Michael Swickard

Our duty to the generations of Americans who follow us is to help them understand what it means to be an American.

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” – John Kennedy, September 12, 1962

President John Kennedy spoke those words 50 years ago. A hundred years from now those words will still be ringing, even as most of everything else is forgotten from this time in American history. For a brief moment our country was truly exceptional. We were exceptional in ways that no other country before or after has shown.

Sadly, just 10 years and three months after Kenney’s speech our Moon project was done. But what a splendid 10 years it was in our country. Young people today have very little understanding of that time. Yes, they know we landed on the moon, but little else. Some know more about Apollo 13 than Apollo 11 because the trials and tribulations of Apollo 13 were shown in the movie of the same name.

Our duty to the generations of Americans who follow us is to help them understand what it means to be an American. Therefore, it is important to talk about American exceptionalism in action. The founding of our country was truly exceptional. We were one of many countries who had slaves, but we gave that up. We are now a country truly without racial bias. That is exceptional.

Our leadership in World War II was exceptional and arguably the very best moments so far in this country were in our Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. We need to make American exceptionalism a core aspect of our public school curriculum. For one thing, around 400,000 people worked on the space program, so there are plenty of people who still remember when America was leading the world.

It was a hot summer night in Las Cruces 43 years ago on July 20, 1969, when my friends and I sat spellbound watching man’s first steps on the Moon. I was a sophomore at college and even though I was not in engineering, I was quite aware of the enabling of this great feat by the American system of education. Yes, some of the initial work was laid by the Germans in World War II, but it was an exceptional moment as Americans constructed the methods of going to the moon and returning safely.

It was not without cost. Before our first steps on the moon, our Astronaut core lost eight members, none in space itself, but eight men lost their lives while part of this grand adventure. We spent $ 24 billion going to the moon, but it was spent in America. It was spent by Americans on Americans for America. It was the best $24 billion we have ever spent.

Yes, we Americans continued to go into space above the Earth, but the last trip to the moon was 40 years ago. There are fewer people each year learning to fly airplanes. Fewer of them are thinking about being astronauts than 40 years ago. We have lost our identity as explorers.

Every school child should have the opportunity via a flight simulator to learn how to pilot an airplane. Some say we do not have time for them to do something as splendiferous as that, students must sit quietly at their desks getting ready for the accountability tests so that the teachers can be judged. No sir! Let students do things that challenge them and their curiosity.

The success or failure of public schools is not during the year that students are in school, it is how they live the rest of their lives. Teach American exceptionalism, make the public students of today part of that quest and point the students toward worthy challenges, “not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,” as Kennedy said.

Make America truly exceptional.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

It is wrong that we cannot talk New Mexico history without modern politics getting in the way.

The Confederate Flag controversy in Las Cruces last week is captured perfectly by Laurence Peter: “If two wrongs don’t make a right, try three.”

The controversy started because of an Independence Day parade float by the Las Cruces TEA Party. It had the Confederate Flag among 21 other flags that have flown over New Mexico. The flag was displayed among the other flags but not prominently. Regardless, it jumps out at you.

The TEA Party theme was: What flags have flown over New Mexico in its history? While that was not the centerpiece theme of the parade, the Centennial of our state’s founding, it was good enough New Mexico history that the judges awarded the TEA Party float the grand prize including a thousand dollars.

It seems a political operative who was a TEA Party opponent realized that if this issue was falsified and twisted it could put the TEA Party in a bad light. So this operative protested that the Confederate Flag on the TEA Party float was the only flag flown, and you know what that means, wink wink nod nod. Not true but the political operative chortled at the chaos created.

The three wrongs

Let us look at the three wrongs in this story.

The TEA Party was wrong to put the Confederate Flag on their float for reasons outside of New Mexico history. The TEA Party showed they were naïve in that they should have known their political opponents would lie and cheat. They cannot look surprised that the progressives, whom they fight every day politically, would seize upon this issue and distort it as they did. This brings us to the second wrong in this story.

