Voting for Mayor of Las Cruces

Voting in our mayoral election involves not only our preferences among the ten candidates but the new process of ranked-choice voting.

RCV, or instant run-off, lets a candidate reach the required fifty-percent-plus-one without wasting time or money on a runoff election. We vote for our preferred candidate by marking him/her as first choice; then there are circles to fill in for second, third, and even ninth choice. Sounds simple, but I've heard many misconceptions.

Indicating secondary choices is optional. If you vote for only one candidate, your vote counts. However, voting for secondary candidates cannot possibly hurt your top choice: no one even looks at your second choice unless your top choice has been eliminated. Each round of counting eliminates the last place candidate. Where a voter for that newly eliminated candidate has a next-choice marked, that next choice (if not already eliminated) gets another vote. 

Thus it's senseless to eschew secondary choices to protect your preferred candidate. Refusing to list secondary choices essentially says that if your candidate had chosen not to run, and the other nine were all running, you'd abstain. But it's your choice. One voter I know says Miyagishima is the only real candidate, and that she'll vote for him and be done with it. Others plan to rank their top nine. 

My approach is to (a) identify my top choice; (b) identify the people for whom I won't vote, for various reasons; then (c) determine my preferences among the candidates who aren't covered by (a) or (b). 

Ken Miyagishima is my choice. He's been a good mayor. He and the council have moved in some good directions; he has both experience and a willingness to listen and grow; and I'm not hearing allegations from his opponents of any big errors or even a hint of corruption. He cares about the city, has improved it, represents us well, and seems likely to continue on that course. 

Sadly, a majority of the ten candidates are people whom I wouldn't want as mayor and won't help by listing on my ballot. I like and respect several, while others sound good, but I'm unconvinced. Some I don't trust, for good reasons. One whom I consider a friend represents a small, extreme share of citizens and buys into some odd conspiracy theories. Several seem beholden to the wrong people, including one who says his campaign is being managed by a woman I recall worked for a Koch Brothers-related organization and favored the vicious, divisive, and dishonest city council recall effort a few years ago. Another is only 20, and would have had to articulate some special and compelling reason for us to ignore his inexperience. Although some of these people are capable folks, none matches Miyagishima; and most have some disqualifying factor. 

I'll mark Greg Smith as my second choice, although back when the council didn't follow the City Charter in dealing with the minimum wage initiative, I figured I'd never vote for him for anything. He's capable; he cares about the city; and as councilor he's been involved in good things the city has done, and took the lead on some.

My third choice is Alex Fresquez. He lacks the relevant experience some others have; but he's promising, and I'm aware of no major negatives.

That's my ballot, anyway. Whatever your preferences, please vote. (If you mark someone else first, please consider Ken as your second choice.)

It matters.

                                         -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 27 October, 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and [presently] on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM -- www.lccommunityradio.org), and is also available at the KRWG website.]

[Sorry not to give more detail concerning my opinions on the full list of candidates.  That's partly a space consideration, but I'm also not wanting to be unduly negative.  I appreciate the dedication of all who run.  And I should mention that we discussed local races, including this one, with the candidates on KTAL, and undecided voters can listen to those on the archives at www.lccommunityradio.org]

[Next week I'll discuss several other local races, particularly the three Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District races, as many voters aren't following those.  The DASWCD is more important than most folks suppose, and this year's vote is part of an important change from a somewhat one-dimensional board (seven who saw their primary task as helping ranchers and farmers, and who also held somewhat right-wing general political views that didn't reflect their constituency) to a more varied and environmentally-conscious board.  I hope that board will continue to have a ranching presence, and am confident it will because two of the seven seats are appointed by the rather conservative New Mexico Soil and Water Conservation Commission.  Some of these ranchers bring important, first-hand, special knowledge of our county to the table.  However, they should not dominate the board, in my view.  Each race reflects strong differences of opinion, although that's a little less so in one of the races.]

 [I don't think I can post anything on 27 October without noting, with gratitude, that on that date in 1945, the folks in the picture below got married.  The marriage lasted until her death in 1994.]

 [Of course, a not entirely surprising result of that event was this:]

So if you don't like my columns, complain to these folks -- though I doubt they'll be much help to you.  (If you like these Sunday columns, thank these folks -- or think about them for a moment, or say a prayer for 'em or light a candle or something.)

 

Y Basta, Senor Trump!

Will Donald Trump's bizarre betrayal of the Kurds and our country's security interests wake anyone up?

Imagine for a moment that Barack Obama, against repeated advice by military and defense experts and his own aides, suddenly went wacky on a call with the Turkish President and said, “Yeah, I know you want to get the Kurds, so we'll get out of there.”

