E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Journal North: Home | Sports | Opinion | Obits | Entertainment
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Letters
Tips for Moving Country Forward
There are those among us who insist that they want their country "back." To me, that sounds too much like a time when certain races and religions were the unquestioned and uncontested "leaders" of the nation. I do want change but I want my country going forward to retake its place as the "beacon on the hill" for the rest of the world.
We, the people, are angry about what the country is becoming but unlike some, we want to go forward, not backward, and make what we have better. We want an improved democracy where every single individual gets an equal vote and then the majority gets to go forward with its vision. That means that we must end the tyranny of the minority. We must have publicly funded elections; we must do away with the electoral college whose only modern function is to steal elections from the majority voters; we must do away or sharply curtail the use of filibusters and we must get corporate America out of the election process, in spite of what the Supreme Court says. We must have a one-person, one-vote democracy!
We must immediately end the two or three wars that we are currently engaged in. If they must continue, they should be fought and paid for by the people who started them and who are profiting so handsomely from their continuance. We understand the need for a strong military and that we must maintain a formidable defensive posture but running around the world and starting wars for personal or economic reasons is not a wise use of our dollars or of our democratic principles.
We are not fond of taxes or of big government but we do demand that the government guarantee us some things until the private sector can find the guts, ethics and honesty to give us all the things they have promised over the decades. Some are as follows in no particular order:
• We must all have health care that is equal to that enjoyed by government employees or they must give theirs up until we do.
• We must have a functioning Consumer Products Safety Commission. Importers tell us they have standards but how many times have we seen products brought into this country by people who conveniently overlook the fact that they (are) loaded with lead and other chemicals that are known killers.
• We must have a functioning Financial Products Protection Agency that will review all of the Wall Street investment inventions for honesty, clarity and viability. This agency could also be in charge of fine print. The kind of small print that allows so many big companies to violate their promises when the economic winds are blowing against them.
• We must have access to prescription drugs that are priced at least remotely in relationship to the cost of producing them. Canadians pay about half of what we do for the same drugs and no drug companies have declared bankruptcy up there in recent memory. These drugs must be reviewed and or tested by the FDA to ensure their effectiveness and suitability for their claimed purpose.
• We must have environmental standards that move us towards fresh air and water for all of our citizens and the polluters must be made to pay the price.
• We demand a taxation structure that charges each of us according to our ability to pay. Furthermore, we want an end to corporate government subsidies to industries that little if any taxes. Businesses that profit from being allowed to take our money must pay something for that privilege.
• We demand the immediate enforcement of the Constitution and duly passed laws from the chief executive down to and including his groundskeeper. No one can be exempt from the rule of law.
• We must have equality for all of our citizens.
• We must have freedom of religion. That must include all religions. That must also include the freedom from religion and the freedom from the oppression of someone else's religion.
• We want to return to the once popular concept that our form of government was for the people and by the people and to the benefit of all the people.
Robert Barry
Questa
Affordable Housing Setup Is Not Fair
Providing affordable housing for the less fortunate is a noble and worthy cause. If it is important for society to provide affordable housing, society must share the burden of the cost.
The Santa Fe County affordable housing ordinance does not. It is illegal, unfair and unreasonable. It places the entire burden on the landowners that provide the land. The ordinance (in effect) allows the county to confiscate 30 percent of the owner's land without compensation as condition of the owner enjoying his God-given, constitutionally guaranteed private property rights. This ordinance makes subdividing land unaffordable.
Landowners must become builders and build homes on the confiscated land. The homes must be sold to buyers selected by the county at prices dictated by the county. The first home ... must be sold for no more than $76,500 for house and lot. Adding insult to injury, the landowner must pay property taxes ... pay 8 percent gross receipts taxes on the sale price of the homes and guarantee the homes for one year. Not much of an incentive to provide affordable homes.
Landowners can buy an exemption from the requirements of the ordinance by paying to the county $49,460 per lot for each lot in the subdivision. A payment of $2.4 million will buy the owner an exemption for a 50-lot subdivision. Legal extortion?
This land grab must be stopped. The ordinance must be repaired, made fair, just and legal, so that affordable housing can become a reality in Santa Fe County.
Joe Miller
Santa Fe
Preserve Transfer Benefits Us All
The March 2 article, "Programs at Risk, Preserve Worries About Federal Takeover," is replete with misinformation. None of the programs at the Valles Caldera National Preserve mentioned in the article is at risk. And how can there be a "federal takeover" when the preserve is already owned by the federal government?
One of the programs claimed to be at risk should the National Park Service (NPS) take over the management of the preserve is the excellent science program. The science program is completely the result of the Chief Scientist Bob Parmenter's efforts consisting of obtaining grants from public and private sources and developing cooperative relationships with many universities in New Mexico and around the country. The NPS conducts scientific research in its units throughout the country, including on its national preserves.
