Guns

If you think it's wonderful that kids keep getting massacred in schools, raise your hand.

Didn't raise it, did you? That means we've just agreed there's a problem. 

We haven't agreed on what to do.

It's not purely a gun problem. Some mix of pain, insecurity, lovelessness, hopelessness, anger, feeling left out, and too much TV (or video games) leaves a dangerous minority of our young people itching to shoot up a school and be famous for a day. (Other than Charles Alan Whitman, who shot up a college decades ago, I can't remember the name of a single idiot who's done that.)

But it ain't purely a people problem, either. The ready availability of guns helps make shootings, accidental or otherwise, the third leading cause of death among children. Ready availability of modern weapons of war contributes to school shootings. The NRA (like purveyors of stuff that pollutes our environment, induces cancer, or causes obesity or drug-dependency) muscles up with money and misinformation to avoid meaningful regulation or responsibility. 

Some say it's a mental illness problem – or that it's because we took prayer out of the schools, or don't spank kids any more. Increasing mental health and kids' values would help. But assume putting religion in schools would work. (whose religion? all of them? and which hasn't involved violence?) If it somehow discouraged young folks from massacring fellow students, you'd affect the problem in ten or fifteen years, when 19 year-olds would have experienced religion in schools since kindergarten. What do we do in the meantime?

Watching the anger at Monday's City Council meeting, I wished again that more people who know a lot about guns would help craft steps that could decrease deaths without unduly burdening responsible citizens. Although gun enthusiasts were angry, they seemed less angry and threatening than a similar group two years ago. When Mayor Miyagashima noticed that, and started asking if they thought background checks were a good step, instead of laughing or shouting they quietly said, “Yes. Sure.” I sensed that though they're still loyal to the NRA line, the continued bloodiness of schools is softening more folks' resistance to attempting a few sensible steps.

The NRA has its fans worked up that they'll lose their guns. Ain't gonna happen. Even if, politically, you could ban guns, it wouldn't work. It's too late. And the Second Amendment ain't going anywhere. In fact, the NRA's course – absolute opposition to anything that might decrease the bleeding but impair profits – is the only way imaginable that we'd eliminate the Second Amendment. A vast majority want gun-control. Only more and more shootings, with more and more NRA indifference and bluster, could conceivably make that vast majority so sick of guns it might try to amend the Constitution. 

It's a complex problem. Slogans and simple fixes won't work. Both sides say we should do what some other countries do; but we've a unique mix of ethnic diversity, open spaces and huge cities, and gun-related traditions. And constitutions protecting gun ownership.

The City Council is right to express concern. Those who brought guns to the council meeting shot themselves in the foot: they merely reminded others how easily a demented fool with a gun could kill scores of people. If I were a counselor, intimidation tactics would encourage me to vote against the would-be intimidators.

How about both sides bending a little to seek reasonable steps?

                                          -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 23March 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  During the week, a spoken version will air on KRWG (probably Wednesday morning and evening and again on Saturday) and KTAL, 101.5 FM, on Thursday.]

[By the way, we're going to have a two-hour radio discussion of these issues on KTAL 101.5 FM (which you can also stream at www.lccommunityradio.org) on Wednesday, 11 April, 8-10 a.m. on "Speak Up, Las Cruces!" with a real mix of viewpoints, including several gun owners of various political persuasions -- e.g. Lucas Herndon, a gun enthusiast whose politics are generally Progressive, Harvey Daiho Hilbert, a gun enthusiast who's also a Buddhist roshi, and Bev Courtney (a gun instructor and Tea Party stalwart) and William Webb (also very conservative), plus (briefly) Bill McCamley, Greg Smith, and others.  Haven't figured out just who'll speak when or how it will all work, but we'll have a mix of strong opinions, so it should be interesting.  I hope and believe these are people who won't just toss slogans back and forth at each other like snowballs.]

[I should probably mention that on KTAL, 101.5 FM, the Sunday Show -- this morning at 9 -- will replay our interview with Frank Zamora, former Baptist minister and current professor of philosophy and religion, and that from 8-10 a.m.this Wednesday morning "Speak Up, Las Cruces!", on 101.5 FM,  will feature:

8-9 Algernon D'Amassa, journalist, actor, theatre director, Buddhist teacher, and friend, with a break at 8:30 to talk about Dona Ana County with its PIO, Jess Williams.

