Category Archives: Letters-to-the-Editor

Mark Twain got his start this way.

Election, media, NADA, other voices

Marriage is a civil contract governed by established contract law

The following letter is a cogent and thorough argument for marriage rights for all adults. Marriage is a contract. Indeed, Merri has made this argument for 25+ years. Kudos to David Paul Blacher.

A different letter insists Americans bow to Leviticus as the law. Not in America, bub. We have the Constitution. You are free to let the Bible rule your life, but not to force that rule on the rest of us. Amen. peace, mjh

Contract Law Applies To Marriage Licenses

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER’S comments (“The Same-Sex Marriage Dilemma,” May 19) are interesting, but he misses the fundamental issue— marriage is a contract. In fact, in America, it is most often actually two contracts: one civil and one religious. I absolutely support the right and obligation of religious organizations to define, pursuant to their own doctrines, who may enter into a contract that they validate and recognize.

However, the civil contract — usually in the form of a “marriage license” — automatically provides the individuals who sign and register the document with several unique and valuable government- issued and -sanctioned advantages. First and foremost is a significantly lower income tax rate, both federal and state. Add to this the way married couples may choose to own real property — usually as community property — and the inheritance advantages which are thereto attached.

Also, married couples have access to a capital gains deduction upon sale of the primary residence that is double that of a single owner. Add to this the general inheritance rights and tax levels provided by governments to married couples but not single couples.

Furthermore, the ability for hospital visitation, treatment and health-decision participation are treated differently for married and unmarried couples. The list of civil rights available only to married couples is extensive. … Most, if not all, governmental entities have laws that disallow discrimination on the basis of sex in the fulfillment contracts — both oral and especially written. The most significant contract that most people will ever sign is their civil marriage contract.

To abrogate a contract based on the sex of the signatories goes totally against the grain of the history of the United States as to the sacrosanct nature of contracts — see Article I, section 10, clause lof the U.S. Constitution that forbids the states from passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.”

DAVID PAUL BLACHER
Albuquerque

[Curiously, this letter is not available on-line. What’s up with that, abqjournal.com?]

other voices, Theirs

New Mexico’s official flag until 1925, plus a beautiful interpretation of “crescit eundo”

I missed these two items when they were timely, a month ago. Just stumbled upon them in my archives.

original NM flagNew Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan

That flag photo accompanying today’s lead piece may not look familiar, but it was in our state’s early days. From 1912 to 1925 it was the official state flag. Since then the easily recognizable Zia symbol flag has flown proudly.

posted by mjh at December 3, 2004 11:13 AM

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor

Thunderbolt in Motion

THE MUCH-CRITICIZED state motto "crescit eundo" is actually a quotation from the first-century B.C. Latin poet Lucretius in his epic poem De Rerum Natura, "On The Nature of Things," book 6.

In context it refers to the motion of a thunderbolt across the sky, which acquires power and momentum as it goes. Whoever chose that as a state motto in the old frontier days obviously knew the classics.

Once one realizes that the motto is comparing the state of New Mexico to a mighty thunderbolt flashing across the sky, it gives a whole new meaning to the expression.

WARREN SMITH
Professor of classics, University of New Mexico
Albuquerque

Other entry by mjh at March 22, 2005 11:19 AM

Letters-to-the-Editor

WTF?! Idiot!

Yoga Is the Pathway to Spiritual Ruin [abqjournal letter]

IT’S COMPLETELY inappropriate for the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center to be teaching yoga to inmates. Yoga is the practice of Eastern religion.

Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon have written several articles on this topic. They write: “… yoga practice is intended to validate occult yoga theory. And as noted, yoga theory teaches that everything is, in its true inner nature, divine — not only divine but ultimately equal to everything else—everything from God and the devil to the athlete and the AIDS virus.”

Yoga is a way to achieve union with impersonal spiritual forces — demons — and to destroy the individual so he can be liberated and learn that this mortal life isn’t worth living.

Those who believe they can practice yoga merely as exercise don’t realize that they’re opening themselves up to the occult. We do not want our tax money supporting occult practices!

CATHY MONTOYA
Albuquerque

I’m not sure any amount of deep breathing and relaxation can keep me from wanting to scream at the idiot who wrote this. Most of my yoga teachers present it as an exercise. There is an element of “don’t worry, be happy,” some encouragement to accept your own limitations, not to compete. You know, heretical thoughts like that. Cathy’s ignorance is jaw-dropping.

As for the program she objects to, it may, just may, help these inmates break out of the trap that otherwise will return them to jail. It should be applauded and imitated. And anyone who thinks there are demons – well, maybe they’re right. Cathy is clearly possessed by something evil, these demons named Ankerberg and Weldon. Namaste. Shanti, shanti, shanti.

other voices, WTF?!

This Week’s WTF?!