A couple of days after the parade Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima decided that he would be outraged. He wrote, “The Las Cruces Tea Party can believe whatever it wants, but to have this symbol and what it represents, ** highlight** (my emphasis) the winning float at a celebration of our nation’s independence is an outrage.” In another post he said, “By displaying the flag of an occupying military force, the Tea Party featured a flag which not only **represents its political orientation,** (my emphasis) but also symbolizes racial inequality and divisiveness in a state well known for its diversity.”

Two lies by the mayor. It was not the highlight of the float and it certainly does not represent the TEA Party political orientation. Is the mayor that stupid? Or is he that evil to ascribe those thoughts for the purpose of making a political gain for himself? At best he made an indecent exposure of his own soul.

The TEA Party included the flag because they used, “A Cuarto Centennial History of New Mexico” by Robert Torrez as their source authority. Again, someone in their organization should have stopped them because their opponents would lie about it.

Finally, there is a mischaracterization of New Mexico history. Both sides missed the story of the California Column coming to New Mexico to throw the Confederates out. More so, there was the largest Civil War battle in the West in New Mexico. One of my favorite New Mexico history books is, “Rebels on the Rio Grande: The Civil War Journal of A.B. Peticolas,” by Don Alberts. When I drive on Interstate 25 between Las Cruces and Albuquerque I visualize the thousands of combatants fighting the Civil War here in New Mexico.

Salt-of-the-Earth people

It is wrong that we cannot talk New Mexico history without modern politics getting in the way. The mayor of Las Cruces, Ken Miyagishima, has thrown down the gauntlet that the Las Cruces TEA Party is a racist organization resembling the KKK. He is wrong and is playing politics. I believe he has “Jumped the Shark” as they say in Hollywood. His time in the mayor’s chair should be over because he is using the office of mayor for his own political aspirations and, in doing so, hurting his own constituents.

I am not a TEA Party member but have spoken to their organization once at a well-attended meeting. The group I spoke to was mostly salt-of-the-Earth people, veterans and business leaders.

It is a final wrong to see them otherwise.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

So what was sown by these U.S. Supreme Court decisions that we may as a nation harvest? The one thing we know is that there will be more lawsuits and more uncertainty.

It was not just me; many people were unhappy when the U.S. Supreme Court last week made things worse in our country rather than better. The thing we wanted about health care and the Arizona law regarding people in our country without legal status was clarity. They did not provide it.

Instead, they made the situation worse. The laws are less understandable with their rulings that satisfied no one and only stirred the political pot.

In health care, the decision was that Congress called the law a mandate, which would invalidate the law but that it is not a mandate at all, it is a tax, and therefore, the law stands. The rub is Congress and the president said it was not a tax when the law was passed. So we have Congress and the president saying it is not a tax and the Supreme Court saying it is. Two branches of government say it is not, one says it is. No clarity there.

It would appear from the ruling that the Supreme Court is saying the citizens were fools to believe it was a mandate when it was so obviously a tax as the opponents of the law had maintained. Then the Supreme Court roiled things by saying it is not the role of the court to delve into lying or to protect citizen from lies by Congress and the president.

Rather than clear up the health-care issue, the Supreme Count invited more lawsuits so the health-care law can spend longer in court. Just what we need, eh? What about the exclusions the president has granted to the mandate, er, the tax? Can the president give exclusions from taxes? We know less now than before.

More lawsuits and more uncertainty

Likewise, the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s attempt to deal with people in our country without legal status was equally flawed. Arizona wanted to question people that law enforcement suspected might be in the country without legal status and then expel them. The court said it was fine to question them but Arizona could not take action upon receiving the answers from the questioning. Then why question them?

So what was sown by these decisions that we may as a nation harvest? The one thing we know is that there will be more lawsuits and more uncertainty. The economy is suffering and has been suffering for several years. Unemployment is up at a time when interest rates are very low. Businesses could expand but do not.

In short, the business climate is very bad and in need of a change. To make a change would require new initiatives by private business. Government can spend money but it will not rescue the economy because it takes money from private business to use as the stimulant. The overall effect does not lift up all boats, so to speak.