9-10:

first 40-45 minutes: Brandon Gass, whose six-minute film will play at the famous Cannes Film Festival this year, along with his leading lady, and then for the last 15-20 minutes, Kevin Bixby concerning the lawsuit against the Border Wall, possible further protests at that site, and other environmental matters.]

You can also stream KTAL, Las Cruces's Community Radio Station, at www.lccommunityradio.org

 

Las Cruces Community Radio

Las Cruces Community Radio's station KTAL-LP

LCCOMMUNITYRADIO.ORG

People, Pickleball, and PTSD

This morning, I'll just reflect on pickleball. And people. And PTSD.

Most mornings I play pickleball. Pickleball looks like tennis, mostly doubles, played on a court about ¼ the size of a tennis court with short-handled rackets and what looks like a wiffleball. If you played basketball daily until 61, then couldn't, then got some new body parts, you might try pickleball. 

Our passionate pickleball community plays mostly at Meersheidt Rec Center and Apodaca Park. About half men, half women. Mostly not real young, although the sport is growing among young people. We play hard, but laugh a lot too. We rarely argue. 

I've wanted to write a column expressing gratitude for that community and the folks working at Meersheidt who have to put up with us. We're mostly pleasant, but when you're addicted to something, even exercise, you can be short-tempered when anything delays your fix. 

One player, CeCe Hunter, often brought her twin son and daughter, Aaron and Kiley. I liked 'em a lot. Played well, but were pleasant and thoughtful. Really sweet. 

On January 8^th, Aaron killed himself. I was shocked. His incredibly friendly and easygoing demeanor completely masked the pain and inner wounds of war. He'd fought in Iraq. 3^rd Artillery, in the first invasion. But he kept all that inside. His only real symptom was inability to sleep, but he claimed he just never needed much sleep, even felt lethargic if he slept four hours or more.

CeCe's grief fueled efforts to help veterans. Including the Aaron Gifford Memorial Pickleball Tournament, April 7-8 at Apodaca Park. All proceeds to Mission 22, founded by three vets (and PTSD sufferers) to help other vets. I urge you to play, if you know the game, or to donate. This problem won't just go away.

CeCe's friends shared her grief and helped. The pickleball community pitched in. 

The tournament is a small step; but it'll raise a little money and raise awareness. 

So I write to applaud CeCe and the others, and to honor Aaron, but also to be one more nagging voice in some veteran's head. Problems? Who wouldn't have 'em after such an experience! It's all too common. It's no shame, and no weakness. And there is help. Meanwhile, each day, 22 vets do as Aaron did. 

Harvey Daiho Hilbert talked with CeCe and me on KTAL radio Wednesday. Daiho enlisted in the Army as soon as he was old enough, was badly wounded in Viet Nam, and suffered PTSD before it was called that. Then he found Zen Buddhism. Then he became a psychotherapist. He still motorcycles with young vets back from Afghanistan. Talking with them, listening, counseling. Hanging out. 

Daiho notes that we depend on a world with some order to it: we don't go to the post office worrying we'll get injured by bombs, strangers don't approach us on the street and shoot us. War can turn that upside down.

He says people often respond to trauma in any of three ways: denial, which may have been Aaron's response; coping, which could mean popping pills or drinking buckets of booze or hiding in a routine, to get you through the night; and, lastly, confronting trauma's effects and trying to deal with them. With help.

I admire CeCe. I appreciate our community. I hope you pass this column on to a veteran, for whatever it's worth. Healing IS possible. With help. And we all should help!

                                                     -30-

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, March 18, 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, 101.5 FM.]

[To be clear on the details for signing up, or for donating:  
to register or donate or just get more information, go to  www.pickeballtournaments.com
and click on upcoming or future tournaments, and since they're listed alphabetically the Aaron Gifford Memorial Tournament on April 7-8 should come up soon.  Men's and women's doubles are on Saturday the 7th and Mixed Doubles on Sunday the 8th. ]

[For further information on Mission 22, you can go to its website .]

