencies as if wringing out a swimming towel.  Maybe part of the problem is inadequate funding.  Maybe part is unnecessary bureaucracy.  But part of the difference is that in close situations it takes time -- and hearing competent analysis and advocacy from all sides -- to make a decision.  And, sorry Steve, the competing values threatened here matter to most of us.]

Trump/Putin Have U.S. in Troubled Waters

Unless Congressional Republicans challenge Trump's conduct, Democrats winning back the House might now be a matter of national security. 

U.S. intelligence services unanimously say Russia interfered in our 2016 elections and plans the same for 2018. Twelve Russian military officers are under indictment; and the 29-page indictment is incredibly specific on what they did. 

Monday Donald Trump stood beside Vladimir Putin and made clear he believed Putin's denial of any interference. Remarkably, Trump said he couldn't “see any reason why” Russia would interfere in our election. A huge outcry (even from Republicans) forced a fatuous cleanup effort, but Trump added that it could actually be others. Trump's handpicked Director of Intelligence, Dan Coats, commented that the intelligence conclusion is “extremely clear” and that the Russian interference is “persistent,” “pervasive,” and “meant to undermine American democracy.” 

I've had serious questions about how badly Trump was compromised, and whether Putin had undue influence. Trump has undermined NATO but hasn't criticized Russia for international bad acts.

Now he is openly acting more in Russia's interest than in ours – and sees Russia acting in his interest. Russia helped elect Trump. Trump is an obvious asset to Russia. Russia will try to induce Americans to elect more Congressional “yes-persons” for Trump this year. Can anyone doubt that, alone with Putin, Trump winked and said, “Have at it, Vlad!”? (Have morals, ethics, or laws ever kept Trump from doing what's best for Donald? )

The evidence should make any patriot demand further investigation. Trump and Putin want to end Mueller's investigation. 

Democracy is central to who we are. Massive interference by a foreign power in a close election could be fatal to our country. 

Trump says and does nothing. His minions argue that it would have been impolite to say anything to Putin; but Trump insulted German, French, and English leaders publicly in person. 

Trump continues to attack the press. The press didn't utter Trump's words, adopt his submissive manner around Putin, or paint that “cat-ate-the-canary” grin on Putin's face.

If Putin and Trump can stop the special prosecutor's investigation prematurely, and convince the average voter that it's all unfair press coverage, what will be left of constitutional and other “checks and balances” on the President's power? No prosecutor. No Supreme Court, with two new Trump appointees. (And what if Justice Ruth Ginsberg dies or is forced to retire?) 

Patriots must ask themselves: what would stop Trump from seriously weakening the U.S. – and/or destroying our civil liberties? Not this Republican Senate. Surely not the House Republicans trying to tear the FBI apart. Would the military interfere if Trump took unconstitutional actions clearly dangerous to our security? Unlikely. With the Supreme Court and Republican Senators applauding Trump's every move, how would such a thing ever get organized? And what a terrible thing to wish for! Dasvidanya, constitutional government.

Many Republicans have spoken up; but few in Congress have, and so far we haven't seen action. (Republican Rep. Will Hurd, a former CIA operative from a swing district in Texas, tweeted, "I've seen Russian intelligence manipulate many people over my professional career and I never would have thought that the US President would become one of the ones getting played by old KGB hands.") They rejected additional funds for protecting elections – perhaps because Putin will backing them, not Democrats.

Now Trump wants a second “summit” --- at which Putin likely will help Trump look strong.

                                               -30-

[The column above appeared Sunday, 22 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and alto on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (streaming at www.lcccommunityradio.org.]

[We should neither pre-judge the ultimate results of Mueller's investigation nor allow political considerations to hinder or terminate it.  Our elections matter.  Having an unsavory government like Russia's affecting their results is obviously undesirable to the great majority of us -- neo-Nazi's, perhaps, excepted.  Whether our highest elected official is acting solely in our interest or has mixed loyalties is important.  Given the near-certainty that Russia interfered in 2016 and 2018, and that its interference this year would benefit Republican Congressional candidates, their conduct bears watching.  It's interesting that some of them see ending any investigation as an important goal; and they recently voted down a proposal for additional funding to protect against the real cyberthreat while continuing to cite purity of our elections when using the "Voter ID" and "purge the voter rolls" campaigns to diminish votes by poor folks and minorities. ]  

[Talk of "treason," while not unreasonable, is probably unhelpful and legally legally inaccurate.  The key legal issue is whether the meaning of "enemies" in the Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is limited to enemies in a declared war:

        "Treason against the United States, shall consist only
   in levying War against them, or  in adhering to their 
   Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall 
   be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two 
   Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in 
   open Court."

