News New Mexico: 2015

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. In a small unscientific study looking only at myself I find that the years go by quickly. They are packed with victories and losses. If we have a loss, at least we should get the lesson. Getting lemons doesn't help unless you have sugar and water for lemonade.

Let's look at 2015 as we think about 2016. We must remember the mistakes that were made this year so we don't repeat them. We also need to remember our victories so we have some chance to repeat them.

George Santayana in 1906 wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Our society doesn't seem to learn. Let's make 2016 the year we learn from a previous year's mistakes.

If there was an organization to remember society's wins and losses each year they would say you must acknowledge both the wins and losses. Losses are difficult because people gloss over them while fixating on wins.

The biggest loss in the last few years is the loss of the truth. Truth has become the new hate speech. George Orwell wrote, "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

Many people are afraid of the truth because an expedient political power play has emerged in our society. It is to label as racist or worse anyone who opposes the wishes of the political parties. 2015 was a name-calling year with most of the name-calling being done for political gain.

A friend runs a political blog and has a hard time with the inclination of some posters to name-call and act ugly. I am glad he is fighting that fight because we can never have truth in our society if the name-calling brigands are allowed to take over public dialogs.

The year 2015 will be remembered as the year everything offended someone. David Bednar wrote, "To be offended is a choice we make; it is not a condition inflicted or imposed upon us by someone or something else."

This year I found I could concurrently offend both Republicans and Democrats. I got hate emails from both the same week. I have written a weekly column for more than thirty years so I am used to offending people. It happens. But this year it seemed that there was a virulent practiced response to opposing ideas and that was name-calling and ignoring the truth.

One person was very offended when I wrote about something that happened in the 2015 New Mexico Legislature. The problem for me was that I did not witness this situation myself. But I found four people who confirmed to me what happened along with two others in law enforcement who witnessed it. I would not retract my column.

This last year the two major political parties were nationally very similar. The only thing they disagree on was which person should be elected, not the will of the people and how Congress should protect the Constitution.

The emphasis of 2015 for the national leaders of both parties was to make government bigger. This has been covered extensively by the national press that can be identified by their political editorial leanings. Both the liberal press and the less liberal press have their agendas. If it wasn't for the Internet they would succeed.

Many years ago Bob Hope quipped, "No one party can fool all of the people all of the time; that's why we have two parties." A friend said to one politician, "Please act as if you actually talk to citizens and not just consultants and fixers." That didn't go over well.

Comedian George Burns was asked, "How's your wife?" He answered, "Compared to what?" That is what we have to realize each year. When we do a year in review in some ways we are often comparing to other years.

Can we learn from 2015? Yes, but we must want to learn. We may have to change some of our elected politicians if we want real change. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789, "Whenever people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government."

We have many well-informed citizens but everyone loses when truth is politically inconvenient and so is absent from our society.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Question: when is the best age to start children in public schools? This is like the question: why not teach algebra to five-year olds? Answer: our brains must develop before we can do formal logic. The age to start formal public school education is not until the age of six.

However, a big push in our society by well-meaning people and power-hungry politicians is that earlier contact with school makes a better scholar. They say that while ignoring the research. They have many reasons not involving the welfare of the children when they want to start children younger.

However, others people, myself included, feel that certain brain development phases must occur for children to thrive in a formal education setting. Research which I will point to suggests you can injure young children by putting them in formal academic settings too soon.

We should look at the research but the way many professional educators have been operating of late is to ignore all research that doesn't support what they want. They say, "Forget the research we want to have a bigger empire and employ more people."

When I was young most students began their formal education at the age of six. The generation that sent men to the moon and returned them safely started their schooling at this age. It works. The children were in family or church daycare until it was time to start school.

Then there came kindergarten. In the 1960s there was the adoption of public school kindergarten for many students. In New Mexico it was the middle of the 1970s when the public schools uniformly started offering kindergarten. But that kindergarten was vastly different than what we see now.

Back then it was only for half of the day and focused on play activities. Children sang songs and played games and took naps and went home saying, "I love school." Then well-meaning people said, "Why don't we keep them all day." It made sense since parents would not have to accommodate the other half of the day.

The beauty for the politicians was it allowed public schools to hire twice as many kindergarten teachers. And for a while that was how schools went. But then administrators started talking about changing kindergarten into a formal academic activity.

They justified changing kindergarten to formal education for five year olds so when these young students are in fourth grade they will do better making the school seem more successful. Kindergarten now doesn't look like it did. The play and informal curriculum is gone and the five year olds are just trying to learn the six year old stuff a year early. How is that working? Terrible but no one is paying attention.

Research at Stanford University suggests the move to get children into academic classrooms sooner comes with liabilities. There is an interesting study that even mainstream news organizations are noticing. It is: The Gift of Time? SchoolStarting Age and Mental Health.

This research from Stanford University looks at when students start and if starting a year later would be better. There are countries that start their children later in school. What is the outcome?

The later starting children do better on the fourth and eighth grade tests and seem to not have as many mental health issues. But the research doesn't fit the political needs of our education leaders. The vast industrial public education complex needs the young children in the system.