This seems like a no-brainer: we live in the southern part of the second sunniest state in the United States; fossil fuels are costly, and grow more so, and have undesirable environmental consequences; why wouldn't the City of Las Cruces, which now uses 6.5% renewable energy, resolve to increase that to at least 25% by 2022?

Albuquerque has resolved to reach at least 25% renewable energy by 2025, and will offer incentive programs for homes and offices to invest in solar panels. 

City Councilor Gill Sorg has introduced an ordinance that would commit the City to the “25% by 2022” goal. (That's three years earlier than Albuquerque because we're starting from a higher percentage; and because we're better than Albuquerque.) By 2050, we should approach 100% renewable energy. With 300 days of sunshine per year, it sounds feasible. U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich has called these “attainable goals,” adding that “Many of New Mexico's communities are leading the nation in solar deployment” and that “the solar industry added 1,000 jobs in 2016 alone.”

More than thirty Las Cruces-owned businesses have signed up to support this, and a petition campaign is garnering plenty of signatures.

The draft resolution notes that producing a kilowatt-hour of energy from solar energy takes about “one-ninth the water it takes to produce that kilowatt-hour from a combined cycle fossil gas plant, and 1/17 as much as from a coal-fired plant.”

Last time I looked, we live in a desert. With no clear end to our current “drought” (actually, normal here) and every likelihood of ongoing water shortages. I've rarely seen the Rio flowing in recent years. Meanwhile, the folks who grow those mammoth waterhogs called pecan trees keep planting, and have announced a humongous national marketing campaign! Too, people keep screaming about “economic development,” which means more people and more businesses lapping up our dwindling water supply.

What part of “WE SHOULD DO ALL WE CAN TO CONSERVE WATER!” does anyone not understand? 

The draft resolution notes that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported with 95% certainty that anthropogenic carbon pollution is causing global temperatures to rise, exacerbating extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and wildfires.” 

I understand that a small minority of us still doubt global warming is occurring and/or doubt human activities are contributing to it; but no one could contend that burning fossil fuels is somehow wonderful for us. (Ever noticed all those warnings on gas pumps about pregnant women?) Unless one had a fistful of stock in a fossil-fuel corporation, who'd argue that using more solar, more wind-power, and less fossil fuel would somehow harm us – even if the tiny minority were right that the signs of global warming are illusory or fake news?

If your doctors agreed that there was a 95% certainty you had cancer, would you say it was just normal growth (or a plot) and go fishing rather than get treatment? What if the treatment was something independently good for you? 

The resolution's non-binding; but it's fair to ask how feasible this really is. One knowledgeable city official says it's “totally doable” but would cost money. (Even tariff issues may complicate things.) City lawyers and legislative analysts are looking at financing options and legal issues. Much depends on what financing arrangements are available – and on the council's political will. 

It's time to act. Particularly with national efforts temporarily stalled, we need to do our part.

                                                  -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 March 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG-TV's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL-LP 101.5 FM.]

 

Split Image

This morning I feel schizophrenic – though only under the secondary definition: “a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.” Life this year inspires intense gratitude and satisfaction; but also frequent daily moments of hopelessness.

It's a beautiful, sunny morning in New Mexico. My wife and our cat and I are healthy. I've had a good morning, writing, and will play pickleball shortly. We live in a vibrant community where the city council cares about improving lives, even making our city walkable and bikeable! Our new community radio station is drawing a tremendous response, the soups at Mountain View Market Co+op are incredibly tasty and healthy, and the near-full moon above our mountains has been stunning. 

But we live in a desert, during a drought, and people keep planting waterhog pecan trees to sell pecans to China. 

Each morning's online Times Digest is full of statements and actions by the national government that are not only unwise and inconsistent but absurd and downright dangerous. Lacking an adult attention span, the Commander-in-Chief makes significant decisions on impulse, having seen something on TV or heard something from his most recent visitor. He childishly insists on a military parade military officials don't want. While staff saying they're still checking on the legalities, he announces he's going to jack up tariffs, sending even his Republican allies scrambling for cover and tanking the stock market. 