Suppose that when grownups from both parties screamed, Obama gave no coherent explanation, but said the Kurds had “nothing to do with us” and weren't necessarily nice people. When reporters noted that his former security advisor, General Mattis, thought the move unwise, Obama said Mattis was a lousy general, and that he, Obama, had beaten ISIS in a month. Yeah, sounds kind of like a playground spat outside an elementary school.

Suppose that when Republicans in Congress criticized him, he called them names; and when his own party called his mistake dangerous, Obama's lame excuse was that we needed to extricate ourselves from endless wars. (But we're talking just 1,000 troops here; and they aren't coming home, but being reassigned in neighboring Iraq.) 

I use Obama's name rather than Trump's to highlight the absurdity here. No one can imagine Clinton, either Bush, Obama, or Eisenhower behaving this way – or responding to criticism with schoolyard insults, not reason. Trump brags he conquered ISIS. That's a laugh line. However, when the military captured Osama bin Laden, Obama actually kept apprised of the plans, in detail, throughout; and he even made a practical suggestion that turned out to be critical to the mission's success. 

Whether Kurds are nice or not isn't the point. They fought alongside us, playing a crucial role against ISIS. In the future, anyone calculating whether to help a Green Beret on the run in enemy territory sure won't factor in any hope the U.S. is capable of stability, let alone loyalty. Our president kisses Putin's ass and thinks Kim is a dear fellow but demeans allies at every opportunity. 

Adding insult to injury, Trump and Pence have “negotiated a cease-fire” under which Turkey will give the Kurds five days to evacuate their homeland. That's not a cease-fire, that's a surrender, or an invitation to one. If Russia were menacing Sitka, Alaska, would Trump ask for five days to evacuate and call that a victory?

Meanwhile, Trump's off-script request that Ukraine re-open its investigation of Joe Biden remains problematic. Trump claims he never said “quid pro quo”; but in gangster films, when Capone says you have a nice candy store and it'd be a shame if some disappointed customer fire-bombed the place, and offers protection money, the store-owner gets the idea. Or else. Trump claims he was upset about corruption; but he runs the most corrupt administration since Warren Harding. Further, he asked Ukraine to deal with corruption by re-appointing a prosecutor generally believed to be extraordinarily corrupt. 

Fortunately, Trump's effort to stonewall Congressional oversight by discouraging witnesses from testifying is failing. Seasoned diplomatic experts have called Trump's extortion effort “crazy,” and even John Bolton – a professional, despite his fatuous politics – quickly had an aide tell the DOJ Bolton wasn't involved in “this drug deal.” 

Trump's destroying our State Department – and junking credibility and alliances that U.S. actions and reliability built over time. 

This guy ain't a leader, but the bull-in-a-china-shop some disaffected voters wanted; but it's our china shop, and some broken stuff is irreplaceable.

                                            -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 20 October 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website ("What Will our Betrayer-in-Chief" Break Next? ) and KRWG's website.  A spoken version will soon be available on KRWG's website and will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL (101.5FM - www.lccommunityradio.org)  Comments -- particularly criticism or questions -- are encouraged, here or on the newspaper's and KRWG's  websites!] 

[By the way, if Mattis is "the most overrated general" we have, what does that say of Trump's judgment of character in hiring Mattis and retaining him for rather awhile?]

[Trump responded to the impeachment inquiry like a frightened six-year-old, crossing his arms and screaming "No more witnesses for a totally compromised kangaroo court."
But witnesses are coming to testify; and they are career diplomats and administration officials.  Wednesday a top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo testified concerning a demoralized State Department in which Trump's clique has sidelined career diplomats and pressing others to abuse their positions to advance dome3stic political objectives."  The witness said he quit his job as Pompeo's senior advisor out of frustration over Trump's treatment of diplomats and failure to support them.
Next Tuesday the House committees will hear from William B. Taylor, Jr., a top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, whose text messages show he was deeply uneasy over the apparent attempt by Trump's aides to use a security-related $391 million package of aid as leverage to force Ukraine to do them a political favor.  Taylor termed the effort "crazy."]

[By the way, one of Trump's dumber efforts to vilify Biden -- which folks on the Internet keep repeating as if it were gospel -- was claiming that Biden bragged about sidelining a prosecutor to keep him from going after Hunter Biden.  Truth -- always inconvenient but rarely noticed by Trumpists -- is inconvenient.  Biden did tell Ukraine to get rid of a prosecutor as part of qualifying for certain aid.  He did so based on a bipartisan letter to that effect from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, because the prosecutor was generally believed to be so corrupt.  Further, that prosecutor had apparently closed his investigation into the company employing Hunter Biden, prior to the effort to get the prosecutor fired.  So on at least two counts, this particular fiction fails to persuade.

