OPINION: Talk of the Town

Speak out against president’s racist language

Students of American history are well aware that racism has been an integral part of our past. Slavery existed for more than 200 years in America, then Jim Crow and segregation became the norm. Finally, in the mid-20th century, America began to put its racism into the past. Civil Rights laws were passed. Legal segregation, deed restrictions, job discrimination and anti-voting laws were ended. America even elected a Black man as president.

Now, tragically, it appears as if America is moving backwards. The president has decreed that brown-skinned Hispanic people are rapists, drug dealers and murderers and should be deported. He has stated that Black people from Haiti eat cats and dogs and wants to remove their temporary refugee status. And now he has accused all Black people of Somali descent of being “garbage” and wants to remove them from our country as well.

The fact is, of course, that none of these accusations are true. Almost all Hispanic people in America are law abiding, hard working, tax paying citizens or residents. Republican government officials in Ohio declared that Black Haitians do not eat cats and dogs and have been a great benefit to the economy of their local communities. Most within the Somali/American community are not only hard-working tax payers but also second or third generation American citizens.

The president’s hateful words have power. We have seen significant increases in racist, Islamophobic and anti-Semitic incidents across the country. It is time for our leaders and all Americans to speak out against the president’s racist policies and language.

America is facing many challenges — inflation, rising unemployment, health insurance costs, international military threats. The racism and hatred of the past should not be brought back as challenges as well. Racial diversity makes us stronger. End the hate.

Arthur Flicker

Albuquerque

Balance economic growth, environmental protections

New Mexico Economic Development Secretary Rob Black just presented some great news that New Mexico is home to rapidly expanding new industries. Many of these are industries expected to lead our nation’s economic growth, so the hope is New Mexico gets ahead of the next economic curves.

As if on cue, there’s evenan Albuquerque business publication touts even more development news: A space startup is bringing their new headquarters and manufacturing to New Mexico; a high-tech missile company picked us for a weapons manufacturing facility; a Fusion energy company choose Albuquerque; venture and quantum computing companies are expanding here. Also, huge computing centers are sprouting fast in Hobbs, Roswell and Sunland Park.

These initiatives come with serious downsides too.

Not all economic growth is necessarily good for communities and existing residents. Air pollution will increase and water supplies will decrease. New gas-fired energy plants (old technology) needed for some of these new industries will harm our health, in one case alone more energy will be produced and used than is used now in our major cities.

In some cases, the public’s right to know is harmed when companies find local governments willing to keep secrets from the public in favor of new businesses coming to their jurisdictions.

So here is the genuinely good news inherent in all those pronouncements: It is proof positive that environmental, education, health and other policies fostered by Democratic majorities are not the obstacle some Republicans seeking headlines to proclaim that they are. Despite those negative naysayers, New Mexico can and should continue moving forward with progressive efforts to create more equity in all matters, and to ensure all New Mexicans can thrive both economically and health wise into the future.

Charles Goodmacher

Rio Rancho

We are murdering people in the Caribbean Sea

Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth has ordered our military to attack “drug boats” in the Caribbean and kill the people aboard them. This entire program is illegal. Some of the killings are especially aggravated, like the Sept. 2 attack in which two helpless survivors were killed after a first missile strike.

The first Hellfire missile destroyed most of the boat and killed nine people. Two men survived and clung to the upturned hull. About 40 minutes after the first missile was fired, second, third and fourth missiles were fired, which killed the men and sunk the remaining wreckage — and two desperate guys, trying to hold on to the wreckage and avoid drowning. They weren’t threatening anyone. They were only trying to survive.

We are not at war. If we were, these killings would be war crimes. It is a war crime to kill such shipwrecked people. The Pentagon’s Law of War Manual requires our military to try to rescue such survivors, treating them as protected persons rather than targets. However, because we are not at war, these killings are not war crimes, but simply illegal, brutal and premeditated murders.

Is this who we are? Executing people who are clinging to debris in international waters, far from shore, and hundreds of miles from America? All of these murders are illegal. Furthermore, President Donald Trump has now pardoned the former president of Honduras, a narcotics trafficker who was convicted of importing more than 400 tons of cocaine into America. Does this make sense?

We need a real secretary of Defense, not a weekend TV fool who acts like a 12 year old playing Army. He and Trump must stop murdering people in our name.

Edwin Macy

Placitas

Charging monthly pet fees is harmful to pets, owners

I believe that the practice of charging a monthly pet rent in apartments or other rental properties ends up punishing pets. From my experience as both a resident of various Albuquerque complexes as well as formerly managing a large complex here, I see dogs who are seldom taken out for walks as their owners try to keep them concealed to avoid the fees and just hustled out once or maybe twice a day for bathroom purposes. I understand specific deposits for a cat or dog, but the monthly charges ranging from $15-75 per pet is an expense many people cannot afford. I’m sure these pet fees affect adoptions as well.

I managed a complex of over 200 units, and I can confirm that most apartment damage came from people, not pets. Our shelters are overflowing and we should try to think of ways to help people adopt pets, not add additional expenses simply for their existence.

Constance Bryceland

Albuquerque