And I am fine with that if these politicians will just read the research and see that they can make the first year a year of curiosity, play and social involvement but they cannot teach formal education to the majority of the five year olds.

Further, we must see our young children by their number of day alive and not birth year. I was born seven days before the cutoff so I was the youngest and smallest boy in most of my classes. Some of my competing classmates were fifteen percent older than me that first year.

The Stanford study, which can be downloaded for five dollars talks about all of these issues. I do wish some of our leaders would look at this great research.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Free college or free students from college?

Grandfather E V McKim Sr's practical education

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. One of the talking points for politicians is free college for students. They reason that preschool to high school graduation in public education is free, why not college? It is not free, someone else pays.

Perhaps we should debate the aim of our education system. Thomas Jefferson wrote that education had two aims, "The laboring and the learned. Few students had the ability to be (academically) learned but our country always needs educated labor."

In today's world our public schools push all students to attend college. In 1968 it was not my intention to attend college. My Grandmother Frieda wanted me to go so I went.

In 1917 she got a Masters Degree from Western New Mexico University in Silver City. It was then New Mexico State Teachers' College. She had come to New Mexico in 1908 from upstate New York to be a teacher in a one room schoolhouse in Three Rivers. Later she taught in White Oaks.

Of her children only my uncle went to college. He got a degree in Electrical Engineering in 1952 after serving in the Navy during WWII. I went to New Mexico State University in 1968 reluctantly since I already was a fine photographer. My father taught at the Air Force School of Photography. I thought I had all of the education I needed.

But my grandmother saw something in me that a college education made better. Ultimately I got a Ph.D. in Educational Administration with a focus on distance education. But I could have just been a photographer and writer. Life is a funny old dog when it comes to what we set out to do and what happens.

America was built by artisans and laborers. Two of my great-grandparents came to America to work on the railroads, one from Sweden and the other from Ireland. My Grandmother Frieda's husband was a railroad engineer in steam locomotives.

He only went through the fourth grade but could fix almost anything. Today some are saying that only the academics really matter. Tell that to someone with an overflowing toilet.

In Junior High I took six semesters of shop covering tools, wood, metal, electrical, automotive, and home building during those three years. It was outstanding. I am handy enough to handle most things and experienced enough to know when things need to be fixed by someone who really knows what they are doing.

We will always need handy people in our society. Everything will break, we just do not know when. Instead of pushing every student to college we should smile on all education, be it academic or mechanical.

The movement for free college really is because colleges in the last twenty years have increased the tuition and fees many times the inflation rate. I went to New Mexico State University twenty years ago for my Ph.D. The tuition and fees were about six hundred dollars a semester.

Currently at NMSU it is nearly four thousand dollars a semester so that either parents must pay the cost or the students incur lots of debt. The student-loan default rate is terrible. The solution for some is free college to keep students from going into debt. But should they be going to college in the first place?

The college graduation rate in New Mexico is perhaps forty percent with many students just quitting. These students have student loan debt and no degree. That is one of the things driving the horrible student loan default rate.

Many of the current graduates are either under-employed or unemployed. The college degree for many did not make life better as to supporting themselves. Now one of my favorite classes at college was a wonderful year of Irish writing from poetry to novels. But what pays the bills are the things I do which require my Ph.D. No, column writing does not require a degree, but my statistics and research background helps.

Perhaps the current generation of college students who have graduated and cannot find a degree-required job should have explored something more practical to do. Would it be better if they had a professional trade to support themselves? They could afford college later if they found a desire to change fields.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Pat Garrett - Guts, Gumption and Courage

There is a revisionist history move in the news which has been simmering for years but now has burst out in college campuses. Some activists want to remove many of our founding leaders from public buildings and revise our American history books because in today's world they all are scoundrels.

Even more modern presidents like Theodore Roosevelt are legitimately under attack for their flaws. And all forty-three men who have taken the oath of office for the presidency are flawed. There are some flawed with graft, some with goofy ideas and some with being intentionally ignorant in times of crisis.

This is not a black and white issue. We must view our leaders in a more mature way than these protesters are doing. There is a more compelling story about the founding leaders clear up to our leaders today: what did they do for the ages.

That is the yardstick for me: what did these leaders do that others could not or would not such that we have the country we have today. Our country has brought freedom to other countries by example and by fighting wars, not for our own gain, but to insure freedom from dictators for other people.

As to our founding leaders and the complaints currently about them: all of the leaders who founded our country either were slave holders or did not effectively resist the holding of slaves. That much is true. And we cannot change that flaw in them.

Some people suggest we even change the name of our national capital because George Washington was a slave holder. The angels on earth who created liberty for much of the world were flawed humans. Yet through their actions we have our freedom today.

But in the arena of public opinion there is an outcry to cleanse our national history of those who were flawed. And it is every leader we have ever had starting with the first ones during our Revolutionary War. It is a mistake to not consider all of each man.

Thomas Jefferson is under attack and unable to defend himself. He wrote for the ages, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Yes Jefferson was a flawed man in that he had slaves. And with Jefferson there are other things. But one of the problems with revising history is can we do without the good just to punish the bad?