Trumpists also evade facts about Trump by pointing to actual or imaginary bad acts by Hillary and Joe.  For the record, although Hunter Biden apparently broke no laws, I'm uncomfortable with Hunter getting foreign employment at what looks like an outlandishly high salary while his father holds high office.  I was uncomfortable with it when George H.V. Bush's son, George, was in a similar position -- getting his failing oil company bailed out by friends of the family like Bahrain.  Can't say any laws were broken, but looked bad.  Same with Hunter.  Same with Trump's kids getting favors from China.  So, yeah.  Sorry, guys, but just because I think Biden would be a much better president than Trump doesn't require me to twist myself into knots trying to justify everything he or his family might do.  I agree that politics is a dirty business, and undermines the character of anyone who gets deeply involved in it.  I never claimed Hillary or Bill was pure as the driven snow; but Trump is in a whole different category none of those folks even approach.

Maybe Republican unity behind Trump is cracking now.  Certainly Republicans were at least as appalled by the betrayal of the Kurds as Democrats; and a few are beginning to acknowledge that although they do not currently favor impeachment, they don't yet know what more may be coming in the way of disgusting facts about Trump's conduct.]

[Regarding Syria, conservative Nicholas Kristof notes that just five years ago Obama (although generally Syria was likely his worst foreign-policy failure) acted very differently toward a crisis on Syria's border.  As many Christians might remember, ISIS started genocide against the Yazidi sect, killing men and raping women and girls.  Obama responded with airstrikes and a rescue operation -- and KURDISH FIGHTERS, in what Kristof calls "a heroic intervention" saved tens of thousands of Yasidi lives. But the Kurds mean nothing to us, and aren't nice.  Kristof also quotes a former U.N. official who emailed Kristof, comparing Trump's conduct to the Munich appeasement of Hitler in 1938.] 

[When I went to put a link to this on Facebook, I saw Donald Gagner's reposting of a story about the Navy Seal who headed the Ossama Bin Laden raid says the U.S. is under attack from its own President.  (https://www.businessinsider.com/william-mcraven-navy-seal-us-is-under-attack-from-trump-2019-10?utm_content=bufferdfa53&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-bi&fbclid=IwAR08HS04mzeZ-QJQ60FX9ThvMnzgtjg9LIrUIRy2BZcvM5L27EoEkOqJaMI).

Churches

One recent Sunday afternoon I left the garden to go to Peace Lutheran for the Installation of Xolani Kacera as Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church.

I met Xolani when he first arrived in Cruces, and feel a connection to him.

Churches were never my favorite places in youth. Jesus's words resonated; but churchgoing didn't. As a civil rights worker, I learned that despite Jesus's concern for the poor and oppressed, white churches were fine with discrimination; then as I came to oppose the Viet Nam War, I noticed churches weren't very tolerant of dissenters urging peace. (I didn't yet know Christianity had been used to justify slavery.)

In the '60's, had you shown me a film of Xolani's installation ceremony, I'd have asked what the film-maker had been smoking.

The church itself felt pleasant: a few modernistic stained-glass windows, a wooden cross, and people dressed informally. 

I don't recall different denominations being quite so cooperative – except maybe about cleaning out red-light districts and gambling joints. This Unitarian event at a Lutheran church drew a rainbow of clergy, all in their finery: Rabbi Larry Karol, Pastor Jared Carson, at least one Methodist, and an AME minister from Alamogordo joined a dozen UU ministers from around the country. Unlike the church gatherings of the mid-20^th Century, there were both black and white, and both men and women. 

The message was all-inclusive love. Which had always seemed to me Jesus's message. (A white minister from South Carolina addressed “the elephant in the room” by noting that Xolani is black – adding that this fact was not why he had been hired, but was meaningful. )

Rev. Pratima Dharm gave the sermon. She started by saying she was nervous, and her PTSD was kicking in, and asked if others present were veterans. (Xolani was a military chaplain.) 

She talked about Gandhi, and how a friend of Martin Luther King, Sr. had met with Gandhi and then told the Kings about Gandhi's message. That message – of peace and inclusivity – our country deeply needed to hear. Gandhi's message had affected her own family, which was of the top caste in India, and thus wealthy landowners. Influenced by Gandhi, Rev. Dharm's grandfather and father (then 10 years old) gave up their land. They gave up 17 villages. Jesus and Gandhi both called on us to give up our wealth and start fresh. (Wealthy Christians don't always mention that.) For Pratima, it meant a life without the privileges she otherwise would have grown up with. Was she angry as a kid? “Who gives up 17 villages?” she asked, wonderingly.