The government sets the landscape and businesses either increase or decrease. Example: businesses could go borrow money and increase employment, which would help our economy, but there is this uncertainty hanging over the heads of business owners such that they are reluctant to invest in this economic climate. The fastest way to the poor house is investing in things that the government relegates to the unprofitable heap. So businesses are sitting on their wallets.

No predicting the policies of our nation

What is government doing to send a clear signal? First, Congress has not passed a budget in three years. No budget means that there is no real way of knowing what Congress intends to do when they finally decide to do a budget. Without a budget the government lurches from one crisis to another. What does that signal?

Then the Supreme Court does not give any real guidance on the law. Normally the role of the courts is to clarify laws. But we are not experiencing clarity now.

Finally we find the president saying one thing and doing another, as he has with energy issues. “I am for oil drilling but not for the Keystone pipeline.” With all of that, businesses are thinking that there is no predicting the policies of our nation. Lacking a sense of what policies are coming, businesses sit on their money. Who has the nerve to look surprised?

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

Note from the author: Yes, there is more to the story than just the stink. But the core issue for me is that a community has no right to make another community smell its filth. While the entire controversy is more complicated, I feel not in my back yard should trump all other considerations. In New Mexico there is a concern about septic systems. I understand the concern because I personally have two septic systems and they are well-maintained. I have three water wells, which are not contaminated. These are out at our family ranch, which now is all fence and no cattle. What caught my attention with this issue is: Anyone who thinks a sewage plant will not stink just does not understand the Murphyness of sewage treatment.

Here is an easy one: Everyone who wants to live next to a sewage plant, raise your hand.

Odd, no one raised their hands. It was just as I thought; no one wants to live next to a sewage plant. Now this is not a visual issue; a sewage treatment plant does not look all that bad. And, at times, there is no untoward smell. But in my experience it is not if the air will turn into a nasty mist of human waste, it is just when.

In an unscientific poll where I talked to fellow coffee drinkers at the coffee shop, I found everyone wants the smell somewhere else. Consider: Everyone wants, or rather, needs to use their toilet, yet many do not want the consequences. Everyone wants the stink to be someone else’s problem.

Now I know that you might be eating right now so I will not go more into detail, but it is important to know that at a sewage plant there is the less-than-sweet smell of sewage. Often the smell is rank and quite offensive. And that is the conflict. It may not be every day, but there will be days with a sewage plant where no one wants it in their backyard.

NIMBY

There is a term for this behavior: NIMBY, not in my back yard. Well, that is where the consequences of one person’s action become a problem for another person. Often the NIMBY folks are resisting power transmission lines, roads and nuclear power plants.

But, a sewage plant, whew, that is really a NIMBY moment. I guess those who work this field of sewage treatment may come home smelling like low tide in the swamp. Someone must do it or it will not get done. They may say it is the smell of money, but we know better.

There is going to be a county commission meeting in Southern New Mexico to consider letting folks in one town send their stinky waste to another town, against the will of the recipient town. Obviously the sending town likes the idea and the receiving town is not very keen on the idea. There is a great line in this debate where the receiving town says they do not believe the new sewage plant will not stink. No fooling. Who would believe that a sewage plant would not stink upon occasion?

Let us consider the principle of government in this issue. I believe no community has the right to dump their sewage on another town. It may be legal, but it is not right. The town wanting to dump on the other town may have the money to buy votes. In fact, many government leaders like a good smelly controversy because donations will be up as some people try to foist a problem on an area away from the citizens.

This much I do know: the town wanting the sewage plant built should do so on its own land. While that sounds easy to do, it is not. Of course wherever they pick a new site for this sewage plant there will be aggrieved citizens weeping into the microphone about how they are about to lose all of the charm of their neighborhood. And they are right.

Only fair

Government is about where to draw the lines. Who gets to do what with their neighbors is a constant question. The measure of freedom in a land is the ability to resist the intrusion of government in our lives. For those county officials saying that the sewage has to go somewhere so it might as well go here in a quiet neighborhood. Or should it?

Even the citizens of the first town, working to get rid of the product of their own activities, need to find a place to dump the waste products. Just because someone has the votes does not mean that dumping on a neighboring town is right.