Whether “Enemies” means solely enemies in a declared war has never been decided; but (a) the majority view probably is that it does; (b) the Constitution intentionally defined "treason" narrowly, to avoid abuse of the term in political prosecutions, and (c) in a close case, Trump's Supreme Court will likely help Trump.
However, if Trump consciously colluded with a foreign power to swing a U.S. election, that would seem to be an impeachable "high crime and misdemeanor," whether or not it constitutes treason.]

[Meanwhile, a key story remains the 29-page indictment, which you can read in full here.  It lays out in exceptional detail exactly what each of the dozen high-ranking Russian military intelligence officers did.  I've read it, and will likely post a detailed summary this week, for folks who haven't time to read it for themselves.  But no reasonable person could read it and call the investigation "a witch hunt" without concluding that high officials in the FBI and the Justice Department, many of them Republicans, had formed a pretty weird conspiracy.]

[Couple of other random quick points: 
(1) timing of indictments wasn't to sabotage "summit" -- Mueller's people gave Trump's people the choice, indictments before summit or after summit, Trump or his people made choice;
(2) if Putin outright owned Trump, you'd think Putin would have instructed Trump to be a bit less of a lackey -- maybe give Putin a hard time over election meddling, just for show; but
(3) there's gotta be something Trump fears that Putin controls.
It's worth stressing that when conventional banks had little faith in Mr. Trump, Russian and Ukrainian money appears to have kept him afloat.  In a video, his son was quite open about the heavy flow of money, although I don't recall him admitting it kept them afloat.]

[Trump has been fooling a lot of good people. I hope patriots who've tried to tell themselves this guy was all right will put our country first. We know Trump won't.]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/397977-three-senior-cyber-officials-at-fbi-retiring-report

Is Trump as Blind to our National Security Interests as to "Family Values"?

Long ago, the phrase “motherhood and apple pie” meant pure stuff every politician would embrace; and conservatives stood for “national security” and “family values.”

Now? 

Thursday I watched the House Judiciary Committee soap opera, starring FBI agent Peter Strzok. Strzok has a great reputation as an investigator, but imprudently texted his girlfriend about candidate Donald Trump. 

Lifelong Republican Bob Mueller is the special prosecutor investigating the Russian effort to tip the scales for Trump in the 2016 election. He's mostly kept his mouth shut. He's already obtained convictions and guilty pleas. Trump's former campaign manager is sitting in jail and his long-time lawyer and “fixer” seems headed there. Before Trump started running seriously for President, it was common knowledge that Russian and Ukrainian folks, some unsavory, were helping him stay afloat financially. 

Russia helped Trump in 2016. Perhaps coincidentally, Trump has made great strides toward accomplishing some of Putin's key goals, such as sowing discord in NATO and minimizing criticism of Russia's conduct toward the Ukraine. That doesn't make the case for impeachment; but it should make any patriotic U.S. citizen seek an investigation.

Judiciary Committee Republicans are trying to undermine Mueller's investigation by holding up Strzok and reading his imprudent emails over and over. Mueller fired Strzok when the texts came to light. There's not the least showing that Strzok did anything improper investigatively. As a lawyer and a journalist, I've frequently investigated or litigated with a vigor and professionalism that would leave you at sea about my “real” feelings. Same with Strzok. You follow where the facts lead.

Ironically, all the Republicans who spoke were white males, mostly older. They gave laughable performances as cross-examining attorneys, making outraged faces and implying horrible things, but so short on useful information that they mostly wouldn't let Strzok even answer.

The Democrats – two black, one Asian, one white guy sort of Jewish-looking – creatively poked fun at the whole thing. One member, a black woman who'd been a police chief, and actually knew law enforcement, said cops are people, and should hold political views – and can do their jobs despite those.

Stepping back from the one-liners, I could only wonder what happened to Republican concern for our security. Trump's closest associates violated the law in connection with Russia and the Ukraine; but instead of letting the investigation play out, these guys are obsessed with discrediting it. (Trump's bizarre misbehavior at the NATO session was a little much even for them; the House passed by voice vote a resolution saying, “Yo, Orange Hair, NATO matters to us!”)

Meanwhile I've wondered how the party of “family values” so wholeheartedly embraced a serial adulterer who bragged about groping and seducing women who weren't interested. (Republicans made much of Strzok's extramarital affair.) When Trump separated immigrant families, doing obvious harm to the psyches of small children, it seemed that maybe family values don't apply to Spanish-speaking families.

