Oñate Had His Thanksgiving in 1598
By Donald A. Chavez y Gilbert, Freelance Writer, Thursday, November 25, 2004
Thanksgiving Day is a holiday which has a much longer history than most Americans realize.
The first recorded act of giving thanks by Europeans on this continent occurred April 30, 1598, as the Oñate muster arrived on the banks of El Rio Bravo, the Rio Grande. That was almost a quarter century before the Pilgrims anchored the Mayflower at Plymouth Rock on Nov. 21, 1620.
ABQJournal Online » Health Insurance Is Justice for All
By Merri Rudd / Former Bernalillo County probate judge on Mon, Jul 2, 2012
Are you hoping to retire before you’re eligible for Medicare? Planning a career switch or move to self-employment? Being laid off from a job with a group insurance plan? Working at a job without health insurance benefits? You’re healthy, so buying individual health insurance will be easy, right? Wrong!
I recently applied for individual health insurance because my COBRA benefits from my 10 years as Bernalillo County’s probate judge, a term-limited position, expire soon. Both Lovelace and Presbyterian declined to sell me health insurance.
Presbyterian, my current provider, and Lovelace referred me to the high-risk pool, which charges a premium between $540 and $679 per month, up to triple the cost of an individual health plan. I am stunned that this is my only option for insurance coverage, given my overall good health.
Picture this: a non-smoking 57-year-old woman who is 5 feet, 6 inches tall, weighs 128 pounds, has never used illegal drugs, eats a low-fat diet, takes no daily prescription medicines, walks three to five miles daily, attends yoga classes weekly, hikes, and dances. Sounds pretty healthy, doesn’t it?
My only medical issue is high cholesterol, which is genetic. Low triglycerides, high good cholesterol, and no evidence of blockage or inflammation greatly reduce my risk of future health problems. As I also disclosed on my insurance application, my car was rear-ended in 2009 and I had a back injury, which fully resolved without surgery or prescription medicine. I have had no back complaints since late 2010.
Both companies cited “history of back injury” (despite resolution) in denying me coverage. Presbyterian added “height/weight guidelines,” whatever that means, and high cholesterol. Neither application asked about exercise or diet. If a healthy person like me is ineligible for individual health insurance, there are millions of less-healthy folks who cannot qualify either.
This is not a new problem. President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a type of universal health care. In his plan, private insurance companies that extended benefits to uninsured Americans would be reimbursed by the federal government for excessive losses. Congress rejected his plan. Despite repeated efforts by elected officials to safeguard the health of Americans, almost 60 years later more Americans than ever have no health insurance.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose to 49.9 million in 2010. Many people, who live from paycheck to paycheck but have incomes higher than poverty level, simply cannot afford health insurance after paying for rent, food and utilities. Others like me may be willing buyers of insurance, but unable to find a willing seller. In his book “The Healing of America,” T.R. Reid reports that 22,000 Americans die annually from lack of access to health care.
The federal Affordable Care Act, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, will require people to either purchase basic health insurance or pay a tax. But starting January 1, 2014, insurance companies will also be required to accept all insurance applicants, regardless of their health status and pre-existing conditions. In 2014 healthy people like me, as well as cancer survivors and others, should be able to purchase health insurance without a penalty for gender or pre-existing conditions.
According to Reid, private insurance companies that are required to cover everyone in other countries have continued to operate profitably, due in part to the large influx of new members paying premiums and cost controls on services.
As a healthy person who has been denied health insurance, I know that our country has serious problems to resolve. If members of every political party can cease their posturing in the health care debate and focus instead on supporting affordable health insurance for all Americans, we can compel this country to change its inexcusable position as the only developed nation in the world without access to health care for all its citizens. Is that too much to ask?
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?]
I missed these two items when they were timely, a month ago. Just stumbled upon them in my archives.
New 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
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.
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?
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"