Quality of life is one of the central themes of New Mexico. I do not want to burden people too much with the heavy hand of government. Perhaps there can be a compromise where the sewage plant is built somewhere far away from any populated areas.

For once I am completely on the NIMBY side. There would be no way to maintain the quality of life next to such a potential odor-maker. The only thing I know for certain is that the stuff has to go somewhere or we cannot live here. The principle should be: The material flushed should be taken care of where it was flushed. That is only fair.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

Perhaps the Lincoln National Forest should be taken over by the State of New Mexico. If the federal managers of these resources cannot effectively manage these resources, then a different group is needed.

Editor’s note: State officials dispute the claims Swickard makes in this column. Read about that by clicking here.

“What the congressman (Steve Pearce) fails to recognize is that the Gila National Forest is distinguished nationwide for its cost-efficient use of fire to manage forest fuel buildup. The Whitewater-Baldy fire has burned as we’d expect it to largely because fuels have been controlled this way. The fire is burning, for the most part, in wilderness where logging is not permitted anyhow.” – Letter to the editor by Bryan Bird, Wild Places program director for WildEarth Guardians in Santa Fe, published Sunday in the Las Cruces Sun-News

Bryan Bird’s letter came at a time when, in Ruidoso, a small, easily contained fire turned tragically devastating. There has never been a plan to manage forests by catastrophic fires. Casual fires (that do not have ladder fuels and floor fuel loads to get them up to the crowns of the trees) were nature’s way of controlling fuel loads before a number of political entities conspired to create this problem.

Remember: The Forest Service tried to do a controlled burn in May of 2000, against the advice of locals, which jumped the fire lines and, before it was done, over 400 families in the Los Alamos community lost their homes. Sadly, that is what has happened once again, this time in Ruidoso.

In an interview by Deborah Voorhees seen on YouTube, Jack Rabbit Flats Volunteer Fire Department Chief Tom Parker relates that he saw the lightening strike up on the Ruidoso Mountainside west of the Ski Apache area. It was called in within minutes of smoke being seen, when it was less than an acre in size.

In the interview, Tom Parker talks about the political decision to let it burn despite the danger to the rest of the mountain. Five firefighters called for water to put out the fire but were denied because, politically, the desire was to use it as a controlled burn even though the conditions for a controlled burn were not met. It could have been put out any time in the three days, Tuesday through Thursday, and then Friday it became too late.

Watch the full interview here:

Politics to blame

But the damage was done earlier. Porter says the politics that stops effective forest management is to blame:

“Forestry goes out and tries to thin. You’ve got a judge in Texas telling us what we can do in the Lincoln National Forest because some group in another state petitions because there might be an owl in the area. Yes, we have to protect endangered species, but we also have to protect ourselves.”

And this is the nut of the problem: Politics trumps effective forest management. Tom Parker points out what effective management looks like, “If you drive through Mescalero and you look at their forests, their ladder fuels are gone, their ground clutter is gone and the healthy trees are still standing. They have gone through their forest and so, if a tree gets hit by lightning, it is out of there. Also thinned are if a tree has a sign of bark beetles, mistletoe or clipper beetles, since those are the three big problems we have in this state. They go in there and get that pocket of diseased trees out before they affect the rest of the forest.”

We are not talking clear-cutting, where all trees are taken down; rather, we’re talking a wise management of the forest done outside of the politics. Letting diseased trees stand ruins miles of good forest and endangers everyone. Even the owls do not want a mismanaged forest. They do not survive the catastrophic fires.

Only the political entities who feed upon our society, entities made up of many lawyers who are paid by us to sue us, which then forces us to create a forest that is weakened by disease and overgrowth. That is the problem.

We must be relentless

Perhaps the Lincoln National Forest should be taken over by the State of New Mexico. If the federal managers of these resources cannot effectively manage these resources, then a different group is needed. It is not the number of firefighters on the line, because catastrophic fires create their own weather, which defies the efforts of man. When the conditions are wrong, there is nothing the firefighters can do but wait for better conditions.

But we, who have to endure the bad management of our forests, should not have to be quiet because the forest managers do not wish to be questioned. We need new eyes looking at this problem; the old eyes have taken us to this point. More so, we must call out the people and organizations that are endangering our forests and those who live near the forests.