Donald Trump is politically schizophrenic: he strongly opposes chain visas, for example – in which folks get to live here because a relative has become a citizen. Like the case of Maria, a Mexican immigrant who worked as a model, married a rich guy, and got citizenship under the “Einstein Visa” program, even though she was a college dropout with no discernible intellectual or artistic accomplishments, then got her parents Guillermo and Hortencia legal residency. Oops! That was Melania, from Slovenia.

He strongly opposes gun control, and rescinds regulations keeping guns away from people officially declared incompetent; then he repeatedly says that mental health is the problem, not guns; then he proclaims we need gun control – until a “come-to-Jesus” meeting with a top NRA lobbyist. He's a fat old guy who ducked the draft when he was young but would rush into a school, unarmed, to defend students against a young man with an automatic weapon. He's so tough he can't stand up to Vladimir Putin. He's a nationalist who won't even instruct officials to confront known Russian interference in our elections. 

Still, we are so fortunate! We don't live in a war zone. Many of us have ample food and medical care, and we're working to extend those to others – along with better mental health care. Our community cares about tolerance, helping the less fortunate, and the arts. We have an international film festival, a farmers' market where committed farmers sell healthy food, and we're small enough to allow for real friendships and even pleasant conversations with people we disagree with. We're slowly housing the homeless. We have local businesses like the Shed, whose owners offer patrons tasty food and also help feed the poor. We have a fine symphony, and great local artists. And a Catholic bishop who washes Dreamers' feet. We have problems, but we're working on them. 

And those mountains!

So I'm grateful. But how deep and permanent are the wounds from experimenting with a clown in the Casa Blanca?

                                             -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 4 March 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL 201.5 FM.]

[Perhaps the clearest sign of White House absurdity this week, among many, was that in a week when Putin rattled sabers by announcing a super new weapon that could outsmart our defenses, Trump was up at 6 in the morning Tweeting a response . . . . to Alec Baldwin's Saturday Night Live imitations of him!   Can we really imagine any other U.S. President insecure enough to respond in public at all to someone's imitation of him, other than to appreciate it?  Let alone, to make it such a priority.  Aside from everything else, Trump should have learned enough from his showbiz experience to realize he's enhancing Baldwin's and SNL's audience.  I'm decades removed from the time I watched it regularly, but will start taping it or viewing skits on the Internet now because of Trump's reaction to them, and I doubt I'm the only one.

I hope someone at SNL is crafting a Baldwin skit in which Baldwin-Trump is up at six crafting tweets about Baldwin.  I envision advisors trying to interest him in various other matters, such as Putin's comments and the growing concern about Jared Kushner's incredibly deep conflicts of interest, while Trump (who's so childish that Baldwin ought always to have a teddy bear, or perhaps a Donald Trump doll, in his lap during skits) keeps jabbing ineffectively at Baldwin.]

[Rivaling that for absurdity are the about-face on guns and the apparent fact that Trump's trade war announcement, which even his allies say is the dumbest thing he's done so far, resulted from his frustration over Kushner's problems and other reverses, so he announced the trade wars in a snit fit -- even though the officials who should have been involved in any such decision had no idea he was going to announce such a thing.  It was under consideration -- and subject of great inner conflict in the Administration -- but not vetted as to legalities and implications.  As some staffer said, "Well, he won't be signing anything, because there's nothing to sign.  There's no paperwork."  Another great skit would be a version of Trump's late-night meeting with NRA representatives, after which his brief foray into gun-control advocacy ended quickly.]

[He did show up at the Gridiron event this year; and he or his writers had come up with some good lines.  If the White House and our relationships with allies and our credibility in the world and our security were not all in flames, that could have been fun.]

 

Guns and People

Part of why we can't talk to each other any more is that we rely on memes and slogans – particularly about guns.

We have a problem. It is not desirable that people walk into schools and massacre as many people as they can. I think we all agree on that. 

Traditionally, what a democracy does about a serious problem is discuss it and try to solve it. Many problems we can't solve. Some aren't sufficiently high-priority to solve without expenditures thought to be disproportionate. Others, while we can't completely solve them, we do what we sensibly can.

Too many gun “discussions” descend, on both sides, into slogans. The venerable “Guns Don't Kill People, People Do” sounds great. But it's a false dichotomy. Without a person, no gun can kill dozens of people. Without a gun no person can easily kill dozens of people. 