There were arguably four men who were essential to the Revolutionary War: George Washington who brilliantly commanded the weaker American forces into ultimate victory: Samuel Adams who provided the man-on-the-street leadership in effective citizen resistance; Benjamin Franklin who got the French to side with our nation or we would not have won and Thomas Jefferson who provided the words for our new country.

Alas, can we find anyone who is not flawed? My favorite modern person, Martin Luther King, Jr. was certainly flawed. Yet he wrote for the ages, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

In New Mexico we falsely worship a rascal we call Billy the Kid and ignore a man, yes flawed, who is a hundred times more interesting historically and as a member of our state: Pat Garrett. He was flawed in some ways and a legend by his resolve and courage. He had gumption and guts and ran toward the problem not away.

In no way do I advocate obscuring the flaws of our leaders. We see that Americans in general have a simplistic view of our presidents, "George Washington was the father of our country and a good man." That is a disservice to their sacrifices.

We have had some bad actions by men in the Oval Office which should be known. But ultimately let's take a look at their entire effect upon our country.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Great-grandparents Erik and Johanna and Grandmother Freda

The Pilgrim immigrants and the Native Americans who resided in America around the year 1600 died centuries ago. We are the descendants. Americans are divided on the question of immigration because it has such political gains and losses.

For much of our history immigration was a benefit for both political parties. Then in 1914 something happened that changed our view of immigrants: the first year of our federal income tax.

It passed in 1913 and in 1914 politicians had a wave of money to buy votes thanks to the people who worked. It was and is a tax on productivity therefore those who are productive like it less than those who get the benefits without working.

Before 1914, immigration was open and appreciated. It brought workers to our country that had to stand on their own feet or suffer the consequences. Our transcontinental railroads were built by immigrants.

The immigrants who came to America from the time of our founding until 1914 were people who could and did stand on their own feet. They added to our country's resources rather than taking resources. My relatives came from Germany, Ireland and Sweden not for American charity but for a chance to live a better life.

My Great-Grandfather Erik Greenberg came from Sweden in 1867 and worked on the railroad. My grandmother was born in upstate New York in 1891. In 1908 the family moved to New Mexico and homesteaded land near Three Rivers. He is buried in Alamogordo.

These days we frame immigration as our charity to the world where we take care of people from other countries. Americans support them with our productivity. This is also the debate about people who come to our country without legal status or stay illegally.

The prime objection is that these people take our charity without giving us in America anything of value. While that is painting with a wide brush, it is the argument against allowing illegal immigration in our country. I think America should always be open to those who bring us something and follow our laws.

I have a world view from having lived some years abroad and with the ability to speak several languages. I appreciate other cultures and especially appreciate the melting-pot aspect of America where for generations people of other lands came and made America stronger.

This Thanksgiving I am most thankful for this wonderful country. I know Americans took by force the lands and ways of life of the inhabitants already in North America. I cannot do anything about that other than tell the truth. The Thanksgiving story is revisionist history since it happened around 1620 and the story of Thanksgiving we know came out during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars when the image of Thanksgiving was used to bolster American spirits.

We should go out of our way to enable the current generations of Native Americans to live their lives as they wish because we know the truth of their loss. As to people who wish to come to our land without legal status or stay beyond their legal permit, I must oppose this for a reason not in public dialog currently.

If in the year of my birth, 1950, President Truman wanted to spend money on refugees that might be fine. So what is different today? Truman would have been spending that generation's money.

Contrast that to now when people coming to our country both legally and illegally with the intention to take our charity are not taking it from us Americans. Rather, they take it from our children and grandchildren's wealth. We Americans have already spent our wealth, and now are spending the wealth of future generations.

Future generations should be allowed to be charitable if they so desire and not forced into it by us already spending their wealth before some of them are born. We cannot change what was done to the native populations centuries ago in what is now our country, but we can stop abusing the next generations.

That is my prayer for this Thanksgiving.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends

Commentary by Marita Noon - http://energymakesamericagreat.org/

Early in his campaign, now top-tier Republican presidential candidate, Ben Carson, supported ethanol—a position for which I called him out. It has long been thought, that to win in Iowa, a candidate must support ethanol.

However, in a major policy reversal, Carson told a national audience during the CNBC GOP debate that he no longer supports subsidies for any industry, including U.S. ethanol producers: “I have studied that issue in great detail and what I’ve concluded, the best policy is to get rid of all government subsidies and get the government out of our lives and let people rise and fall based on how good they are.”

Plainly irritated, the ethanol industry shot back immediately, saying it receives no government subsidies. But it neglected to mention a very important fact. Instead of subsidies, ethanol producers get something better: a mandate that orders refiners to blend ethanol into motor fuels which forces consumers to buy their product. A federally guaranteed market beats a subsidy every time.

The ethanol industry also benefits indirectly from agriculture programs that support farmers who grow corn for ethanol. And recently, the Obama Administration announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture is offering $100 million in grants tosubsidize the installation of blender pumps at gas stations all over the country.