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

So-called progressives, or leftists, prey on the group that feels entitled to benefits, offering them more and more to ensnare them in their addiction, while conservatives try to cater to and encourage those who appreciate opportunities by lowering the obstructions.
        Eventually the progressive left’s policy is self-defeating or, as Margaret Thatcher said, "pretty soon you run out of other people’s money."
        LAWRENCE FORD
        Albuquerque

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

Right. Progressives, like drug dealers, ensnare lazy, greedy people.  Whereas Conservatives are hard-working and long-suffering. This self-serving, self-satisfied, self-congratulatory attitude seems full of a sense of entitlement: ie, you deserve what you have and, surely, other people want more than they deserve. Good for you.

So-called conservatives ensnare people with vague promises of opportunity even as an ever smaller percentage of the population gets absurdly rich, while the rest of us fight over the scraps. Then, the super-rich keep followers in line by assuring them it is the government and the foreigners who have prevented them from getting rich, as well. The Right Wing maintains a constant state of fear: The government, the foreigners, the different are all going to take your guns and make you accept things you just can’t accept. Stay angry and afraid and mistrustful. It keeps you from asking who profits from your misery. It’s not the progressives.

other voices

Want to hear a jackass bray? Read Letters to the Editor.

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

Want To See Animals? Get Out of Town
        THIS IS Albuquerque — not New York City or San Francisco — and $20 million for an "urban" wildlife refuge is beyond ridiculous. Albuquerque doesn’t have or need an "urban" wildlife refuge, for the same reason Albuquerque doesn’t have or need an underground subway system.
        This is another example of misguided government. As expected, Sens. Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Martin Heinrich have lined up to push this project on unsuspecting New Mexicans and Americans in large.
        This is a power grab, masquerading as a feel-good, all-American recreation and education program, coming from federal, state and local politicians that are part of or dominated by left-wing environmental activists.
        The Feds own about 30 percent of the land in the U.S., and in New Mexico it’s above 40 percent. I guess in the eyes of the New Mexico representatives and environmental activist, that’s not enough land mass for them to control. When the government designates land as a refuge or protected area, it means that you and I no longer have free access to that land or area. [mjh: Certifiable bullshit.] 
        Whether you like to hike, bike, hunt, fish, camp or just get outdoors for a picnic, it will no longer be your choice or on your terms. Any business development is completely out of the question, especially exploration and use of natural resources such as oil, gas, copper, potash, uranium or even lumber and dirt. …
        The education benefits are also a myth. … Heinrich’s observation that "there are few large undeveloped areas in the Middle Rio Grande Valley" is a very disingenuous, misleading and dishonest statement. A person can drive 30 minutes in any direction from Albuquerque and experience the great outdoors.
        If Heinrich feels the need to show a 7-year-old a goose or duck, he can drive a little further south than the South Valley to Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, which is a 57,331-acre refuge straddling the Rio Grande Valley just off Interstate 25 south of Socorro. Not up for such a long drive, try Bernardo wildlife area or its neighbor Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge, just south of Belen.
        The proposed "urban" wildlife refuge is government waste, fraud and abuse in its purist form.
JEFF HEISEL
Albuquerque

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

Good grief, Jeff. Have you seen the property in question? This land is a gem of open space nestled between the curve of I-40 and the river. How on earth could this spot be improved by 5000 homes, a mall, a storage facility? This land has to stay open and it won’t if it stays in private hands. Therefore, government *must* do what only government will do: save this space for us all. Do you really think you would have more access to this land if it were a gated community? Do you not know that there is plenty of mineral extraction going on on federally held land all over the West?

Letters-to-the-Editor, media

The Chamberpot of Commerce Has Its Greedy Eyes on Net Neutrality

imageWe see just how conservative — and one-sided — Trever is with his recent cartoon on the FCC and Net Neutrality. While *all* of the voices in the cartoon say "it isn’t broken," those wacky meddlers on the FCC insist on "fixing" Net Neutrality with wacky tools. Ha ha. Of course, the No Action / No Change view wants to let business decide how to throttle and divide the Net for its own profit. To insist "it isn’t broken" is to agree that money equals free speech and the Rich should have all the access they can afford. The Net belongs to all equally. The “don’t fix it” crowd wants to change that.

The Open Internet teaches net neutrality to everyone

The Open Internet is a nice little website that strives to explain the topic with very little text, and lovely vector graphics. It flows from top to bottom, with two main illustrations. The first illustration shows how things are today, with the ISP providing access to a raw "stream" of Internet goodness. The second one shows what things might be like if net neutrality is not guaranteed, with "special packages" offering "premium access" to email, Facebook, YouTube or other services many of us spend significant amounts of time browsing.
The site goes on to explain that ISPs would even be able to block access to certain services entirely so they could offer their own competing services — a frightening scenario. All in all, it’s a very quick and enlightening read and it sure beats having to explain the subject over and over again…

The Open Internet teaches net neutrality to everyone

NADA, other voices

Repeating the Lie

Conservatives have come a long way. Back in John Birch’s glory days, they didn’t care whether they were the majority or not – their self-righteousness was all they needed to keep going. Barry Goldwater made extremism noble. However, ever since conservative marketers twisted “The Silent Majority” into something specifically conservative to sell us Tricky Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew (the epitome of Mad Hatters and Angry White Men) conservatives have congratulated themselves time and again that they are the majority. Wrong. If there is a majority in America, they are apathetic, uninterested, or cynical, too busy or too lazy to get involved. Those who care enough about the country to vote are a minority. Those who care enough to do anything more than vote are an extreme minority. Ask yourself: Who is served by apathy.

