
Marita Noon: The Pope, climate change and VW
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Monday, September 28, 2015
Commentary by Marita Noon - While
Pope Francis was shuttled around during his historic visit to the U.S. in a
Fiat, he shared the news cycle with Volkswagen.
The
pope made headlines with his calls for action on climate change. USA Today
touted: “Obama, Pope
Francis praise each other on climate change.” In his September 23 speech from
the White House lawn, the Pope addressed President Obama saying: “I find it
encouraging that you are introducing an initiative for reducing air pollution.”
Addressing that comment, Business Insider added:
“He praised President Barack Obama for his proposals, which aim for the US to
cut emissions by up to 28% over the next decade.”
The
core of the entire climate change agenda is the reduction of carbon dioxide
emissions which proponents like to call “air pollution.” It comes from sources
we can’t control: volcanoes; sources we can kind-of control: forest fires
(better forest management would result in fewer fires) and human beings
exhaling (reduce the population, reduce CO2 emissions); and sources
we can control: the use of fossil fuels (we can virtually outlaw them as
several countries, including the U.S., are trying to do).
The
drive to cut CO2 emissions is at the root of Volkswagen’s
unprecedented scandal that broke last week, resulting in the CEO’s
abrupt ouster on September 23—the day that Pope Francis’ U.S. visit went into
full swing.
With
nonstop coverage of the papal activities—including his Fiat
Popemobile—the
Volkswagen story was likely lost on most Americans. But it is not going away.
On
September 18, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency disclosed the scandal: Europe’s biggest auto maker, with 600,000
employees world-wide and 300,000 in Germany, utilized software on some VW
and Audi diesel-powered cars to
manipulate the results of routine emissions tests—allowing them pass strict
emissions standards in Europe and the U.S. The “defeat devices” have reportedly
been fitted to more than 11 million vehicles since 2008 and may cost Volkswagen
up to $18
billion in fines in the U.S. alone. Owners of the impacted vehicles will need to
have a heretofore unavailable “fix” installed and may have to provide a “proof
of correction certificate” in order to renew their registration and will suffer
“loss due to the diminished value of the cars.” As a result of the scandal,
Volkswagen’s stock price and reputation have both fallen precipitously, and
class-action lawsuits
are already taking shape. Fund managers have been banned from buying VW’s
stocks and bonds. Tens of thousands of new cars may remain unsold. USNews
stated:
“Whoever is responsible could face criminal charges in Germany.”
The question no one seems to be asking is: what would drive
Europe’s biggest auto maker to make such a costly decision, to take a risk,
from which it may be impossible to recover, and tarnish the “made-in-Germany
brand”?
While the question isn’t asked, Reuters coverage
of the story offers the answer: “Diesel engines use less fuel and emit less
carbon—blamed for global warming—than standard gasoline engines. But they emit
higher levels of toxic gases known as nitrogen oxides.”
In short, the answer is the drive to lower CO2 emissions and the
policies that encourage reduction.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, mindful of
their commitments to cut carbon emissions, Europe’s governments embarked on a
prolonged drive to convert their car fleets from gasoline to diesel. With generous
use of tax preferences, they succeeded. In the European Union as a whole,
diesel vehicles now account for more than half of the market. In France, the
first country to cross that threshold, diesel now accounts for roughly 80
percent of motor-fuel consumption.
What was the reasoning? Diesel contains
more carbon than gasoline, but diesel engines burn less fuel: Net, switching to
diesel ought to give you lower emissions of greenhouse gases. However, there’s
a penalty in higher emissions of other pollutants, including particulates and
nitrogen oxides, or NOx. Curbing those emissions requires expensive
modifications to cars’ exhaust systems. To facilitate the switch, Europe made
its emission standards for these other pollutants less stringent for diesel engines
than for gasoline engines. The priority, after all, was to cut greenhouse
gases.
If
anyone could solve the dilemma, one would expect it to be the Germans, who
excel in engineering feats. It is Germany that is touted as the world leader in
all things green. The reality of achieving the goals, however, is far more
difficult than passing the legislation calling for the energy transformation.
Addressing
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s push for de-carbonization, BloombergBusiness
Points out: “Merkel has built a reputation as a climate crusader during a
decade as Chancellor.” She “has straddled between pushing to reduce global
warming while protecting her country’s auto industry.”
Merkel
is, apparently, bumping up against reality. After shutting down its nuclear
power plants, Germany has had to rely more on coal. BloombergBusiness
continues: “She successfully helped block tighter EU carbon emissions standards
two years ago.” Those tighter emissions standards would have hurt Germany’s
auto industry, which accounts for 1 in 7 jobs in the country and 20 percent of
its exports. At last week’s Frankfurt
Auto Show
Merkel said: “We have to ensure politically that what’s doable can indeed be
translated into law, but what’s not doable mustn’t become European law.”
Evidence
suggests the issue “could be industry-wide.” CNBC reports: “several major
companies having exposure to the same diesel technology.” BMW’s stock price
plunged, according to BloombergBusiness:
“after a report that a diesel version of the X3 sport utility vehicle emitted