In attempt to push more ethanol into the motor fuel market, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) readily admits it plans to “drive growth in renewable fuels by providing appropriate incentives. (Italics added.)”

Carson, and a majority of Republicans and many Democrats, knows the ethanol mandate is a do-gooder program that has gone horribly wrong. Enacted by a well-meaning Congress, in a different energy era, it is part of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which requires refiners to add biofuels to gasoline and diesel—ostensibly to reduce imports of foreign oil. This multi-headed hydra is siphoning money from consumers’ pockets.

The ethanol mandate has been blamed for rising food prices—particularly for beef and poultry—because it has increased the cost of animal feed. Ethanol-blended fuel provides fewer miles per gallon because ethanol contains only two-thirds as much energy as gasoline, forcing motorists to fill up more often.

The mandate puts at risk millions of vehicles owned and operated by private citizens and fleets. Ethanol is corrosive. In tests, it has been proven to eat engine components, including seals and gaskets, causing expensive repairs. The government does not reimburse motorists for their loss; rather it is allowing—in fact, encouraging—the sale of fuels containing more and more ethanol.

Most vehicles on the road today can withstand E10, a gasoline blend containing up to 10 percent ethanol, but the EPA has granted a “partial waiver” for the sale of 15 percent blends. AAA advises owners of non-flex-fuel vehicles to avoid E15, warning that manufacturers will void their warranties. Although the EPA maintains that 2001 model-year and newer vehicles can safely use E15, studies by the prestigious Coordinating Research Council found that E15 caused engine damage to some of the EPA-approved vehicles, leading to leaks and increased emissions.

Likewise, marine engine makers also caution boat owners to avoid E15. During winter storage, they suggest pouring a fuel stabilizer into built-in gas tanks to avoid problems. A survey of boat owners has shown ethanol-related repairs cost an average of about $1,000.

These days, ethanol has few friends. Opponents include such strange bedfellows as the petroleum, restaurant, livestock and auto industries—and environmental groups.

Despite government claims to the contrary, studies show ethanol also harms the environment. Earlier this year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) discovered the EPA grossly understated the amount of carbon spewed into the air by the expansion of corn farming. This month, the EWG found the corn-ethanol mandate is discouraging advanced biofuels development, which could have environmental benefits.

These are just some of the problems. There’s also the EPA’s complicated Renewable Identification Number (RIN) trading scheme, which allows refiners to buy ethanol credits when not enough is available for purchase. This poorly managed program has allowed phony ethanol companies to sell fictitious credits and abscond with millions of dollars. And then there were the huge fines levied against oil companies for failing to add cellulosic ethanol to gasoline although the advanced fuel did not exist in commercial quantities—even according to the EPA’s own data.

All of these costs have an impact on consumers who buy fuel and for taxpayers who pay the salaries of the bureaucrats who administer the RFS program. Yet the RFS continues to stumble along because Congress has not mustered the will to repeal it.

By November 30, the administration must finalize the amount of biofuels that must be blended into motor fuels in the next couple of years. A pitched battle is developing on Capitol Hill. On one side are those who want an even larger market share for ethanol. On the other side are those who see the program for what it is—a massive payout to one allegedly “green” industry.

The latter group includes more than 180 Washington lawmakers, including Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), who have sent a letter to the administration asking it to “limit the economic and consumer harm this program has already caused.” Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT.) was more direct. “We’ve got to just acknowledge that the corn-based mandate is a well-intended flop,” he said.

If their effort succeeds, it will not end ethanol production, as there is a free-market call for it. Energy Economist Tim Snyder, who was influential in developing many early ethanol plants, told me: “Regardless of the limits the EPA sets, or the fate of the RFS, we will continue to use ethanol as an additive to provide an adequate oxygenate for our fuel. Oxygenates are beneficial in reformulated fuels to reduce carbon monoxide and soot. Formerly we used lead. We replaced lead with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) then ethanol replaced MTBE. Ethanol was initially targeted as only a replacement for previous oxygenates, however, today with ethanol being 23 cents per gallon more expensive than NYMEX RBOB, the math doesn’t work and the need to increase blends of ethanol doesn’t meet the test of proper blending economics.”

Wisely, Ben Carson has figured out that government meddling in the marketplace is a bad idea. Contrary to conventional wisdom, his rejection of special treatment for ethanol is not hurting his campaign. Although the State of Iowa has made support for ethanol a litmus test for presidential candidates, polls conducted before and after the Oct. 28 debate, when he announced his revised view on ethanol, show Carson continues to rise in popularity nationally. Even the pro-ethanol lobby, using its semantic gymnastics, cannot dispute that fact.

Congress could learn from Carson’s positive poll numbers by once and for all ending the ethanol subsidies, er, mandates, without fearing political reprisal. Like Carson, doing so might even help Congress’ pitiful approval numbers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

Swickard: Hardening America's soft targets

We live in a violent world and as the above quote proclaims we are either the people defending ourselves with violence or we are made safe by rough people doing violence on our behalf. Sometimes we are not at the wrong place at the wrong time, but sometimes we are.