Then news surfaced regarding an international health conference where everyone expected to pass an innocuous resolution saying breast-feeding was the healthiest option and that countries should try to prevent misleading advertising saying otherwise. Our government not only opposed it but bullied Ecuador into withdrawing its sponsorship. Why? Formula is big-business. Breast-milk isn't.

Trump attacked the story as “fake news” but confirmed its truth.

Does Russia own Trump? I've no idea.

Investigate? No, let's bury our heads in the sand, and hope for the best.

                                                    -30-

[The above column appeared Sunday, 15 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and other newspapers, as well at on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week both on KRWG Radio and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (or streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org.]

[Walt Rubel also saw the hearings as comical.  And here's one quite conservative ex-Congressman who saw what I saw in the Judiciary Committee hearing.
David Jolley, a Republican Congressman from Florida before he retired in 2017, called it "humiliating" for his former pals, and said they "behaved like children. . . . This was not about getting answers from Strzok. Even Goodlatte towards the end of the day said each member gets five minutes but Strzok doesn’t get to answer.”
He recalled the use of Benghazi hearings, not to uncover truth but to lower Hillary Clinton's poll numbers, and said, “This has been part of the incremental strategy of both Trump, yes, those in Congress who go along with him, to undermine the integrity of the investigation from the very beginning,” he said.]

[What isn't comical is the very serious and detailed indictment handed down by a grand jury in the Russia investigation.   I'm reading the 29-page indictment now, and will post a summary and comments this week some time, along with a link to the full document.   But what's abundantly clear is that (1) this was a Russian governmental operation and more extensive than we'd realized; (2) it was carried out largely by Russian military officers, which Putin had to have approved, and involved participation by U.S. individuals, possibly some involved in Trump's campaign; (3) it involved spying not only on Democratic Party entities and the Clinton Campaign, but on governmental agencies as well; and (4) the detailed nature of the allegations indicates that the investigators know a great deal more than they put in the indictment, and that further indictments (or cooperation), of U.S. citizens this time, are almost certain.  (Notably, one sitting congressperson, running for reelection, sought and received damaging documents from the Russian conspirators regarding his or her opponent.  S/he may or may not have known whom s/he was dealing with.)
Above all, the extent of the operation, the fact that it was government-directed, the clear fact that it was aimed at determining a U.S. election, make it imperative that this investigation continue.  It's not overstating the case to say that our national security depends on it.  This is not merely about whether Mr. Trump was sufficiently involved to warrant his impeachment (and/or imprisonment for treason), but about gaining more specifics so as to defend against further successful efforts by the Russian military to penetrate our government operations and determine U.S. elections.  
Aside from Trump's bias, being a possible target here, he is clearly disqualified from overseeing or curtailing this investigation because he has a man-crush on Putin, has previously been close to Russian and Ukrainian interests, and -- despite clear evidence and the unanimous view of our intelligence agencies -- continues to deny Russia's involvement or try to minimize the seriousness of the matter.
Whether Mr. Trump is just a little naive or has been an "asset" of Russia's for several years is a reasonable question.  Only through a continued vigorous and independent investigation can we -- perhaps -- learn the answer.]

[By the way, sorry if the column is a touch disjointed.  I started one earlier in the week regarding the breast milk controversy then got fascinated (and both amused and appalled) by the House Judiciary Committee hearings, and ended up with a combination.]

Ghost Shirt Society

Whether right or wrong, doomed attempts to regain what's been lost aren't unusual. 

The Ghost Shirt Dances in the 1890's involved an outbreak of violence by Native North Americans a couple of decades after they'd last posed any threat to the peace of the United States. The Indian Wars were over. Sitting Bull had surrendered in 1881, and worked in Buffalo Bill Cody's Wild West Show. Then Kicking Bear induced Lakota Sioux to believe that wearing “ghost shirts” would protect them against white men's bullets. The Sioux had legitimate grievances, but no chance.

Coming to believe we've lost something can spark a reaction to grab it back, whatever the odds. (In Player Piano, Kurt Vonnegut gave the name “Ghost Shirt Society” to rebels “making one last stand for the old ideals” against the mechanized, hierarchical U.S. of the future.) 

Among nations, periodically some military or technological or organizational innovation puts one empire on top; then that empire spends far too much on protecting its far-flung interests, fails to ride the crest of the next wave, and starts falling behind. The fading empire's resentment over lost preeminence has led to war. Consider Germany in the early 20^th Century. 