She said plenty that I'd have loved to hear from a pulpit decades ago. She said churches were often comfortable places where people caught up with their friends or met new ones; but that as a [Unitarian] minister her job was to make parishioners uncomfortable. In a world of such economic inequality and ethnic tensions, we should all be uncomfortable. Not satisfied, and proud of our good jobs, nice houses, and smart children. 

Jesus made people uncomfortable. So did Gandhi, and MLK.

As I was musing on all the changes, Rev. Dharm said, “Humanity is following a new heart, forging a new world.” I hope so. We need new hearts, to help us join together to soften the consequences of our excesses and those of our ancestors, and improve our world. 

Here in Cruces, I think Xolani will help. 

                                             -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 13 October 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will be up on KRWG's site later today, and will air during the week both on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio.] 

New Mexico State Bank ? It Could Help our Economy

Suppose, in 1919, New Mexico, a cattle-raising state being taken advantage of by large cattle-dealers and big eastern banks, had formed its own state bank? 

In agricultural North Dakota, a populist wave established the Bank of North Dakota (BND) to protect farmers from powerful out-of-state grain brokers, railroad tycoons, and private bankers. Through changing times, BND has fulfilled its mission to "promote agriculture, commerce, and industry," by plowing state funds back into local economic development.

 

BND works with private institutions to help North Dakota's students, entrepreneurs, and farmers and ranchers. In 1967 BND made the nation's first federally-insured student loan. BND has been in the black every year since 1971. In 2017 BND's income was close to $150 million. It's loan portfolio was just under $5 billion. More than half of the profit goes back into North Dakota's general fund, offsetting residents' taxes. The rest goes toward more loans. 

 

You'd think other states might have noticed. Until recently, they didn't; but since 2010, twenty states, nine of them in the West, have seen legislative attempts to start public banks. Proposals have gained grassroots support from small businesses, farmers, and labor unions. Often progressives and far-right small-government folks agree on this one. Some advocates are disgusted by how Wall Street greed affects local economies. They see BND as a model. A public bank can pay the state higher interest on deposits than currently paid by national or global banks, because a public bank doesn’t return profits to individual stockholders, or pay top executives huge salaries and bonuses.

In this year's Legislative Session, State Sen. Jeff Steinborn proposed we study the possibility of a New Mexico state bank. Just study it. His memorial died in the Rules Committee on a tie vote.

Thursday, California approved the nation's second state bank. A century after the first (modern) state bank. Rhode Island, Washington, and Oregon are looking at the idea. New Mexico certainly should.

New Mexico and New Mexican businesses borrow money and pay plenty of interest to lenders. New Mexico government agencies, counties and cities, and businesses have accounts in a variety of banks, which are delighted to use our deposits to make other loans – paying us 1-2% interest and charging 5% or more. Some of that difference compensates the bank for risk, or helps pay its rent and employees. But some is profit. Why shouldn't that stay in New Mexico, to be used in ways that help New Mexicans, rather than fund yachts and Aspen ski houses bank owners and executives? 

Opponents – often bank associations – play up the risks of political influence and lack of oversight. For both political and practical reasons, a public bank shouldn't mean the end of private banks. BND works closely with private banks on most loans, enabling private banks to make loans they otherwise might not be able to make, and/or extending repayment times. 

 

Naysayers also point to the “state bank” era in the early 19^th Century – particularly after Andrew Jackson's opposition killed the Second Bank of the United States in 1836. None of those state banks survived.

We shouldn't ignore bankers' objections; but a careful study would consider those objections fully; so when they fight even studying a state bank, I wonder how much faith they really have in their own arguments.  

 

BND's century-long record of job creation suggests a second look at a state bank here.

                                           -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 6 October 2019, 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 will shortly be available on the website) and on KTAL Community Radio, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

This publication by or about BND tells the Bank's story more fully, starting with its early years. There's also a recent Banking Journal piece on BND

. ; and this is a much more scholarly study of the public-banking concept.  I also googled "arguments against public banks" with BND or North Dakota.  I found a lot more material favorable to the concept, but this piece sparked by the California discussion  suggests that proponents' arguments are "well-intentioned but misguided and unnecessary." This Los Angeles Times Editorial

says "A public bank would be risky, expensive and a potential waste of tax dollars." And this libertarian site also argues against the concept.  On the other hand, the majority of on-line articles I found were favorable, including "The Case for State-owned Banks" (2012); this American Banker piece is entitled What's Driving the Push for More Public Banks; and this 2013 New York Times "Room for Debate" feature ("Should States Operate Public Banks)  collects contrasting expert opinions.  I should confess that I haven't yet read all of these; but I hope to do so soon.