Worldwide terrorists intend to create terror in our hearts with violence. Again we are only safe from terrorists when rough people do violence on our behalf in neutralizing those of evil intent.

The terrorist attacks we have seen this year and especially in the last weeks have one message for Americans: soft targets are attractive to people who wish to harm Americans. America like Europe is full of soft targets. How can we harden our soft targets?

The definition of a soft target is a place where the people do not have a robust active defense. Examples are public schools and community areas. They are especially Gun Free Zones where citizens are prohibited from having a gun for defense. A lack of defense is very attractive to people who are going to break the law anyway.

To people who only have seconds to live, the police will be there in minutes. The attackers assume being able to shoot unarmed citizens is good. Occasionally attackers will strike and an off-duty policeman will end the attack because he or she is armed which the attacker did not know.

As I point out often to the opponents of having citizens be allowed a robust defense, the very nature of not having a defense is what motivates some attackers. It is not often that attackers decide to shoot up a police station. That doesn't end well for the attackers and they know it.

The hallmark of soft targets is that none of the victims can shoot back. All they can do is ask for mercy as the terrorists kill them. It does not seem terrorists are deep into mercy.

So terrorists seek soft targets because it is far easier to achieve their goals. That doesn't preclude that once in a while a high value target will have armed resistance. It means that armed resistance is the only way that the terrorists can be defeated and the helpless victims might survive.

The goal to defeat attackers who hit soft targets is to not make the defense easily identifiable. When Sky Marshalls were put on commercial airplanes incognito skyjackers did not know if the plane had a defender and more importantly, if the skyjacker was going to get their head blown off. That discouraged rational skyjackers.

That is the only real defense for our soft targets: the defense must be such that people of ill intent cannot spot the defense but they know it probably will be there and active. There is not easy defense when attackers are very motivated. Having someone with a gun standing there does not always work because the person showing a gun may be the first one attacked.

But in the audience at the music hall in Paris the attackers had no one opposing them until the police arrived much too late to save many of the victims. If at the moment of attack the terrorists were summarily shot by citizens, it might have saved many victims.

There is a great truth in a false quote that is repeated often by historians of World War Two. Probably the best military man of Japan, Admiral Isoroko Yamamoto studied at Harvard University and was part of a delegation that visited the U. S. Naval War College. He spoke English well.

A false Yamamoto quote often repeated: "You cannot invade the mainland United State. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." No, he didn't say it. But it is good advice to terrorists. In America there might be a rifle behind every blade of grass so leave us alone.

That will discourage or dispatch attackers. It is only by an active robust defense can we have any hope of being safe here in America.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Generations acting like suckers

I was smacked around a bit for saying last week in my column that young people are not acting smart about their future. The fact is that their future finances are being spent now by politicians therefore young Americans, some of whom are not even born yet, are going to be left holding an empty financial future.

When we are talking about young people who are of voting age this is even more egregious. Those young people could put a stop to the theft if they all worked together. Alas, not only are they not putting a stop to their future being stolen, they are actively handing to the thieves their valuables.

We are all responsible for our actions so mostly I protest for the young people not of age to vote or not even born yet. They are being pilfered without any way to resist. The mainstream media pushes the scam of politicians spending the future money as if it was a responsible action. In a word it is the national debt which must be paid back at some point yet there are no plans currently to do so.

How did we get to this place? The clever but morally corrupt people in our society are taking advantage of the citizens in our society who are not paying attention to the effect of printing money and borrowing money without any intention to pay that money back. Sadly even though clever politicians have stolen the young people's future financially most young people would vote for them again.

There is a term, "Grifter" which is used for someone who swindles using deception. That's our politicians. We refer to them as a con artist or a swindler or a scammer. In the future young citizens will live lesser lives because of what is stolen today.

At the coffee shop the question was asked: is this because of a collapse in public education? I do not think this is connected to education. Rather it is willful ignorance. Americans ignore data all the time to their detriment. Let me give you an example: a fantasy football betting operation is proudly touting that they will pay out two billion dollars this year. Wow, two billion dollars will be paid to the winners.

When many Americans hear that statistic they want some of that money. They do not stop to ask a pertinent question: where does the fantasy football betting company get the two billion dollars to pay winners?

The most common answer was that they have no idea where the money to pay out two billion dollars comes from. Well burro, the answer is it comes from those people who play the game and lose. In fact, collectively in the betting pool it is not two billion dollars lost it is more since betting operations make a profit.

Likewise Las Vegas, Nevada was built with people who came and left their money. Some people can see this fact while others either cannot or will not. These same people are also unable to realize if the government gives something to one citizen, they must take those resources away from another citizen.

And there is the Lottery which is viewed as good by most people. To be sure I am not against the Lottery since it is a tax on ignorance rather than some money you are compelled to send to the government against your will. The odds of winning are such that you are more likely to be struck by lightning.

And I even say that people should play the Lottery with this proviso: play with money you can afford to lose. Same for Las Vegas and fantasy football betting. But what about stealing the money from generations that will follow us? That is a horrible crime that is going unseen and unchecked.