more than 11 times the European limit for air pollution in a road test.” The Financial
Times quotes Stuart Pearson, an analyst at Exane BNP Paribas, as saying: VW was
“unlikely to have been the only company to game the system globally.” And an
October 2014 study, cited in BloombergBusiness, claims that “road tests
of 15 new diesel cars were an average of seven times higher than European
limits.”
The
VW emissions scandal is more than just a “‘bad episode’ for the car industry,”
as Germany’s vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, called it. It provides
a lesson in the collision of economic and environmental policies that strive to
reach goals, which are presently technologically unachievable—a lesson that
regulators and policy makers have yet to learn.
The
Los Angeles Times (LAT) reports:
“Regulators have ordered Volkswagen to come up with a fix that allows vehicles
to meet environmental regulations.” If it were that easy, even economically
possible, the much-vaunted German engineering could have solved the problem
instead of developing technology that found a way around the rules. LAT concludes:
“automotive experts believe any repair will diminish the driving dynamics of
the vehicles and slash fuel economy—the two major characteristics that
attracted buyers.”
The
fact that, while waving the flag of environmental virtue advocated by Pope
Francis, those, with the world’s best engineering at their fingertips, had to
use the expertise to develop a work-around should serve as a lesson to
policymakers who pass legislation and regulation on ideology rather than
reality.
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: The arrogance of educational leadership
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 27, 2015
![]() |
Education leaders are like King Arthur |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. Facts are easy. When I was doing
Talk Radio a few years ago I always had a computer in front of me. When there
was a question, the computer provided information quickly. The talking points were
in front of me.
Educational leaders in public
schools say they are teaching thinking but from what I see students spend much
of their time on memorization and how to take tests. Why are we spending so
much time and testing effort essentially teaching test preparation?
Years from now education pundits
will wail, "How could all of those supposedly educated educational leaders
in 2015 be so stupid?" They were stupid because they were overcome with
their arrogance and power.
Example: Picture a superintendent of
a large school district explaining being in charge. The person says, "The Lady
of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur
from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I was to
carry Excalibur. That is why I am your superintendent."
Well, that may have come from a Monty Python movie, but it is a fine example of the arrogance of leaders. There
is no arguing with the leaders. I know because I have tried, but they have
Excalibur, etc.
A college department that certifies
superintendents and principals was the department where I got my Ph.D. so I am
quite familiar with what these educational leaders are taught. For a while after
my 1998 graduation I was an adjunct faculty in that department. Some current
leaders and teachers were in my classes.
Recently I was exasperated with a
principal who I had in class years ago. The end of the conversation was,
"You are not doing any of the things we taught you to do as an educational
leader nor are you using research to guide you." This person answered,
"But I am legally in charge so I can do what I want."
There are two main contentions of
the current public education management: First, that increased management will always
improve educational outcomes and, the change agent for learning is entirely
teachers. Both are wrong but we, as a society, have put our money and power in
the hands of administrators.
We have an administrator-centric
system where everything is about administrators. Every administrator hired
comes up with more administrative requirements to where teachers I am in
contact with say they no longer teach, they just work making data sheets for
administrators so the administrators can hire more administrators to make more
teacher requests.
But are we improving education? More
importantly, will the improvement be useful when these students are adults. Public
Education is not supposed to be an end in itself for school children; it is the
living of life as an adult that ultimately matters.
The U. S. Department of Health and
Human Services in 2012 had a report that indicated the Federal Program, Head
Start, had many immediate benefits for students but those benefits did not appear
to last into adulthood. The program has gone for five decades so there is a lasting
problem. Childhood leads to adulthood and that is what we should value.
Ultimately what we do for children needs to improve their lives as adults.
The mania is teaching the test so
administrators can game the test and then show on accountability reports that
schools are doing well. But the report of schools doing well will not help students
when they become adults. In fact, this disconnects students from schools.
As a society we need lifelong
learners. What students need to become a lifelong learner is curiosity and support
for their own individual curiosity of all things. However, the schools don't seem
to want curiosity in their classrooms, rather, they want compliant little
robots who do what they are told.
Each year we need to bolster the
curiosity of students, give them literate and numerate tools to satisfy their
curiosity. They will become lifelong learners. Almost all of the real education
in a person's lifetime is self learning.
Teachers are just there to help
students learn to teach themselves. We need to think of the learners and not
the educational leaders who have a cottage industry.