People also argue either that “we need a return to Christian values” or that “mental illness is the root problem.” A friend wrote today that the trend toward mass shootings coincided with a decline in disciplining children. Well, it's also coincided with technological improvements in weaponry and increased availability of especially deadly weapons. 

Yes, let's improve mental health treatment and prevention, for this and other reasons. And let's improve how we raise our kids, so that they are more tolerant, treat others as they'd like to be treated, and, above all, are not wounded creatures whose insecurities or parental abuse haven't primed them to seek revenge or fame (or acceptance by some hate group) by killing.

But those are challenging problems, and solving them wouldn't decrease school shootings anytime soon.

In the meantime, with any other problem, particularly a deadly one, we'd discuss what we can do to decrease the death toll.

Certainly banning some of the most deadly weapons could help.

If, as Mr. Trump suggests, mental illness is the key, changing the rules to let more known mentally-ill people get guns, as Trump did a year ago, probably won't help.

With other useful but dangerous tools (cars, trains, airplanes, maybe even pesticides) we are required to learn to use them competently and safely, demonstrate (repeatedly) some proficiency and an understanding of the rules. (My friends who use guns certainly train their kids.) We're also required to register our cars and motorcycles, so that if one gets misused or stolen there's accountability; and insurance is mandatory. 

Why do these requirements not apply to guns? Unlike cars and trains, guns are specifically designed to kill. Some will argue that such regulations would get violated; but people violate DWI and mandatory car insurance laws, yet those still have a positive impact. 

Last night at a public gathering, one speaker's young daughter asked to share her mom's two minutes at the microphone. She said her school had been “locked down twice this week. That was very scary for me, and I'm hoping that will get solved and our schools will be safer.” 

In Florida, grieving schoolmates asked Florida legislators to act. The vote was one-sided against even discussing the issue; and equally one-sided declaring pornography “dangerous to health” – and, reportedly, to require schools to post a sign saying “In God We Trust.” Thank God! That should take care of everything. (Violate the First Amendment – but never the Second!)

I don't claim to have answers; but I wish we could at least start asking the right questions.

                                                  -30-

[The column above appeared Sunday, 25February, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air at times during the week on KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM.]

[This is a hell of a vibrant and interesting discussion -- when it actually gets discussed, not just speechified about.  I hope to discuss it a little Wednesday morning on my radio show, "Speak Up, Las Cruces," on 101.5 FM (Que Tal Community radio -- streaming on www.lccommunityradio.org) if some people call up, during the 8-9 hour. (9-10 we'll be talking about the Las Cruces International Film Festival)  Call us at 575-526KTAL, or 526 5825, to express your views on the air.  I'm also planning another show, with in-studio guests and pre-recorded short statements by people, to try to discuss the subject very fully, like a townhall on the air, sometime soon.]

A Cogent Voice from the Past

“Too often, we find ourselves living in monologue rather than dialogue.”

Though this aptly describes our current scene, it was said on March 12, 1961, in a Boston synagogue, by Martin Luther King. Thanks to a long chain of events (see today's blog post), a bunch of us listened to a recording of that speech last Sunday afternoon at Temple Beth-El. 

March 1961? Six weeks after Jack Kennedy's Inauguration. Five years and a week before Texas Western (now UTEP) shocks the world by starting five “Negro” players and upsetting Kentucky, and its racist but famous coach, to win the NCAA Basketball Championship. 

A Kenyan graduate student and his pregnant white wife, just married in February, haven't a clue that the son who'll be born in August will someday be the 44th President of the United States. In 23 states, they could be arrested and jailed for getting married. March 1961 is six years before the U.S. Supreme Court will decide Loving v. Virginia, striking down a law forbidding “interracial” marriages. If Barack Obama's parents had married in Virginia or Texas, not in Hawaii, they could have been sentenced to a year in prison. 