[I want to thank Sun-News columnist Madeleine Sanchez.  This morning I read her column urging Greta Thunberg to read some British anti-climate-change lobbying group's arguments.  I immediately agreed with Ms. Sanchez's statement that people should read more and pontificate less.  That's great advice for most of us, certainly including me.  However, I was disappointed that she steered readers only to a dissenting view of what's going on around us.  Particularly on this subject, and particularly with younger readers, that's a great disservice.  Unlike Ms. Sanchez and me, those readers and their children will have to live with extreme consequences of climate-change.  We're starting to see some of that, but nothing like what their diminished quality of life will be like if we follow the "head-in-the-sand" approach she and Donald Trump advocate.  However, in the process I felt more inclined than usual to include a variety of reading on the subject of my own column.  I normally try to read arguments for and against whatever I'm writing about; but I want to make more of an effort to include as links on some issues not only the relevant material I tend to agree with but some that I don't.

In any case, I do strongly favor studying the state bank possibility.  There are a lot of good arguments for such a bank; but, as always, we should give fair consideration to opposing views.]  

A friend emailed me this morning:

Good morning Peter!  Thanks for the good column on public banking.

The comments about the failure of public banks in the 1800s needs a bit of background to be properly understood..  Thousands of banks failed in the 1800s.  Banking was a primary weapon of the Robber Barons to sabotage anyone else in the economy and facilitated theft on a grand scale:  This, tied with the voting laws that totally rejected the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  The right to vote is the only practical way to obtain "consent of the governed", made it very difficult to maintain an honest system of government or commerce.  The private banksters in fact controlled the so called public banks of the 1800s.

The voting part was immensely helped by the 19th amendment.  The reaction of the voters to the 1929 crash instituted some temporary reforms that made commerce a bit more honest.  Today we have a major counter offensive by the billionaire class against both democracy (voting rights) and honest commerce (deregulation). 

The Bank of North Dakota's board of directors are all elected by the public : the governor, agricultural commissioner and attorney general.  The executive committee is chosen by these people and answers to the state industrial commission as far as compliance with the charter purposes and daily management performance.  That is why the officers are paid reasonably, not lavishly.  It is also why the bank has survived for 100 years without a crash.  Around the world public banks performed much better in the 2008 crash than private banks did.  Credit unions also outperformed banks in the crash.

Other than making sure the private banksters don't infiltrate any public bank we create, we must make sure it is democratically controlled.  That will make it very unlikely that it won't perform very well.

Thanks very much for the very nice support of public banking!  Once again I appreciate the civility of your comments.  Take care.

We All Might Be Refugees

At the old Fountain Theater in Mesilla we saw a moving film (moving moving picture?): Funan, a complex animated feature that tells the story of a Cambodian family caught up in the Khmer Rouge madness of the late 1970's. It destroys their lives. Only one woman and her young son escape to Thailand, and ultimately to France. 

Very fine movie. Maybe the animation, though highly effective, helped distance us emotionally – just enough to make the unbearable bearable. The characters are 2D recreations of humans. (At some of the toughest moments, while I was contemplating a new horror visited upon the family, I was also thinking “Wow!” at the subtle way an animated face had changed, or at the slender white line that appeared, stretched itself, and quickly disappeared to indicate a tear.) 

Mother and son escaped. Filmmaker Denis Do dedicated the film to his mother and brother. Not hard to hazard a guess he's a young half-brother, born after their escape. (The husband gives his life to make sure they escape.) 

Animated or not, the film was effective. We witnessed normal lives destroyed, replaced by horrendous work-camps run by Khmer Rouge fanatics with automatic weapons, then by death or a harrowing escape, with nothing at all.

Afterward, a little shell-shocked, we walked through the familiar streets of Mesilla, where I lived nearly fifty years ago. The world felt secure again: solid adobe structures, peaceful streets, a mild autumn evening.

We are (mostly) not living in fear – nor escaping fear by migrating to a miserable border area lock-up.

Maybe it's obvious to think of those gentle Central American refugees who've washed up here this year, not long after their lives – partially but not wholly through our government's actions – fell apart and fleeing became the only real option.

But in those animated detainees/refugees, I see us too. Climate-change is here; and like the aliens from outer space in the old horror movies, it's going to grow voraciously and destroy the fabric of our lives.