The political junkies parrot the talking points but there is no truth to their statements. They do not seem to care about the people and the forest, only the power they can gain by imposing their will upon us. We must be relentless in our saving the forests by managing them correctly. The first contract I would have would be with those people running the Mescalero forests to do the same things in the rest of the state.

The second contract needs to be with the best legal minds of New Mexico to fight in court the political hacks who made this mess. We must never take a step back from them. Instead, we must use best practices in forests at all times. New Mexico forests need real forest management, not political solutions that do not work.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. - William Tecumseh Sherman

The only fear I have concerning elections is that I might surrender my good sense and run for political office, any office. Like Sherman, the only person I absolutely do not want to see in office is me, because I do not have the temperament nor patience. As luck would have it there is no groundswell whatsoever to put me in office. In fact, I am the last person either party would select since I am a neither-party independent.

From watching politicians serve in office for more than 40 years, it is not intelligence that makes a good politician; rather, it is the twofer of temperament and patience. Everything that I lack is what allows politicians to sit sphinx-like in meetings for hours on end. To me that is slow death. Anyone who can sit quietly with a placid expression for hours in a meeting is either a better person than me or they have brains of custard.

This week is the culmination of the primary season in New Mexico. I have no vote in either primary, which is just fine. I do not want to have any say in which R or D is selected for the general election.

If the political primary season is any predictor, this will be a mean-spirited general election. Usually members of the same party only bring out the long knives behind closed doors. Not this year, with the exception of the Balderas/Heinrich race. This Christmas there will be far fewer cards sent within political parties.

One of the curious things at election time is why some candidates throw their hat in the ring knowing that indiscretions from years earlier will arise if anyone does research. Also, some candidates make claims that are easily checked and then act surprised they were caught. Curious they do this in an age of instant research.

Of more concern: why someone would spend lots of dollars to win an office that paid no salary such as in the New Mexico Legislature. Civic honor perhaps, but I sense there is more to the syndrome than that. For some of the people running, perhaps their job rests upon them being a power-broker in the Legislature.

This very scenario is why some state employees are prohibited from concurrently being a legislator and having their job. Not all. The majority whip in the New Mexico House also is an administrator for the Albuquerque Public Schools. It seems incredible that this would be allowed since there are two harms: First, not even the Albuquerque Public Schools superintendent can say anything to this legislator for fear of retaliation in the Legislature. Secondly, this person votes money from the community pot to her own district. How fair is that?

Do not waste your time telling me it is legal. Being legal does not make it right. Likewise, there are other legislators who carry the agenda of their employers rather than the citizens. Yes, the citizens elected them, or the lack of other candidates elected them, but they cannot vote against their employers’ interests.

Occasionally I get into the discussion of term limits. I have always opposed them even though the legislators have stacked the deck such that more than 90 percent of the time the incumbent is reelected. I just cannot take the final say out of the hands of the voters.

The hottest topic is the money in elections. It would appear to be a slightly different issue: Exactly where does the money come from and what is expected of the recipient? There have been advertisers who sponsored me as a talk show host who suddenly realized that they bought time on my show and nothing more. I feel the same is true for some politicians, while with others it is easy to see them pandering to the money.

One blessing and one concern: Thankfully, I will not be elected to any position this election. And I am concerned when people, without taking a breath, move from this election to the next election such that it seems we have endless elections and no one actually serves.

Michael Swickard

The only branch taking charge of things is the executive branch. It is hard to say with the judicial branch because we do not see their actions as easily, but for sure Congress has lost all of its power and does not realize this fact.

It is possible I worry too much, but I think not.

The more I watch Congress, the less power Congress seems to have. They get face time on the networks talking but not acting as a Congress. Remember, there are three equal branches of government that, in theory, hold each other in balance. But in the last three years this Congress has stopped functioning. Their primary role is the federal budget. But no federal budget has been passed in three years. Our country languishes in a neverland of uncertainty while Congress does not do its duty.