Swickard: The arrogance of educational leadership
Let's look the other way!
Posted by
Jim Spence
on Friday, September 25, 2015
Predictably, the Clinton defenders are out in droves. Why? Because Hillary Clinton is picking up where Bill left off. Surprise surprise, we have……a scandal. Here is a list of a dozen things that Democrats want voters to ignore:
- Ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton was running the State Department she broke laws and exposed classified material to unsecured sites.
- We should ignore the fact that she intentionally and unlawfully transmitted classified and confidential information crucial to our national defense through an unsecured, private e-mail system to people (Sidney Blumenthal) with no security clearance.
- We should ignore the fact that she negligently stored confidential national defense information on unsecured and unauthorized private devices, including a server located in the bathroom of a loft apartment in Denver.
- In short, we should simply ignore the fact that she committed federal crimes that would have sent others to jail and to jail quickly.
- We should ignore the fact that she initially tried to cover up the fact that she sent and received classified information on her civilian account even though this reality is now beyond dispute.
- We should ignore the fact that she mishandled information from U.S. Africa Command detailing “Libyan troop strength and movements.”
- We should ignore the fact that she stored this information on a private, unsecured server, and transmitted it on a private, unsecured Smartphone.
- We should ignore the fact that she intentionally did not use the State Department’s standard, secure device.
- We should ignore the fact that she first said she’s innocent because she never sent or received classified e-mails. Then adjusted the defense to say with information that was “marked” classified.
- We should ignore the fact that every single federal employee who handles classified information including the Secretary of State and her administrative assistants are required to protect both “marked and unmarked” classified information.
- We should ignore the fact that she and all of her employees signed a classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement that clearly states this responsibility, a responsibility that’s not just a legal mandate, but is also a matter of sheer common sense.
- We should ignore the fact that Mrs. Clinton knew all of this despite pretending she is stupid about this one thing.
Have enough things to ignore? Try a five more:
- We should ignore the law that says the “proper place of custody” for the classified and even unclassified national defense information is a secure government server, computer, or Smartphone.
- We should ignore the fact that she displayed “gross negligence” in placing classified information on civilian servers.
- We should ignore the fact that she displayed gross negligence in keeping classified information on her personal Smartphone. And ignore the fact that she displayed gross negligence when she handed that same information to her own lawyer.
- We should ignore the fact that many others have gone to jail for failing to respect and obey these laws.
- We should ignore the fact that it may take years to determine the full extent of the damage Clinton did to our national defense.