Already two billion people on this planet are experiencing some degree of food insecurity due to climate-change; the climate is hinting that Hatch chile may not grow in Hatch much longer; superstorms have decimated Houston, New Orleans, and Puerto Rico, turning folks like us into homeless folks on cots in a big gym. In India, flooding from extra-heavy monsoon rains displaced more than 1,000,000 people – and killed hundreds. Galveston is asking the Dutch how to protect low-lying land. Alaska's sea ice melted for the first time this year – and Iceland has held a funeral for a dead glacier. Weather extremes during the last 20 years have killed people. In about 10 years, the warming will be about 50 percent greater than what we've experienced.

 

Maybe we'll all be refugees migrating North – or to a suddenly green Siberia, where we'll be at the mercy of Vlad Putin's successor.

Residents of Miami and Bangladesh and the Marshall Islands will suffer first – like the minor characters the monster eats before the protagonists wake up to the danger and get organized. We're safe for now. But this ain't some MGM epic and we're not stars, who can't die, and always win. 

Donald Trump says it's nonsense. Not worth getting upset over. So enjoy today's NFL football games.

But, if you've kids or grandkids, make time to study climate-change a little. For them.

                                                  -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 29 October 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website [Don't Dismiss the Attack of the Changing Climate] and on KRWG's website [Make Time to Study Climate Change].  A spoken version will also be available shortly on KRWG's website and will air during the week on KRWG (Wednesday and Saturday) and Thursday on KTAL, 101.5 FM, Las Cruces Community Radio (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[Funan is no longer at the Fountain, but for those who saw it and wondered about things, I've inserted below a portion of an interview with Denis Do that's on-line at https://blog.toonboom.com/10-questions-with-denis-do-director-of-cristal-award-winner-funan:

I read Funan was inspired by your mother’s life in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. How much of the film was drawn from reality?

DD: There was a balance between sticking to the historical reality and creating the film’s environment. My goal wasn’t only to represent, but to also re-appropriate the pictures and memories — to make them live and to live with them. Animation is perfect for such a task.

Funan is based on personal and historical events, but it is also a work of fiction. We took creative liberties in terms of script and imagery. Because the content is based on my family’s story, it has followed me from my childhood until now. It was inevitable that I would do something with it because this heritage is very strong in my mind — and will stay like that forever.

Source: Les Films D’Ici.

The film also touches on a point very relevant in today’s world: The life of the exile, the migrant. I’m sensitive to this as I am a second-generation immigrant. My family has a long history of exile; my grandparents left China during the Japanese invasion and fled Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Such a background impacts you and the way you think, through generations. I always have the feeling this life can stop, everything can turn bad and we will need to leave again.

With such serious subject matter, why did you feel it was important to tell this story through animation?

DD: Animation let me avoid representing the character of my mother through a real actress. Also, while animation might have less space for spontaneity, it allows for greater control at each step of production. Funding the film was quite interesting; Funan is not based on a famous novel or comics, was my first movie and had adult content — the ingredients of making a project hard to fund.

Thanks to the French funding system and other European sources, we were able to start Funan. To be honest, the budget was still not enough. Artwork was made during the night, on weekends and during free time. The last two years of production were intense. We worked with six studios around the world, each with a small part of the film to do. Having funding meant the film could be made, but it never meant it would be easy or comfortable.

And why did you decide to pursue a hand-drawn 2D animation style?

DD: I love 2D animation and I am very sensitive to Japanese productions. Their storytelling is very efficient, avoiding useless actions. As I wanted less movements and actions, it was natural for me to think about 2D animation.

Someday You'll Be a "Person in Need of Protection"

Two realities of our world are longer physical life-spans and an epidemic of Alzheimer's and other diseases attacking our cognitive capabilities.

That makes guardianships and conservators a growth industry. It means states, grateful for what these folks do, need to facilitate their work, but also closely monitor the process. 

A tough but common dilemma is how to help our parents, siblings, spouses, and friends whose cognitive abilities are slipping away. 

When does Dad's driving slip from a family joke to a serious danger to him, us, and innocent strangers? When does Mom's carelessness about money warrant discussion of a conservator handling her finances? How many long-expired food items in Aunt Sally's refrigerator signify a real need to protect her health – and what the hell do we do?

It's an impossible set of interlocking puzzles: what to do is rarely clear; it can be challenging to convince Aunt Sally, and maybe overcome her paranoia (and your lifelong deference to her will) without losing her trust; and as we weigh her desire to live independently (emotional or spiritual needs) against her need for assistance (physical well-being), we must also consider how a court-appointed guardian or judge will evaluate our decisions. 