Take religion: polls in most countries (including ours) show that far fewer young people than older folks believe in god. Religion could be on its last legs. Yet extremists in Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism not only grab headlines but, directly or indirectly, governing countries where those religions are prominent.

It has seemed that our future will be less dependent upon superstition; more diverse, in shades of color and sexual preferences; and more tolerant. 

Young folks don't care so much about ethnicity. To white kids who grew up with black basketball players' posters on their bedroom walls and listening to black recording artists, and even a black president, the idea that whites have some inherent superiority sounds like a tasteless old joke. 

Yet here's Donald Trump, campaigning on express or implied racism just when whites are becoming a minority in the U.S. Suddenly our government is spouting racist rhetoric, abandoning affirmative action, and slyly purging poor and minority voters from voting lists. Cruelly separating immigrant families violated treaties and international standards, and stopped only when it grew too ugly for the evangelical right.

Young folks also seem pretty comfortable with the variety of genders humans come in, something their parents found threatening. So Trump promised to curtail gay rights, and his Supreme Court might soon outlaw same-sex marriage along with abortion. 

My hopes that humanity could continue to progress toward a better world may be ridiculously misplaced. After decades of increasing democratization, dictatorships are suddenly in fashion again, as Putin, Xie, and perhaps Trump make clear. After increasing internationalism, we're back to petty nationalism and trade wars – compounded by disunity and discourtesy. 

Being humans, clinging to this minor planet for an all-too-finite moment, is tough. Individually and collectively, we need all the help we can get. Heightened cooperation is help. Debilitating fears and prejudices, and the massive waste of resources on weapons are not. They are badges of fear, often whipped up by demagogues. 

The world has been growing more tolerant and understanding. Is this international revival of autocracy, prejudice, and superstition a brief interruption? Or, whipsawed by climate-change, refugee crises, water shortage, and economic equality, will we descend toward a world of violence and chaos?

Are we progressive humanists wearing the ghost shirts?

                                                         -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 8 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News (and possibly other area newspapers) as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM. (The latter can be streamed at www.lccommunityradio.org.)]

In Praise of Bicycles

What a delight it is to bicycle around Las Cruces!

Rarely is a single activity fun, good for physical, mental, and emotional well-being, economical, environmentally helpful, and in harmony with the community.

Why is it such fun? First, physical exercise just plain feels good. 

There's also the breeze in one's face and the mild physical challenge. Bicycling also puts us in touch with the childhood joys of trying out new movements, exploring new territory, and feeling independent and free.

Riding through older parts of town – on quiet streets with few cars – brings one into contact with real neighborhoods. Houses not made with a giant cookie-cutter but built individually. Like the faces of people who've lived a little, they vary wildly and express great character. Moving more slowly, and not encased in a metal shell, and able to stop or turn back without endangering anyone, the bicyclist can see and hear in detail. Even greet and be greeted by other human beings, many of whom are friendlier to the bicyclist than to the driver of a huge loud automobile that could go awry and kill them.

More generally, bicycling enhances the connection you feel with where you live – and the others who live there. You're more aware of details of people's yards, slight changes of scent or temperature, and even the habits of folks you see often. And when wife and I bicycle together, sharing the experience enhances it.

I'm often bicycling to the site of another sport – pickleball or swimming, even lifting – in search of fun and physical exercise. Too often in my life, even just to go a few blocks, I've driven. I've occasionally wondered whether making the journey on foot wouldn't provide even more exercise and fun.

Bicycling takes longer, yes; but not nearly as much longer as one might suppose; and the extra time is spent contemplating, exercising, and seeing the sights. Driving somewhere I'm frustrated by traffic signals and other drivers who keep me from doing it faster. Bicycling there, I arrive feeling a certain calm satisfaction. I'm invigorated.

Nor are other drivers the ogres many bicyclists have painted them as. Yes, they often don't see us. (I learned from decades of using primarily a motorcycle that at every moment one must assume that every driver is about to do the dumbest possible thing.) I guess drivers get frustrated at having to move more slowly for a moment. But we haven't seen that.

Of course, we make sure people see us and wave gratefully to folks who've simply obeyed the law or acted safely toward us. Maybe seeing us on bikes revives happy memories or fond dreams of some day getting on a bicycle again and feeling free again. Maybe we're not viewed as competition, we're not in the Indie 500 most drivers imagine themselves driving in. Maybe at my age and with my long hair I just look so damned silly that they smile.

Surprisingly, even the 100 degree temperatures haven't dissuaded us. It's more pleasant than I'd have imagined. Yeah, we get sweaty. So? The breeze is cooling; but we'll see how often next spring's winds dissuade us.