Below, Paul Keaton trots out an un-cited statistic and twists 40 percent into majority rule. Then, he declares that any rule he doesn’t agree with is a coup. Time and again, the Radical Wrong practices the same adage: When you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/GUEST_COLUMNS: Tea-Partiers Favor Mid-Road Values
By Paul W. Keaton
Santa Fe resident

It was never the goal of the Tea Party to put the Republicans back in power. We have tried to explain that to both Democrats and Republicans many times. Do you hear us now? [mjh: Hear? Yes. Believe, no.]

One might ask, "So, are the tea-partiers winning the hearts and minds of Americans?" But that is the wrong question. Tea-partiers are the hearts and minds of mainstream Americans. 

        For instance, polls show that the ratio of conservatives-to-independents-to-liberals in the United States is about 40 percent to 30 percent to 20 percent, respectively. Any political pundit who calls himself a pragmatist should know this and understand that mainstream America is represented best by moderate-to-right policies. Anything else can only be called a coup.

        And now, for the first time in many decades, we are awakened – no – alarmed and energized.

        One goal is to place in both parties, politicians with mainstream values so no matter which party wins, untested extremists— left or right — can’t destroy the country.

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/GUEST_COLUMNS: Tea-Partiers Favor Mid-Road Values

It’s rather arrogant to declare yourself the majority. At least I have the sense and honesty to know I’m not in the majority – never have been, never will be, don’t need it or want it. I don’t think there is any meaningful majority in AmeriCo anymore. The Tea Party represents the ultimate Balkanization of Amerika.

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

Throw Bozos Out of Washington
        ISN’T IT IRONIC that none of the bozos that want to be re-elected has said one single word about what their platform is?

        They’re good at bashing their opponents; however, all liberals are good at that. … [mjh: Seriously, Ron? Do you think conservatives don’t ever bash their opponents. Look in the mirror.]

        Something these bozos don’t seem to understand: They work for us, not the other way around! I don’t want the government making my health care choices, I don’t want the government controlling my utilities; and mark my words, they want to control every single aspect of our lives! [mjh: Ron, et ilk, is actually saying he doesn’t want government to work at all – something conservatives demand and accomplish every chance they get.]

        It won’t be long and all our rights will be out the window. … I don’t want the government interfering with my life any more than they do already. I really hope the people wake up to what they’re trying to do to us. Let’s go green, and recycle Washington!
        RON ROSS
        Albuquerque

ABQJOURNAL OPINION/LETTERS: Letters To the Editor

One thing the Right gets wrong stems from raging paranoia. The fearful Right is certain to the core that “they” want to control “us” and take freedom and everything else away from “us.” Oh, except for conservative candidates, somehow. Yeah, right. The most dangerously paranoid think there are no exceptions to the rule. They want anarchy but don’t have the brains to realize that’s what they’re calling for or the balls to go for it.

When the loud and angry mob gets me down, I return to Sherman Alexie’s optimistic view.

07/18/2003: An Interview with Sherman Alexie By Steven Robert Allen (alibi . july 17 – 23, 2003)

Alibi: [O]ver the last couple decades conservatism seems to have been in the ascendance. Do you still feel like the world is getting better, or do you feel like we’re drifting back into a dark ages?

Alexie: Well, conservatism hasn’t ascended. It wasn’t conservatives who got civil rights in place. All these things that are still happening are still very liberal. We can’t view a 20-year span or a 10-year span or Dubya’s administration in micro terms. If he does, and I don’t know yet, represent radical change, it’s still tiny compared to two centuries worth of this country’s history.

Alibi: The overall trajectory is liberal?

Alexie: Yeah, and the thing is people in this country continue, with every generation, to be more educated, more progressive, more diversely minded, more tolerant and more loving. At one point I say it in the book, about the average 20-something, graveyard-shift worker today being smarter than an opera-goer in New York in 1876. And it’s true. Health-wise we’re so much better off. Education-wise we’re better off. I mean, people say there’s an education crisis in the country, but go back a hundred years, go back 50 years, you know. Things were much worse. That doesn’t mean there aren’t problems we need to deal with, but there’s no need to run around screaming that the world is ending either. Dubya is a conservative, and he’s a Christian conservative. But he’s not as far right as many past presidents.

mjh’s Weblog Entry – 07/18/2003: "An Interview with Sherman Alexie"