King discusses “whether there has been any real progress” in race relations. He notes “there are three possible answers: “the extreme optimism” that points proudly to “marvelous strides” and concludes “we can sit down now comfortably by the wayside and wait” for the inevitable equality; the “extreme pessimism” that calls those strides “minor,” notes the insurgence of the KKK and the White Citizens Council in the South, and concludes “that we have retrogressed rather than progressed” and that “there can be no progress” in race relations; and “the realistic position” that “combines the truths” of the first two positions but avoids their extremes. He concludes, “We have come a long, long way” but “We have a long, long way to go.”

He adds, “To put it figuratively in biblical language, we have broken loose from the Egypt of slavery Editand we have moved through the wilderness of segregation and now we stand on the border of the Promised Land of integration. Now the great challenge facing the nation is to move on.”

I recall those times. I recall how strange the neatly dressed young black men “sitting-in” seemed to most whites. Nonviolently, they integrated lunch counters in more than 100 southern cities. I recall that even in my northern high school, Italians and blacks were at odds. When a white girl dated a black boy, the principal called her parents to make sure they knew. That angered a few of us. In August 1965, just back from going south in the civil rights movement, I was drinking beers with our softball team. A black man briefly came into the bar to buy cigarettes and one of my teammates muttered “Nigger!” under his breath. When I spoke up, I nearly got attacked by my own teammates.

March 1961 was a pause along a steep mountain path with a lot of switchbacks and the usual mix of grand “Aha!” views and weariness. 

“Are we there yet?” 

No, but despite a racist president we have made even greater strides. Integration is mostly assumed; but equality is still somewhere around the bend. Some day, people will wonder what the fuss was ever about. But today, as in March 1961, that's a future we cannot assume, but must struggle for.

                                             -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 18 February 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week both on KRWG and on KTAL-LP, 101.5 FM.]

[How we happened to listen to this "lost" speech involved the Rabbi who had invited King to speak that day, and Frances Williams.  King was invited to speak at Temple Emanuel, in Worcester, Massachusetts, by Rabbi Joseph Klein, who'd served as Rabbi there since 1949 and would continue until his retirement in 1977, when he became Rabbi Emeritus.  Still in 1977, he then became the first Rabbi at Temple Beth El in Las Cruces, where he remained until 1984.  He was well acquainted with Frances Williams, and respected her work; and when she gave him a YEI Indian Rug, he wanted to give her something special in return, and gave her the tape of the MLK speech.  Long afterward, when she had extra time, she dug it out and got it enhanced by a friend.  The listening was enhanced by a video made of various stills from the time, and a choral group sang before and afterward, and some folks talked about the history of the speech and about its meaning today, and there were refreshments and lots of nice people.]

[Anti-miscegenation laws.  Most or all states had 'em at some point.  New Mexico had one from 1857 to 1866.  Many such laws forbade "whites" to marry not only "blacks" but Asians and "nonwhites," which I assume included Indians and Mexicans.   New Mexico's extend only to blacks.  Ten states rescinded such laws in the 19th Century.  Fourteen (including California, Oregon, Colorado, and Arizona) did so only during 1948-1967, before Loving.   That court decision overruled the anti-miscegenation statutes in 23 states, including Texas (where the laws extended to other nonwhites).  A 24th state, Maryland, where the law even prevented marriages between blacks and Filipinos, only rescinded its law while the Loving case was in progress, in response to that case.
So New Mexico was a star; but before we get too self-congratulatory, consider a bit of history mentioned by NMSU Professor Bobbie Greene: in 1939, when the first black woman to graduate from NMSU was there, state law required that she sit outside the classroom!  Although some of her professors (perhaps risking a possible criminal citation) let her sit inside their classrooms, but the law was what it was.
Looking at the history of those laws, one key fact stands out: that from 1877 until well into the 20th Century, no such laws were repealed and several, repealed in southern states during Reconstruction, were reinstated.  Virginia had strengthened its law in 1924.  One more bit of evidence of how far we slid back once Reconstruction ended -- which resulted partly from another cliffhanger (and allegedly stolen) Presidential election in 1876.]