The lack of a federal budget has caused many subtle changes in the way our country operates. There are many governmental contracts still valid but not funded. Companies are trying to guess when Congress will return to work, but no one knows. Congress postures the debt ceilings but does nothing until the last moment and then continues the charade of leadership.

Again, maybe I worry too much. In the last three years Congress has been neutered in their role to advise and consent the president’s choices for governmental rule makers. This president just makes czars out of people, which, in effect, circumvents the congressional power. The czars act like cabinet members but are not vetted.

Finally, rulemaking in the government is now done through presidential findings and agency rule changes made outside of Congress. Americans deal with entities such as the Environmental Protection Agency that command obedience. No longer are citizens able to debate the possible rules in congressional hearings.

It seems we have a one-branch government or the makings of one. The only branch taking charge of things is the executive branch. It is hard to say with the judicial branch because we do not see their actions as easily, but for sure Congress has lost all of its power and does not realize this fact.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the health-care legislation, which passed without anyone in Congress reading the entire 2,700 page bill. The members of Congress all admit there was not time to read it from when it was placed for a vote. We are still being surprised at what is in those 2,700 pages.

As I just said, the Supreme Court is set to rule, but the buzz is that if they rule against the executive branch, the executive branch will institute the intent of the legislation via executive findings and agency rules. That would make the judicial and legislative branches of government irrelevant. No one seems concerned about the concentration of power in one branch.

Someone else in control

Congress losing power has come in ways most people do not realize. The day-by-day working members of Congress spend three days in Washington and four days back in the districts, which makes for great local press opportunities. But four days a week someone else has their hands on the control of our country. The rank and file continuously campaign at home, away from the halls of power.

Know this: Most constituents and many of the members of Congress think having the Congress spend four days every week in the home district is a good thing. They talk of being better in touch with the electorate. That argument does not resonate for me because it leaves the power to govern in the hands of a few members of the congressional leadership, the bureaucracy and the never sleeping, never blinking executive branch.

The way I see government as really serving the people is for the Congress to work day by day among themselves in Washington as to what is the legitimate role of government in a free society. They need the time with each other to work out legislative issues. This does not happen when they dash into Washington for three frantic days and then dash home.

It would be better for them to work three straight weeks in Congress with each other and then spend one week back in the district. Of course, first, if they want to be relevant, they must pass a budget. If not, they can just spend seven days a week back in the district.

Maybe I worry too much – or not enough.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

There are plenty of nature-centric places in New Mexico to preserve, but not to exclude human entry. Preserve the nature-centric areas of New Mexico for all Americans but make sure all Americans can enjoy those areas.

Years ago, “wilderness” meant a place where man had not set foot. Now, after decades of wilderness legislation, no one can define wilderness. It means whatever politicians mean it to mean.

The intense politics around wilderness designations make winners and losers. The winners are the political operatives and lawyers who make their money in courts. The losers are the American public. It is a giant scam.

Take the wilderness problems of Tombstone, Ariz. Their water plant was built before any wilderness designation and served the town well. Last year a flood damaged the water pipes, which the town wanted to repair. They were told the land now was wilderness and they could not repair their water system.

How can wilderness mean iron water pipes, roads and water collection areas? It can, because the wilderness advocates and the thousands of lawyers who make millions of dollars advocating an odd sort of wilderness designation say it is.

Nature vs. urban

That got me thinking: We need new terminology to understand American wilderness issues. At opposite ends of a continuum are the concepts nature and urban. Nature-centric are areas whose attributes are those of nature as opposed to urban-centric whose attributes are those of the urban environment. Compare the wilds of Alaska with New York City.

Where we have problems is when the two intertwine either just a little or a lot. Some places in America are nature-centric with some urban intrusion. That is where we have the political rub. No matter what anyone says there are very little virgin nature landscapes, and all of them are in Alaska.

Other places have mostly nature-centric landscapes but there is always a little urbanization that creeps into nature. So it is the degree of blend that matters, eh? Speaking of creeps, politicians have perverted the language of wilderness such that wilderness can be a place where planes fly over, there are one hundred years of roads and if you are standing in a high place you can see Wal-Mart trucks on the freeway, but it is a wilderness. It is really nature-centric with urban intrusions.