And finally, we should ignore all of this because she is a Democrat. And we all know dozens of Democrats personally, who will indeed ignore all of this.

Let's look the other way!
Violence against teachers gets worse every year
Posted by
Jim Spence
on Thursday, September 24, 2015
Though he never mentioned him by name, my idol, Walter Williams explained why America needs to elect Ben Carson president.
In a recent column, Williams talked about violence against teachers in our schools. Williams speaks of counselors of teachers in public schools treating teachers (not soldiers) for PTSD. The conclusion is our school’s are now war zones. The evidence is overwhelming. In Philadelphia schools employ close to 400 school police officers. Police are everywhere at every school. In my hometown of Baltimore, each school day in 2010, an average of four teachers and staff were assaulted. Nationally, an average of 1,175 teachers and staff were physically attacked each day of the 2011-12 school year.
In a recent column, Williams talked about violence against teachers in our schools. Williams speaks of counselors of teachers in public schools treating teachers (not soldiers) for PTSD. The conclusion is our school’s are now war zones. The evidence is overwhelming. In Philadelphia schools employ close to 400 school police officers. Police are everywhere at every school. In my hometown of Baltimore, each school day in 2010, an average of four teachers and staff were assaulted. Nationally, an average of 1,175 teachers and staff were physically attacked each day of the 2011-12 school year.
What is the Obama administration solution to the schools becoming war zones? It sent all the school districts in the country a letter warning them to avoid "racial bias" when suspending or expelling students.
Obama thinks this violence against school teachers is about race. However, we did not begin to have this violence problem until 50 years ago. Discrimination was a larger problem BEFORE all this violence began to snowball. As discrimination has diminished, violence has escalated. Still, Obama's Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed that racial discrimination in the administration of discipline is "a real problem today." This is the big lie that continues to destroy our country.
The question is simple: Why are black “leaders” accepting violent behavior that allows schools to become war zones. The answer is pretty simple. It is a complete lack of respect, let alone admiration for, the attitudes embraced by Ben Carson's mother. These are the attitudes and behaviors that produced a John’s Hopkins neurosurgeon like Carson.
No, instead Obama and the rest of the Democrats have redefined what constitutes acceptable behavior in the black community. They have put schools on notice to tolerate black violence against school teachers. Violence is not the problem in their eyes. In their eyes racism is the problem. Accordingly, they feel compelled to convince all young blacks that destructive behavior is explainable by racism.
We need an impressive man who has accomplished great things (not a speech maker) to deliver the message to the black community that we are no longer going to give a slap on the wrists to people who assault school teachers. We will NEVER see that kind of tough love from any Democrat. What you will get from Democrats is the toleration of more and more violence against teachers.
The fact that the school violence problem is worsening is directly attributable to Comrade Obama as are most of the other ills this nation suffers from. Nobody can name a single thing that is better under Obama. Healthcare, the Middle East, border security, real wages, and race relations are all worse.
![]() |
Walter Williams |
The question is simple: Why are black “leaders” accepting violent behavior that allows schools to become war zones. The answer is pretty simple. It is a complete lack of respect, let alone admiration for, the attitudes embraced by Ben Carson's mother. These are the attitudes and behaviors that produced a John’s Hopkins neurosurgeon like Carson.
No, instead Obama and the rest of the Democrats have redefined what constitutes acceptable behavior in the black community. They have put schools on notice to tolerate black violence against school teachers. Violence is not the problem in their eyes. In their eyes racism is the problem. Accordingly, they feel compelled to convince all young blacks that destructive behavior is explainable by racism.
We need an impressive man who has accomplished great things (not a speech maker) to deliver the message to the black community that we are no longer going to give a slap on the wrists to people who assault school teachers. We will NEVER see that kind of tough love from any Democrat. What you will get from Democrats is the toleration of more and more violence against teachers.
The fact that the school violence problem is worsening is directly attributable to Comrade Obama as are most of the other ills this nation suffers from. Nobody can name a single thing that is better under Obama. Healthcare, the Middle East, border security, real wages, and race relations are all worse.

Violence against teachers gets worse every year
A long line of Catholics
Posted by
Jim Spence
on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
The Spence family descends from a long line of Catholics. John S. Spence the bishop being perhaps the most noteworthy. Pope Francis the leader of the faith that is directly traced to the disciples of Jesus has crossed lines into hypocrisy that puts Jimmy Swaggert and the Reverend Jim Baker to shame.