[Obviously we have come an incredible distance from March 1961. But we will not be "there" yet until skin color means as little -- and can be commented on as naturally as -- hair color or the color of a man's suit or a woman's dress, or where you went to college.  We will not be "there" yet until kids are all gradations of human coloring and no one feels a need to classify someone a little dark-complected as anything.  We will not be "there" yet until none of us feel the impulse, referring to a professor or deliveryman or citizen who made a speech at a city council meeting as "the black professor" or "this black woman got up and said . . ." unless skin-color is directly material to the subject the person teaches or was talking about.  When no one is in the least surprised every by a couple who are of mixed ethnicity.  And when cops are not startled to see a black man walking in a neighborhood with expensive homes in it.  (As to that last, right now it's perhaps wroth noting that while profiling is wrong, and I was furious that my closest friend at the law firm in San Francisco, a friend I'd gone to law school with, was questioned by police in his own driveway, washing his own car, because he was black and the car was a pretty cool one, at the same time if you're a cop, you're meant to be alert, and the natural tendency to include ethnicity in the factors that go into an almost instantaneous assessment of a situation may represent not "racism" but the nature of the unequal world in which we find ourselves.)]

Note: What follows is an email I received in response to the above column.  I insert it here (without the writer's name because I haven't had a chance yet to ask him whether that's all right) not for the undeserved compliments but for his summary of his own background, and particularly the role the Gospels played in developing his character and consciousness.  It feels particularly welcome because with regard to gun issues today (following the latest school massacre) my suggestions of some reasonable responsive steps have been met by comments from other friends that the problem isn't the guns but the move away from a deeply Christian society.  (Haven't yet gotten a good answer to the question of "Okay, assuming we need to get everybody back on the Christian track, could we, until we accomplish that, take some sensible steps?")

Thanks Peter, for the long term dedication to helping us move toward peace.  It seems like the move is away from peace right now, but I think you all will prevail.

My parents were Virginian by birth, my dad being raised in Baltimore (slums), my mom being raised in an isolated hollow in in the Blue Ridge Mountains.  My dad said very little, but showed us how to live an honest, decent life.  My mom was fearful and hot tempered.  Both were always aware of the wolf at the door.  Since we lived in a remote mining camp in Colorado, the issues of race were not really present.  We had northern European, Mediterranean, Hispanic (Mexican) and Indigenous (Ute) neighbors and they were mostly kind people, with a background of poverty (our parents were WW1, Great Depression and WW2/Korean War survivors).  It wasn't until I lived in the Southeast, that I actually saw what the social conflicts were all about.  

Fortunately I received a pocket size New Testament in the military (pre Vietnam thank God).  The 4 Gospels more or less came to be the standard I looked at when I judged my own actions or assessed what I saw around me.  So I managed to live peacefully with my neighbors down through the years.  Over the years, though I noticed a schism develop in society.  It seemed to me the black churches were doing a better job of teaching than the "white" ones.  Indeed the very presence of "black and white" churches flew into the face of the 4 Gospels.  And I knew it wasn't the black churches that were driving the segregation.

The upshot of all this was I drifted along at peace with my neighbor, voting but not civically active until around 2000.  By then I felt reasonably confident that I understood what was going on.  It became apparent I needed to do a bit more than I had been doing.  It was then I began to become acquainted with people like yourself who had seen the problems decades before and had been "fighting the good fight" all along.  If people like you hadn't been persistent, I'd have been adrift when I finally figured out I should be doing more.

Thanks very much for your persistent efforts!

Clean Air and Water Ain't "Special Interests"

Carla Sonntag's recent op-ed alleged that “lawsuits funded by deep-pocketed special interest groups [were] aimed at ending the [oil-and-gas] industry altogether.”

Dictionaries define “special-interest group” as “a body of persons, corporation, or industry that seeks or receives benefits or privileged treatment, especially through legislation.” Like the industry-funded lobbying outfit Ms. Sonntag runs, which has opposed raising the minimum wage and tried to weaken unions.

The phrase doesn't mean what Ms. Sonntag pretends it means. Can even she believe that folks who contribute to environmental groups “seek or receive privileged treatment?” Does she mean clean water to drink or clean air to breathe is special treatment?

I contribute to the ACLU, SWEC, and the Environmental Defense Fund. These groups aren't advocating for “special interests” but our common interests in fair legal proceedings and a healthy environment.