The question that we have spent almost 50 years on is the purpose of our nature-centric lands. Years ago the idea was to have areas of our country where people could get a good nature-centric experience and then return to their urban-centric homes. We have lots of forests and mountains that are nature-centric. Then someone decided the deal was to exclude Americans and make areas where essentially no Americans can go.

This is the wilderness movement today. It takes land with roads and houses and cattle operations and attempts to clear the humans from the landscape by making it almost or entirely impossible for Americans to enjoy those nature-centric areas. It is done all in the name of “wilderness preservation.”

No ‘wilderness’ areas in New Mexico

To be blunt: there are no “wilderness” areas in New Mexico. All the areas have had roads; all have planes flying over, and all have lots of human pressure on them. They are nature-centric with some urban-centric intrusion. Not wilderness. There has not been wilderness in New Mexico for hundreds of years.

Even Alaska, as remote as it is, has planes flying over and into the wilderness areas such as the Brooks Range of mountains. It is the most like the wilderness stories of America in the early 1900s. But remember, even then there were lots of Native Americans already on the land. We have to go back 20,000 years or more to get land not trampled by humans.

So for those trying to curb the urban intrusion, is there some way to do so without scamming people into calling some place wilderness when it obviously is not? The limits of urban intrusion can be managed as long as it does not exclude Americans full access to the land.

There are plenty of nature-centric places in New Mexico to preserve, but not to exclude human entry. When entry must be by foot, it excludes the majority of Americans. Quit paying millions of dollars to environmental lawyers to exclude Americans from their own land. Preserve the nature-centric areas of New Mexico for all Americans but make sure all Americans can enjoy those areas.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

If the educational leaders in New Mexico really want kids to graduate they should aim the incentives on graduation. How about a graduation lottery?

It is college graduation weekend, with all of those happy graduates ready to hit the trail. They are the success stories, at least those who get a job. For the ones who don’t, there is always another degree to pursue forestalling entry into the job market. Many students just drift away from college without a degree.

The Lottery Scholarship pays tuition for certain New Mexico students and, despite all of the hoopla, it is only a semi-good idea. For one thing, the primary idea should be to get the students to graduate. College is supposed to be an alumni mill, cranking out alumni in increasing numbers. This being graduation time, that is what we focus on. But the Lottery Scholarship is focused on attendance. The incentive is to go to college, not graduate. When you graduate the money stops.

It is the same way that New Mexico colleges compensate for teaching – by the number of classes taught, not the number of students who graduate. If the educational leaders in New Mexico really want kids to graduate they should aim the incentives on graduation. How about a graduation lottery?

Picture this

Picture this: At each graduation, before awarding the degrees, some names are drawn. There are the usual dinners and car washes, but then come the better prizes. Several (lucky?) students get free tuition on their next degree. Even better, several get their student loans paid in full. Then will come the moment that has caused all of the media attention. One lucky graduate gets one million dollars paid over 20 years. I bet that would spice up the ceremony.

How the entry tickets are calculated is even better. Every college credit a student takes translates to one entry, so changing majors several times is not quite so bad, as long as the student eventually graduates. Further, they could even get three tickets for each A, two for each B and one for each C. Sorry, nothing for a D.

On a larger scale, perhaps the school leaders would factor more tickets for harder degrees. Electrical engineers would be envied because they earn 10 times the number of tickets for each A as someone in a “less demanding” program. At graduation one student may have accumulated 5,000 entries while a classmate only has 1,000. Again, only those who finish get to be in the drawing. Each college would be reinforcing graduation rather than just time spent in college.

Graduation point lust

Look at some of the other benefits: Every action deemed important at college could be quantified into entries. Picking up trash, voting in student elections, being pleasant while standing in line, eating vegetables, and of course, paying parking tickets. Everything worthwhile on campus could contribute to your total number of entries. Instead of a few thousand entries, students could earn millions. We could call them grad points, one point equals one entry. Imagine, “How many GPs do you have?”

“Oh, I’ve got about 16 million. I figure 20 million is what the lucky stiff who won last year had, so I’m trying to max out above that.” And they could.