I admire the couple who told me recently they've been “car-free for ten years.” I'm not ready for that.

But if you've ever been tempted to try bicycling, do it if you can. Bicycling around town will delight you. 

                                               -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 1 July 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL-LP 101.5 FM.] 

[Enough about me.  If YOU want to get started, there are plenty of experienced bicyclists around.  A friend of mine steered me to Pablo at Outdoor Adventures -- (575) 521-1922.  That's in the shopping center where there's a Lowe's and the Baskin-Robbins.  They have a variety of bikes, Pablo's an expert at getting each of us together with the right bike for us right now, and they'll let you test ride 'em.   Give it a try!]

Nuclear Waste Storage Proposal

The proposal to store all the nation's spent nuclear fuel rods in New Mexico raises more questions than I can fit into a column. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's public comment period ends July 30th.

It's “temporary” (thus will be buried just 30 feet deep) but given the history, it'll probably be here forever. New Mexico would likely become a de facto permanent dump site for the most dangerous radioactive waste, at a site designed only for temporary storage. With aging canisters, it is unlikely the waste would move again. Storage casks, canisters and the site itself are not necessarily designed for permanent disposal. Leaks, cracks, and contamination may result. Opponents say that most low-level radioactive-waste dumps have leaked, and remediation costs have been over a billion dollars.

Transportation is critical – and not addressed in the proposal. They'd move the rods in thousands of rail deliveries over twenty years. Since some would come from the West Coast, shipments would pass through El Paso and/or Las Cruces. Each rail car has about as much plutonium as we dropped on Nagasaki – although not in bomb-grade form. (If the site's temporary, these would move again.)

Terrorists will love all those targets; and terrorism may continue and increase. (When proponents say containers would be “invulnerable,” it sounds like White Star Lines promoting a big ship in 1913.) 

 

Steve Pearce and Susanna Martinez say this'll be perfectly safe. During the next 20 years, every time a passing train awakens me, I'll go back to sleep easier knowing that they say so – they've proven so wise and dispassionate!

 

I can't calculate the odds on a disaster; but they're not zero, unless this project doesn't happen. State Sen. Cisco McSorley (D-Albuquerque) has said, “The idea that we are going to give a for-profit company, the ability to handle uranium that is going to be radioactive and deadly for six million years … to me that seems ridiculous.” 

 

Governments and companies have budget troubles. Safety and infrastructure can suffer. We could be talking not about a pothole but a deteriorating railroad or lax safety procedures. An accident could have disastrous consequences. 

 

A private company isn't subject to open-meetings, IPRA, and other open-government requirements that would help us elicit facts about an accident. 

 

Environmentalists and New Mexico's oil-and-gas industry finally agree on something. An oil company safety manager testified before New Mexico lawmakers last month that leaks at the facility could have devastating impacts on the state’s extraction industry. 

 

Our vulnerability will worry many Las Crucens, perhaps muting some folks' enjoyment of our remote desert. Would associating New Mexico with nuclear waste encourage folks to move here? 

 

Yes, the federal government and the nuclear industry have screwed things up by not dealing with permanent storage. But knowing something should be done doesn't mean signing up to be the victims.

All this for what? Additional jobs in eastern New Mexico, some of them temporary, and some incentive payments to host communities. 

 

Las Cruces is considering voicing opposition in a resolution, as Albuquerque, Bernalillo County and some other local governments have – to protect citizens.

Jeff Steinborn is chair of the legislative committee holding hearings on this. There's a key hearing scheduled for July 19^th in Hobbs.

I urge you to read up on this – what both sides are saying – and express your view to the NRC, the Las Cruces City Council, and Senator Steinborn.

                                                                   -30-
  [The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 24 June 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website newspaper's and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG Radio and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM (streamable at www.lccommunityradio.org.]

[There will be several opportunities to discuss this issue or hear it discussed in the near future.  There's a legislative committee hearing in Hobbs the morning of July 19th; but that requires a long drive and (unless you know someone) an overpriced hotel room.  The Las Cruces City Council seems likely to entertain the possibility of passing a resolution, so look for agendae for work sessions or council meetings -- which can be attended and spoken at in person or can be watched and listened to on video on the City's website.  The Dona Ana County Commission may also entertain such a motion.  I will also try to schedule a radio program on it, possibly with Senator Steinborn and (I hope) a major proponent of the project.  But that likely won't be until 25 July -- the last Wednesday before the NRC comment period closes.]

[Further information from opponents is available here and from Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club the Sierra Club.]