Let's give some thought to wealth accumulation. According to Time magazine bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at around $10 billion to $15 billion. Vatican Italian stock holdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican also has big global investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, and real estate. Massive dividend and rental income streams combined with tithes from their customers helps pay for Vatican expenses. The Church is well diversified like any corporate giant. It also holds billions in gold bars in Swiss banks. Its art collection is priceless. Visit Vatican City and witness a portfolio of the most ornate architecture and accessories possibly imaginable.

Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on all of its income and capital gains, a model the Clintons have taken a liking to for their "foundation."
These days it is a regular occurrence to hear this pope spout Marxist principles in a way that attempts to position him and his corporate lieutenants in a position of moral superiority when compared to the rest of the "greedy" world. His primary virtue seems to be that he does not like the fact that for-profit companies CEO’s tend to behave exactly as he does when doling out high living standards to the accomplished clergy in his corporation.
No wonder Democrats like this guy.

A long line of Catholics
Swickard: Trying to impair the urge to be impaired
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 20, 2015

The rest of us had to wait through another
light cycle. I suspect several drivers went back to their cell phones while waiting.
It made me think of the good old days of driving when there were fewer
distractions. However, it is a fact there have always been things that
distracted drivers from their task with the road.
In the 1970s while working for a
television station I went to the scene of a wreck and was talking to a driver
who confessed the wreck was the fault of his cigar. "My cigar slipped out
of my mouth and fell into my lap." he explained. Evidently the fire in his
lap caused him to take his attention off the road. Bam!
Paul and Joseph Galvin were the
developers of car radios around 1930. Once installed, the radio gave the joy of
entertainment but was one more reason for drivers to take their eyes off the
road. It is hard to estimate how many people have died because of car radios.
There have also been beverages. One
morning while leaving a small town I was holding a convenience store cup of fresh
coffee. Concurrent to increasing my speed I was adjusting the radio when I
looked up and a fellow in bib-overalls on a tractor was suddenly in front of
me.
Out of instinct I clutched the paper
coffee cup while applying the brakes thereby pouring very hot coffee all over myself.
The rest of the day I had massive coffee stains but our guardian angels kept us
from colliding.
It seems to me that now our society
has many more distracted drivers. Years ago primarily it was people who drank
and drove that killed thousands upon thousands of people. In just the last ten
years the distractibility index has zoomed. With the advent of cell phones,
texting and video on demand it's a wonder that some young people and some not
so young people are still alive.
Part of the problem is knowing why
vehicles collide. Often it is that the orbits and trajectories of the vehicles
violate the law of not trying to occupy the same space at the same time. At
least the textbook way of driving says running into things is a drag.
There are many theories on how to
stop distracted driving. We see several broad categories of impairment:
alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation and physical distractions. These impairments
are facts.
Wherever you were last night,
somewhere near you someone was behind the wheel of a car and was impaired. All
good theories on how to combat such activity have a prescriptive component: If
we as a society do this, then that will happen.
Some impaired drivers are caught,
adjudicated and incarcerated. Many more offend day after week after month after
year. We wake to headlines proclaiming a family was slaughtered by an impaired
driver. The media captures the offender's sad face when realizing the effect of
their actions.
The major impairment theory in America
is that threats of a penalty will change behavior. The penalties for impaired
driving have been increasing as politicians stand before the cameras and
proclaim that they have a solution for this scourge: they will pass tougher and
tougher penalties.
Can we as a society be tough? Can we
elevate the penalties for impaired driving to the point that it disappears? For
example, what if we took away a driver’s license for five years on a first
offense? Second time, forever and ever. Would that work?
The problem is that every weekend even
after twenty-five years of DWI heavy enforcement there are people still being
caught. Maybe texting while driving should automatically forfeit the car and serve
time in jail. Are we tough enough to be that tough? Or have we become too soft
to act? We must impair the urge to be impaired while driving.

Swickard: Trying to impair the urge to be impaired
Clinton sympathy for sexual assault accusers is touching
Posted by
Jim Spence
on Tuesday, September 15, 2015
You have to admit. These Clintons have brass. I would say
Bill has a big set of brass balls, but the blue dress sort made them all too
real instead.