It would discourage cheating because each student is trying to get as many GPs as possible. They would not dilute the pool of entries by helping someone cheat. There would be GP lust, pure and simple. There could even be a counter effect so that when students do things wrong they lose points. There could be a spitting assessment so that dippers and chewers of tobacco are fined one entry each time they spit on the sidewalk. The campus would be driven by graduation.

New Mexico colleges would also benefit because the national news media would come to graduation to see the lucky “millionaire” each graduation. Songs on the radio would talk about unrequited grad points. Maybe there would be a movie-of-the-week about a poor starving philosophy student holding little hope of employment after graduation. Then s/he is lifted up with the money and never has to eat Ramen Noodles again.

It would put New Mexico on the map! Every student would graduate. This is an idea that could revolutionize higher education. All of this because we reinforce graduation instead of attendance.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.

Michael Swickard

Experience hath shown that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

Las Cruces recently gave a green light to red light tyranny. Citizens are angry at what the city wants to do to those who do not pay red light camera fines. Also, citizens are upset because the story was picked up by national news organizations and comedians. It casts the city in a very bad light.

It started several years ago with a political move against the local, vibrant home building industry. At the time there were well over a thousand houses a year built, which poured money hand over fist into the coffers of the city government. The city gladly spent said money hand over fist.

Then a new progressive slate of anti-growth and anti-business city leaders was elected. The once vibrant building industry cratered with thousands of industry people being put out of work. This happened primarily because of the efforts of city leaders to reign in the industry along with national issues constricting building financing.

But the city government needs for ever-expanding amounts of money did not decrease. The city got fat on building revenue, so other sources of revenue were needed. The red-light camera scam was adopted. Oddly, it was adopted just as other cities were discarding their red-light systems.

The obligatory discussions were brisk, but adoption was a foregone conclusion given the financial needs of the city. Citizen input was solicited and ignored. It was never put to a vote of the citizens.

Abusing citizens

The legal sticking point was how to collect on the tickets. Since no police officer witnessed the infraction, the collection had to be administrative rather than criminal. Therein is the rub. Some people refused to pay. The city saw a pile of money glimmering from unpaid fines.

Recently Albuquerque disbanded its red-light camera system. But the City of Las Cruces last week decided tyranny was in order. Those who do not pay red-light camera fines will find their water and natural gas turned off. The city claims they are forced to get rough with the citizens. Now, my air conditioner requires water to work. They intend to turn off my air conditioning going into the summer heat season. How reasonable is that?

This action confirms that red light cameras are principally a money-maker. If the city wanted to stop a behavior, why would they also count on the money from the tickets? At some point there should be no offenders. But if you sign a contract with a firm that must be paid, you are counting on the tickets.

The city is abusing citizens one at a time because they know that if they try to abuse citizens in a group there is too much pushback. Individual citizens subjected to the full tyranny of the city must submit.

State intervention needed

Know this: the City of Las Cruces has no business being involved in utilities if they can shut off the utilities for reasons outside of the delivery of service. The Public Regulation Commission needs to take all utilities away from them. The city has shown it is an unworthy steward of the public trust.

Likewise, the leadership of Las Cruces must go; they are not worthy of the trust the citizens put in them when they placed the leadership in authority. It is time for the State of New Mexico to take over the city management. Taking away the ability to cool a home in the heat of summer could lead to inadvertent citizen deaths. The citizens are being put at mortal risk by the leadership’s shortsighted use of tyranny to satisfy their need for money. Hopefully, the state can restore the right of citizens to receive their life-preserving utilities.

Like most wrongdoers who are caught, the leadership of Las Cruces can place themselves in a rehab clinic for leaders who just cannot keep from embracing tyranny. Maybe after they are successfully discharged and are certified to not be attracted to tyranny they can play some minor role in the city again.

However, some people say once a person of tyranny, always a person of tyranny.

Swickard is co-host of the radio talk show News New Mexico, which airs from 6 to 9 a.m. Monday through Friday on a number of New Mexico radio stations and through streaming. His e-mail address is michael@swickard.com.