The NPS is careful to sustain prior uses consistent with its land protection mandates when it assumes management of a new unit. Preserve director Gary Bratcher is wrong when he says "all programs would be cut but hiking and camping." On the contrary, all uses compatible with protecting a unique natural resource — hiking, skiing, horseback riding, star gazing, backpacking, camping, fishing, hunting, mountain biking — can continue under the NPS.
Under the NPS, access will be greater and cheaper than it is at the preserve. The preserve admits roughly 15,000 visitors annually compared with the approximately 250,000 visitors served by Bandelier National Monument, which is only one-third the size of the preserve. Moreover, the trustees are now considering how much they can increase the already pricey fees they charge for access and the activities they offer.
It is in everyone's interest to transfer the management of the preserve to the National Park Service.
Betsy Barnett
Albuquerque
Park Service Would Enhance Caldera
Your March 2 article regarding the Valles Caldera National Preserve did a good job of presenting one side of the Valles Caldera controversy without input from the many organizations that support transferring the national treasure to the National Park Service to protect and stabilize its future.
The preserve belongs to all Americans. The "trust" management model was imposed on the preserve in 2000 as an experiment to see if the private sector could improve public land management. This expensive experiment has had some good results like the science program, but the rest of the experiment has been an unfortunate experience.
While the trust staff is proud of the recreation programs they have recently begun, these recreation programs are expensive, infrequent, experimental and are interim. They tell us we could have corporate sponsored activities on the preserve, but do we want big corporations on our public lands, sticking their logos on our signs and buildings and demanding things from public agencies in return? All of the recreation activities touted by the Trust are routinely offered on National Park Service preserves, at much lower cost, and by a public agency with an overall excellent record.
The many groups working to transfer the Valles Caldera to the National Park Service fully support the science and education programs at the preserve, and we've urged Congress and the NPS to continue and enhance those. Public lands are inexpensive and need not pay their own way because they pay huge dividends in water, education, solitude, wildlife, peace, clean air and recreation as well as expanding economic opportunities for nearby communities. The NPS will enhance all of these at the Valles Caldera National Preserve.
Tom Ribe
Santa Fe
Citizens Must Balance Lobbyists
A recent Associated Press poll finds a "widespread hunger for improvements to the health care system."
The American people deserve the same kind of insurance options enjoyed by members of Congress.
We are tired of having one of the worst health care systems of the developed countries. We need to improve access to care by building more community health centers and training more doctors, physicians assistants and nurse practitioners.
Insurance companies have paid lobbyists and these companies help finance congressional campaigns.
To offset this, we need to flood our representatives with letters demanding prompt action in health care reform.
Marion Seymour
Santa Fe
Diagnosis a Means To Get Treatment
In a recent commentary, George Will sounded concerns about the revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual currently in the works. His observation is that the editors are adding new diagnoses that would allow people to blame their behavior on their diagnoses and give them excuses for bad behavior. As a mental health professional, I have to add another point of view.
The DSM is a working manual for those of us who work in the mental health field — counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists and others. It is not meant for nonprofessionals. It does not offer excuses for behavior. What the DSM does is give mental health professionals a way of communicating their reasoning in a commonly understood framework. This allows us to think about treatment options, not give permission to keep on behaving in a way that causes trouble.
When patients meet criteria noted in the DSM, we help them figure out how much trouble the behavior or symptoms cause in their lives and how they can best address the problem within the parameters of our profession. Mental health problems are never to be considered as an excuse for poor functioning but rather as a starting point for treatment.
After all, medical professionals don't tell a diabetic that his or her pancreas isn't producing insulin, too bad. They discuss treatment options. We do not believe that a diagnosis is an excuse. It is a basis for understanding the reason for behavior and addressing it.
Kate Gallagher
Santa Fe
Iraq Will Develop On Its Own Time
Why are we getting so much Iraq vote news coverage? We see break-downs of the potential vote district by district; descriptions of the various nascent parties are as detailed as stories emanating from Capitol Hill and state capitals.
The coverage seems an indication of a hope that, after massive destruction and human, economic and environmental costs, the end result will be something Americans can be proud of: a stable, democratic, and pro-Western government.
This hope and the coverage which accompanies that hope appear tragically misplaced. The fallacy and fantasy which powered the war — that such a society and government can be created in the space of a few years — by force of foreign arms — still exists.
... The day after the elections, American commentators are already voicing misgivings that the various ethnic and religious parties might not be able to maintain a stable government. Tuesday's New York Times quoted Emad Gad, an expert on international relations with the Ahram Center of Political and Strategic Studies, a government-financed research center in Cairo.
"Free elections are the last step in a democracy," he said. "Before that, you have to have a democratic society that accepts the values of democracy. In Iraq we see religious conflicts, sectarian conflicts. These are elections without democratic values."
However Iraq develops, it will do so in its own time, not ours. Trying to hammer their experience into an "American democracy" type of mold or template will only exacerbate frustrations on all sides.
There is no true democratic model in the Arab world to look to. The nearest thing to a "democracy" in the region might be across the Gulf in Iran, and that provides little ground for optimism in projecting a future for Iraq.
We really must take off our rose-colored glasses.
James Burke
Santa Fe
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