If you wade through Sonntag's snide rhetoric, she's attacking an effort to cut emissions 91% by 2050. With global temperatures rising, trying to do that in 32 years might be prudent. Proponents are not, as Sonntag claims, “trying to destroy the source of many jobs and livelihoods in New Mexico.” Her carping that environmentalists get contributions from rich people is ironic from someone whose source of income is wealthy businesses and corporations who (unlike contributors to environmental groups) are concerned only with personal profit.

If Ms. Sonntag used more logic and less name-calling, she might be more convincing. The people pushing the steep emissions cuts are trying to help save us from imminent danger. Yes, a side-effect of moving away from fossil fuels would be more jobs in other segments of the energy industry and fewer jobs in fossil fuels. (And more modest profits for the people who pay Ms. Sonntag's salary?)

Even fellow Republicans don't consider Ms. Sonntag a truth-teller. Harvey Yates and the New Mexico Republican Party accused her of false and libelous statements in emails attacking a candidate for party chair. The party said the “deceitful” statements showed “a lack of integrity.” Yates said private investigators had traced the emails to accounts set up by Ms. Sonntag and a son. Ms. Sonntag replied that she hadn't been involved in party politics for years. 

Sonntag sued the party for defamation in January 2017, demanding an apology, a court order, and damages. She dismissed her lawsuit in April, issuing a press release that mentions neither any settlement payment or any apology. She also stated that she'd “filed the lawsuit to obtain a report from the RPNM.” (The lawsuit's discovery phase would automatically provide her the report.) She claims that the report “proves . . . the Republican Party had no basis to attack me.” If so, the report would be strong evidence that would encourage a plaintiff to continue the lawsuit. Sonntag waved the white flag. 

Sonntag understands that words matter – when they refer to her.

Folks like Ms. Sonntag give business a bad name. Opposing any and all modest efforts to improve wages, water, or working conditions undermines credibility and strengthens the impression that businesses are bad. They're not. They're part of a healthy economy. Unfortunately, because they involve maximizing profits, they sometimes oppose too aggressively improvements that might cut into profits. Or pay folks like Ms. Sonntag, to try to convince us that fighting climate change will destroy our economy. 

Using our words honestly is a great step we all can take to improve the quality of public and political dialogue.

                                                -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 11 February 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.]

[Part of our problem is that we cannot just disagree, we feel the need to vilify and insult each other.  Newspaper reporters are never just "mistaken" or "wrong" anymore, they are LYING.  A story this morning about Pence exemplifies that.  A gay Olympic athlete expressed unhappiness that Pence was leading the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics.  He mentioned his understanding that Pence had at one time supported "gay conversion therapy."    A veteran reporter then reported that Pence's people had reached out to the athlete, seeking a meeting, and been rebuffed.  Pence could not merely deny that.  He had to tweet that a reporter was dredging up  "an 18-year-old nonstory, to create disunity."  A simple denial would have been more graceful and persuasive.  Why call the reporter a liar?  Why insist that she was trying to create dissension.  Pence protesteth too much.  If he said he hadn't sought a meeting and had no idea where she got the idea that he had, or why the athlete was saying he had, and that the story was an unfortunate blemish on a wonderful moment of national unity, one might wonder whether there'd been some mistake and the story was inaccurate or exaggerated.  (What would have been wrong with seeking such a meeting also isn't clear to me; and regretting the gay athlete's attitude as rigid and based on inaccurate allegations about Pence's views might have made one respect Pence more than his descent into Trump-like name-calling.

Did Pence actually advocate "gay conversion therapy?"  Implicitly, but not explicitly.  While running for Congress he did "advocate funding institutions which provide assistance to people trying to change their sexual behavior."  That was on his website in 2000, so it should express his belief.  The context made it clear that he was no fan of gay sexual behavior, but he didn't explicitly refer to gay conversion therapy, at least there.  (Interestingly, some website in Nevada later alleged, with no apparent factual basis, that Pence had stated that "gay conversion therapy saved my marriage, by helping me resist certain urges."  That may have been meant humorously.  It might even accurately reflect an aspect of Pence's character, but he never made that statement and would have been stupid to make it publicly that the story should hardly have convinced anyone; but it may have fueled Pence's annoyance at the whole issue."]