The professed national debt is twenty trillion dollars while unfunded mandates are around a hundred twenty trillion dollars more. America has borrowed this money. The borrowed money must be repaid by someone eventually. The bill will come due in the future. Who will pay it? You know, the suckers.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: A warning to young people

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Let me speak gently to the young people of our country. Someday in the future each of you may discover this column and be forced to admit you were warned by me and others about what was going to happen to you and your generation's wealth.

Your future wealth is being spent today without your permission. When you figure it all out the ones stealing your future will already be gone. And you will have no one still alive to blame but yourselves.

Most young people are self-absorbed and feel superior to us geezers and geezerettes. Truth be told, that's how I felt fifty years ago when I got advice from the oldsters of my generation. The politicians of today are counting on the young people remaining clueless.

The greatest generation who fought the Second World War did not always think about their possible grandchildren and how the changes in the geo-political world would help or hinder those unborn children. They were trying to bring our world out of chaos and return peace to all people instead of war.

We have lived most of seventy years afterwards without a catastrophic world war. At the same time over those years politicians came to realize they could steal the future wealth of young people without a protest.

What is going to happen to the next generations is truly unprecedented. The theft of their future is happening today and no one really cares that they will live lesser lives because of my generation. Well, I care, hence this column.

In 1960, when I was ten years old President Eisenhower and Congress ran a tight ship financially. There were very little in the way of deficits. Over the ensuring years more and more debt was absorbed first by Social Security and then by the Federal Reserve just printing money.

Currently the professed national debt is twenty trillion dollars or about sixty thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in our nation. There is no intention by the current national leadership to reduce that debt. It will come due. Who will pay it? The debt has been allowed to grow unchecked.

Truth for the young people in our country is that the wealth for that debt will come from their generation. That is the sad truth. Each day we are spending for the purpose of politics the future wealth of our children and grandchildren. And those future citizens cannot stop the theft.

Voting people into office seems to not make any difference. The media puts our attention to important items such as the cost of a Taylor Swift dress. The future of our young people does not look rosy.

Yes, our young people have youth which is a blessing many do not realize and will only understand as it leaves them. The young have all of their fellow youth who are determined to remain as ignorant as possible. They will not vote because they do not see a reason to do so.

Years from now the young people of that future generation, if honest with themselves, will see why our generation should have stopped the theft of their future wealth. Today, despite this being the information age they are caught without the education to understand the effect of our political actions on their future. The blush of youth makes them think they are on top of their problems. They are not.

Money is taken from one person to buy the vote of another. Worse, it is taken from future generations to buy votes now. I have protested this theft many times but rarely do I find any of the next generation who pay the slightest attention to that theft of their future wealth.

The day of reckoning will come for the incredible debt and unfunded liabilities. In fifty years that went from zero to one hundred twenty trillion dollars. Someone will pick up the tab for all of that vote buying and it is going to be coming generations.

Don't say you were not warned. Vote for those who will address the financial crisis, not the ones promising to give you things for your votes. But I guess you will learn this lesson someday.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Their First Day in America

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. On this last day of October every year I like to tell the same story. It is about perception and cultural diversity. The story was told to me by a friend named John who was an Immigration Intake Counselor for the Vietnamese Boat People in Long Beach, California in the 1970s.

These refugees came to America from South Vietnam before the war ended in April of 1975 and afterwards. Many refugees fled knowing that if the North Vietnamese caught them it would be death. After the country was reunited and was just Vietnam there still was quite a flow of Vietnamese who came to America.

My friend John spoke their language well because he served two tours of duty in South Vietnam in an organization, the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam referred to as MACV. Rather than being in an American unit, his job was to live in small villages and help the South Vietnam soldiers of those areas.

From two years of living among the villagers his speech, accent and understanding of their culture was excellent. At the intake center in Long Beach his job was to walk around helping the people coming through the center with what they needed to do.

For these people who had until then lived their whole life in Vietnam, it was their very first day in America. Almost all of the people did not speak English. John tried to show them that America was a good place and the immigrants were safer in America than they had been in their homeland.

John liked to sit in his office next to the main walkway. He would listen to the people as they walked by chatter excitedly about how wonderful it was to be in America. He heard many times how the people were glad and grateful they made it safely to America.

The first thing each morning John would work on daily reports and paperwork to the music of these people walking by talking happily about being in America. That was except for one day. John was busy working on paperwork when he became aware that the people outside his office were agitated. And they were not happy.

He looked up from his desk and saw their frightened unhappy faces walking by as they talked excitedly. This was very unusual and out of character for the refugees.

John stepped quickly to the door and tried to catch their conversation. To his surprise he heard some say they were going to kill the headmaster for talking them into coming to this terrible and evil land. Several said the Communists were right about how awful it was in America.

John was in shock. He had never heard anything like this before from the people and could not spot the problem. Another group was saying the same things. Frantically John made his way through the crowd. The normally happy people were sullen and pulled back from him.

He tried to speak to several groups of people, but they did not reply and moved away. What a mystery since usually they were so very glad to find an American who spoke their language.

On his way to the office to report this amazing change of behavior his American perception came into focus with his time in Vietnam. While he had not participated in a quaint American tradition, he suddenly noticed the center's staff had decorated the center for Halloween. He remembered that the Vietnamese do not celebrate Halloween.