In the nightmare cases, relatives discover that a court-appointed conservator and guardian, and lawyer, have taken control of Sally's life and finances, putting her somewhere, and (sometimes) freezing out family and friends. Well-documented abuses led New Mexico (thanks largely to Chief Justice Charlie Daniels) to initiate reforms, somewhat opening up the process to public view.

Delay in taking the keys away or removing that out-of-date food can and will be used against us. Lawyers acting as guardians ad litem, and corporate conservator/guardians, will look at everything very, very carefully – as they should, to safeguard against elder abuse. What mix of greed and genuine concern about Sally motivates each of these professionals in a given case is known only to his/her conscience. But judges rely on them often, and tend to trust them. 

In one local case, the guardian and guardian's lawyer fought tooth and nail to maintain control of my client's stepmother, and even testified that at a meeting they'd seen food on his tie. (Damn, if that were determinative, I'd never have gotten hired for anything!) His lifelong love of his stepmother and his PhD in counseling were no match for that spot on his tie (and his delay in traveling from California to put his willful stepmother into some institution). 

Sadly, we must face these ticklish matters honestly – and early. Doing otherwise increases the risk that “the system” – in a vicious profit play or out of genuine (if sometimes misplaced) concern – might take control of our lives and separate us from loved ones. Each wrong move we make, each procrastination, might someday be viewed in the harshest possible light in some windowless courtroom. Our family members may love us and want the best for us; but judges have seen so many family members rip off siblings and parents that a son or daughter might face an uphill struggle to help us. 

This means taking what preemptive action we can. For example, Sally could execute a Power of Attorney, partly to encourage the court to appoint as guardian a trusted niece, not a corporate stranger; but don't wait 'til she's largely 'round the bend, or she'll lack legal capacity to sign a POA. 

So carpe diem.

                                                         -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 22 September 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website KRWG's website.  A spoken version will shortly be avilable at the KRWG site, and will be aired during the week on both KRWG and on KTAL (101.5 FM / or stream at www.lccommunityradio.org)]

[First of all, I hope to supplement this column at a later date with more specific and helpful advice on what folks can do with regard to these matters.  I'm no expert, but I can ask some lawyers who specialize in this kind of work.]

[This column was sparked by a recent afternoon when I was watching a court hearing related to a guardianship situation and received a text urgently informing me about another guardianship matter that was garnering some community interest.  I'm no expert.  I got involved in one of these cases because a favorite farmers' market vendor introduced me to a guy who needed help freeing his stepmother.  (See this October 2018 post.)  Such cases can be painful -- for all of us.  I don't mean to suggest that corporate guardians/conservators aren't sometimes the best solution -- even the only solution -- or that they don't frequently do a fair job.   However, many families can, too -- with the added benefit to Aunt Sally (often called "the person in need of protection") of love and familiarity with her caretaker.]

[It has also struck me that there's a wider need for us to wrest back some control of our lives from the well-intended professionals -- in medicine, the freedom to die, and other fields.. But that doesn't mean I don't need and deeply appreciate professionals, often!]

Dorian Trump

As we age and our cognitive abilities diminish, often it's not the mistakes we make but our overreactions to them that really give us away.

Like Donald Trump getting confused about where Alabama was. No big deal. I laughed; but I also wondered if I could still fill in all the state-names in the right spots on the wordless maps Southwest Airlines used to have on napkins. I guessed I could, taking my time; but if someone else couldn't, so what?

But the Donald couldn't just laugh and shake his head and correct himself.

Trump was talking about Hurricane Dorian, mistakenly announcing it would harm Alabama. Huge hurricanes have huge consequences, including evacuations and even deaths. So correcting himself, to avoid confusing the South Carolinians facing possible disaster or scaring Alabamians into various unnecessary actions – would have been a significant kindness. But the Donald didn't do that.

This wasn't “my crowd was bigger than Obama's” or “I know more about climate change than anyone,” but garbling an urgent message to people facing danger.

As usual – though more absurdly and dangerously – he doubled down. He made misleading statements and provided a sharpie-altered map, and his minions gave U.S. Weather Service personnel a hard time for correcting him publicly. Yeah, they had some duty to give clear information about who was in danger and who wasn't; but to the Donald, establishing beyond peradventure that he hadn't erred was more important than little folks' lives and safety.

Trump isn't saying “models are models, you can never be sure.” He's insisting that as Dorian approached the U.S., and the models showed the hurricane passing near Florida's east coast, he was right to tell Alabama, on Florida's west, that it was in grave danger. However, all that stuff is easily verifiable. Two days before Trump spoke, the authorities agreed the storm would pass east of Florida, maybe touching it, then head north. 