Many Americans in the center were dressed in costume. The Vietnam people's first view of a real American that day turned out to be a woman dressed to the hilt as an evil witch with purple skin and green hair.

It was touch and go the next hour as John and other counselors explained to the immigrants that this was merely a charming and quaint American tradition. At last everyone settled down and the happy chatter returned somewhat, though he heard several groups comment that Americans seemed to be good people but sometimes did crazy things.

The Vietnamese immigrants have quite a story to tell about the very first day they spent in America since they happened to arrive on Halloween.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Voting for a different future

Around New Mexico this next week are municipal elections not to be confused with the general elections held this same time next year. Having municipal elections on an off year from the general elections can be both good and bad: good because we citizens can concentrate on just the town or city leaders as a whole and bad because voting at times is less than ten percent of the population.

How can anyone think they got a mandate "from the people" when nine out of ten of their constituents made the decision to not vote? These elections are not about who is going to be the next councilor or mayor, they are about how people will live in our little slice of heaven in the next generation.

The decisions that are made in the next few years will not be widely known by people fifty years from now. But those people so very far in the future will either live better or worse lives because of the actions of politicians today. People who are not born yet will prosper or not because of our votes to elect differing people.

People talk about the "Get out the vote" efforts. Personally, I do not care if people vote. If you have to be told to vote, I do not care if you do. If you are just pulling levers for the sake of pulling levers so we can say a higher percentage voted, please do not vote.

More so, if the difference between people running for office is cosmetic rather than a test of policy, again, stay home and vote for American Idol. We should not spend our time trying to get people registered and to the polls. We should spend our time getting people to care. That starts with getting people of character and integrity to run. If potential voters believe in those running, they will register and vote.

What do I hope for this election? I hope that the people of character and integrity in each race win, regardless of party affiliation or if they are the incumbent. I hope the will of the people triumphs over voter fraud, regardless of who wins.

I hope that the next generation of leaders tackles the problems of the local community in an effective way so that long-term solutions work. I hope whoever is elected understands political solutions only work for political problems. They should never use political solutions for anything else.

After the votes are counted, I hope that the animosity that is so unbecoming of our society is lifted. Vote if you care. If you do not care, please stay home and watch the stars dance

I started watching elections when Kennedy and Nixon ran. I was just a kid. Then there was Goldwater Johnson. On election night we finally had a television that I got to stay up and watch. On the Nixon Humphrey election night I was a freshman in college and sat in the lobby of the dorm watching television and wondering what the future would bring. My first chance to vote was Nixon McGovern.

Somewhere in a box I have an "I like Ike" button that represents one of the high points of my political life. Ike was admired by my Mom and Dad so I admired him, too.

Some of the people I have the most respect for are politicians. Elections are like West Point, about character and integrity. The service academies concentrate on character development and personal integrity as should our elections.

We have spent quite a bit of time on what swag the politicians will give us for our vote. We do not really know what challenges our next crop of leaders will face. Therefore, this election is not about solutions to things that have already happened. It is about the future.

We know that people of character and integrity will do better in moments of crisis. We know that there will be chaos and crisis during the next several years. We know that, for the sake of our country, we should vote character and integrity.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

Swickard: Being foolishly fuelish because of politicians

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. This last week I was moderator of a local candidate forum. While we talked about taxes and how unfriendly the business climate seems in my little slice of heaven, there was something else that makes me see red every day.

While many people do not think of it I am offended that I must buy ethanol in my gasoline. About five years ago the environmental operatives in Santa Fe succeeded in forcing the adoption of ethanol laced gasoline by everyone in New Mexico.

I have three major objections to being forced to use E10 gasoline. First, the BTU (energy) content of E10 is not as high as regular gasoline, so I surrender gas mileage. I already drive carefully and under the speed limit to boost gas mileage. However, I do not want to spend money foolishly. Also ethanol is very corrosive to older engines and therefore causes older vehicles problems.

Second, the use of the food crop corn to make fuel raises the price of corn-based food since the production of corn for food competes with the federally subsidized ethanol production. Farmers weigh the value of producing corn for food or for fuel where they get a federal ethanol subsidy.

The reduction of corn in our food chain increases the cost of food both for humans and for animal feed. Increasing the cost of feeding animals results in higher animal-based food costs to consumers.

Taxpayers subsidize the production of ethanol, which in turn raises the cost of our food. While food cost is not a problem for me, I do not want to spend the extra money needlessly. Importantly, the escalating food costs are very problematic for fragile families worldwide.

More so, this artificial increase in food prices have causes riots in Mexico and in other countries with large populations who are mired in poverty, since the increase in food prices is very real to those people and quite catastrophic. There is no reason their corn-based food should increase in price.

And third, closer to home, New Mexico uses its oil and gas industry to fund education. The use of E10 fuels subtracts money from our schools because the ten percent of ethanol used in gasoline is mainly produced in the “corn belt.” So ten percent of the money that could go to schools is stolen by politicians.

I have no objection to E10 being sold. Anyone who wants to drive with E10, or E85 for that matter, is free to do so. My objection is that E10 is forced upon me with no chance to get gasoline without ethanol.

While advocates claim ethanol is cleaner burning I am not convinced it is critical when compared to the harm done to food production and New Mexico schools. Plus, the production of ethanol has many polluting compounds so we are just moving where pollution is occurring.

One advantage of being older is having been through lots of things. In 1973 I suddenly found that the national speed limit was politically being lowered in theory to save fuel. The 1974 Federal Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act put the national speed limit to fifty-five in some areas and in some states the top speed was limited to fifty miles an hour.

For most of fifteen years the national speed was fifty-five and it wasn't until the late 1980s that the speed limit came up a bit and in 1995 the federal law establishing the speed limit was repealed allowing each state to set its own limits.

This was not sold to the people, it was imposed, much like having to buy gasoline that is ten percent ethanol is imposed upon us rather than sold. Likewise if I wish to drive the double nickel which is what the fifty-five mph limit was called, no one is stopping me. In years past when ethanol was available but not exclusive, people could buy it or not.

But I cannot find anyone even talking about being forced to be fuelish and suffer the problems that ethanol causes older engines. It is not pretty if you have an older vehicle. Let's not send our money to the corn belt any longer. Send that money to our public schools.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

21st century journalism different yet much the same

Photo by Michael Swickard, 1969

Because of changes in technology, journalism today is different than when I first started, but it is also much the same. The stories are still the stories regardless if ink is used or a blog. The quality of information is most important. The window dressing may impress some people, but the story better have a good lead.

I got into journalism via photo-journalism. My father taught at the Air Force School of Photography. We had a darkroom at home. He taught me the school's curriculum so I was a good photographer by high school.

This last weekend I was on a panel talking about journalism and the student newspaper at New Mexico State University. It no longer is acting like a traditional print newspaper of the past.

A student newspaper has two broad functions: first, as a learning lab for students who want to become journalists and secondly as a watchdog on the student government and college management. Both functions are critical and it's obvious every public university needs an independent news source.

On the panel were three currently working journalists who fairly recently worked on the student newspaper in the past and myself who had been a photographer, cartoonist and columnist over the years. How I got into journalism: at a high school basketball game I took a picture my father thought was good. I had several for the student newspaper. He picked this one out and said, "Take that down to the local paper, they may buy it."

I left it at the counter of the newspaper with my name. A day later my photograph was on the sports page with the caption, "Photo by Sports Editor Stan Green." I went down to straighten this out. At the front counter I explained the picture was mine. The secretary said, "You must be mistaken."

There was a clinching argument: I pointed out to the secretary that to one side in the picture was Stan Green standing with his camera as the player went by. Mr. Green came out of his office laughing. "I saw myself in that picture and wondered who in blazes shot it?" I was invited to be a photo stringer.

In 1967 the Alamogordo Daily News was typeset via hot type in the way newspapers had been set for more than a hundred years. Over the last forty years journalism and media have changed entirely.

There are fewer daily and weekly newspapers. But there are more news organizations with all of the connections via the Internet. In 1968 when I started as a photographer at the NMSU student newspaper both the photography and newspaper printing were essentially much as they had been for many decades. More important, it was likely that the technology of journalism was going to remain the same when I graduated and got a job.

What I realized sitting with those working journalists is that 21st century journalism is different yet much is the same as I experienced at college. Ultimately however the information gets to consumers there is still the requirement words make sense. Sentences must adhere to principles of grammar and spelling.

And the purpose of journalism is still as it was when Bob Woodward worked as a team with Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post to report on the Watergate scandal. The downfall of President Richard Nixon was achieved by relentless investigative reporting.

It was what started many careers in journalism over the decades with the realization that a free press was all that kept us Americans free. That is more so now than then.

Journalism at universities will continue. I wish students going into the field of journalism were better educated in statistics, economics and history along with all of the other things they must learn about the new Internet opportunities.

And like me through decades of journalism the next generation students must have a thick hide as the powerful elites try to squash them. We consumers need the next generation of journalists to be as strong as Bob Woodward if we are to remain free.

Email: drswickard@comcast.net

News New Mexico

Total Pageviews

Archives

Michael Swickard's new novel about New Mexico

Swickard: Each year has a lesson to teach

Swickard: When it is too early for formal public schooling

Swickard: Free college or free students from college?

Swickard: The flaw in hating flawed leaders

Swickard: Thanksgiving is an Immigrant holiday

Marita Noon: Ethanol loses its few friends

Swickard: Hardening America's soft targets

Swickard: Generations acting like suckers

Swickard: A warning to young people

Swickard: Their First Day in America

Swickard: Voting for a different future

Swickard: Being foolishly fuelish because of politicians

21st century journalism different yet much the same

Understanding Power Dynamics

News New Mexico Search

New Mexico News Sites

Followers

Total Pageviews

Archives

Michael Swickard's new novel about New Mexico

Understanding Power Dynamics

Subscribe To News New Mexico

News New Mexico Search

New Mexico News Sites

Followers