None of this is particularly interesting. Me driving to the Pan American Center to watch basketball isn't interesting. Nor is turning the wrong way at University and Espina; but if, having watched basketball there since 1969, I haven't a clue how to get there, that could be troubling. If I get agitated and insist the basketball arena used to be over by Denny's, or that the City keeps changing all the street names, I have a problem.

In a sane world, where everyone wasn't rooting so passionately for his or her political team that rational discussion was impossible, this might be the moment many would finally say, “Aha! I see. This dude simply isn't presidential material. He doesn't have the temperament or character for it; and he might be dangerously 'round the bend.” 

As one Republican who served in the White House under Reagan and both Bushes wrote, “Trump is not well.” How unwell is he? I'm neither a shrink nor in personal contact with Mr. Trump; but this incident reinforces widespread reports that his staff and friends are more concerned than ever about his cognition and temperament. 

These aren't political observations, although they'll be construed as such. This isn't about policy differences over progressive tax rates, medical care, or climate change. It's not about whether or not Republican policies or appointments pose long-term dangers to our environment, economy, and international standing. It's about ascertaining the facts and assessing whether Trump's mental condition poses a more immediate and insidious threat.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 15 September 2019, in the Las Cruces Sun-News as well as on the newspaper's website ("It's not the Mistake, it's the Inability to Admit It") and on KRWG's website ("Thoughts on Trump's Hurricane of Controversy").  A spoken version will air on KRWG and KTAL (101.6 FM -- www.lccommunityradio.org) during the week and will be available shortly on KRWG's website.]

[As I read this over, one question arose: is it unfair to link all this to Trump's age?  Did he ever know things he doesn't know now?  As an old guy, I could take offense at this column, if some young person had written it.  But at any age, that kind of obsession with avoiding any appearance of fallibility, even at the cost of actual damage to people, would be a symptom of something amiss in that person's troubled mind.  By the way, you can read the piece by Republican former White House official Peter Wehner here. ]

[For another view, this is the first comment I received soon after the column appeared in this morning's paper: 

"Thanks for your observations about our inmate in the White House asylum.  My dad would assess some people saying "he's crazy like a fox".  A lot of the old snake oil peddlers used diversions to sell their snake oil.  

"It's agreed that Trump appears to be nuts.  However, like Hitler, he's doing a whole lot of damage to everyone who's not a billionaire.  So I still think poorly of his mother for giving birth to him......it's not right for a human to give birth to a weasel......." ]

[If anyone thinks Trump might have been close to accurate, as he claims, in warning Alabama of great danger, go on-line.  He spoke on the morning of Sunday, 1 September.  Google the phrase, "September 1, 2019" with also the individual words "Trump" and "Dorian" and you'll get not only various articles on this, but the actual weather experts' models and predictions.  As early as 30 August, experts were in agreement that the storm's basic path wouldn't include Alabama.  (Substitute August 30" for "September 1" in the Google Search.

 

For example, Force 13 Morning Update at 9 a.m. On 31August had Dorian stil a Category 4, w up to 145 mph winds, and said that although it still might impact Florida severely, it was now possible it would not even make landfall on Florida, but move up the coast and hit South Carolina, noting “the trend has been quite clearly a turn away from Florida. – a report you can watch here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/08/31/hurricane-dorian-storm-strengthens-path-toward-florida/2177471001/ :

On August 31, at 8:14 a.m., the USA Today headline was, “Dorian, packing near 150 mph winds, on track to skirt Florida coast”, and the story started:

As a strengthened Hurricane Dorian bore down on the Bahamas Saturday, new tracking forecasts suggested the storm would likely turn north before hitting Florida and skirt the coast toward the Carolinas.

But even as Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina braced for a possible hit, forecasters and government officials warned Floridians not to ease up on preparations for a devastating storm early next week. 

"Everyone's waking up and saying, ‘Whoa, it's a little farther east, maybe things are OK.’ But we’ve got to be careful at this time,” said Ken Graham, director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, on Saturday morning. 

No mention of Alabama.  At 11 p.m.  August 31, the report had Dorian now Category 5, and gave the distance from several cities (including Wilmington, N.C. 575 miles, but no cities  or towns in Alabama), and the map showed the hurricane turning north, moving north quite near Florida's east coast, and up toward Georgia and the Carolinas, then out to sea. – watch at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii3Y7Mry2ao

On Sept. 1, the president wrote on Twitter that Alabama “will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.” A few minutes later, the National Weather Service in Birmingham posted on Twitter that “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane Dorian will be felt across Alabama.”]