Oh really?
Consider Juanita Broaddrick who alleged Bill Clinton had
raped her in 1978. Trashed by Hill.
Consider Paula Jones who claimed Clinton sexually harassed
her while he was governor of Arkansas. Trashed by Hill.
Consider alleged sexual assault victim Kathleen Willey. Back
in 1993 she accused then sitting President Bill Clinton, of sexually assaulting
her in the White House. Trashed by Hill and her decency questioned.
Consider the case of Monica Lewinsky. Any young intern who
was used for sexual favors by an older executive is the victim of a predator.
That would be the thoughts of most mature adults. Not Hillary. Hillary laid
Lewinsky to filth too and once again gave Slick Willy a free pass.
These are the ones we know of.
Kathleen Willey was fuming when asked about her reaction to
Hillary's feigned concern for sexual assault victims. According to the American Mirror Willey had this to say: “She (Hillary) believed what happened for sure. She just
chose to ignore the plight of all of his victims, thus enabling him to continue
to abuse and rape women in the future. She’s a money-hungry hypocritical witch
who will do anything for money. She’s a lying pig. I cannot believe that she
had the gall to make that commercial. How dare she? I hope she rots in hell.“
OJ I think I am going to mark Willey down in the insincere camp when it comes to evaluating the veracity of Hillary's feelings.
For sure one sexual assault is one too many. However, for
Hillary the idea that they are suddenly at epidemic levels is a convenient
narrative that might help her rally all the girls in the U.S. behind her and
her amazing concerns for them.

Clinton sympathy for sexual assault accusers is touching
Place names for those honored and not forgotten
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 13, 2015
![]() |
Professor Marion Hardman |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. One person in college made me a
writer. Previously I had resisted every effort to make me a competent writer
while in public school. At college I was a good photographer, radio announcer
and television director but not much of a writer by choice.
Last week was the dedication of a
lecture hall at New Mexico State University. One of the names on the building
is Marion Hardman who passed away years ago but is alive in my writing. Here is
what happened:
In 1970, as a sophomore at NMSU, my
advisor said, "You'll never graduate if you don’t take English Literature."
I replied, "I’ll take it, but no one can make me like poetry."
Marion Hardman was listed as the
professor. Looking like someone’s grandmother, Professor Hardman stood at the
lectern the first day and through thick glasses softly called the roll. She
seemed frail and out of touch with the modern age.
I looked at my watch impatiently.
Then oddly an hour went by without my notice and she ended the first class. She
began by saying, "Many of you young people are worried about the Vietnam
War which is being fought as we speak."
She had my attention. I was in Air
Force Reserve Officer Training Corps and thought often about the Vietnam War.
She said, "A little more than a hundred years ago Walt Whitman had many of
the same thoughts that you are having today."
Then from memory she quoted some of
the Whitman poetry. Despite my resolve to not learn poetry, I was mesmerized.
When the class ended I was enthused. I have never seen anyone transformed so
completely.
The Professor Hardman that ended the
class could leap tall buildings in a single bound. We hung on her words,
everyone in the class. I wish you could have heard her. She had the ability to
hold a class on each word, to change students with ideas. More importantly to
me she had the ability to bring out talents in students.
Professor Hardman was the first
person to tell me I wrote interesting things, and if I mastered the technical
aspects, I would be a good writer. She said it in a way that was not insulting
and she handed me a book on writing.
That semester I spent every
available minute working on writing. She smiled at the end of the semester and
told me I had really improved. I beamed.
She took each student that way and
helped each in their own way to develop their special talents. I would not be
writing this column if I had not have taken her class. I see her gift to me in
each column I write. That Place Name, Hardman Hall, has special meaning to me.
That is the value of place names.
Every building, road, mountain, etc. has a name. Most people just use the name
to know the place. Example: the name of the tallest mountain in the United
States has been known on maps as Mount McKinley.
Last month by order of the Secretary
of the Interior, Sally Jewell, it is now Denali, which means tall in one of the
seven indigenous languages. Naturally those from Ohio where President William
McKinley was born and is buried prefer the former name.
This opens the debate about place
names: what should be the criteria for changing existing place names. And who
should be in charge of place name changes. New Mexico is full of place names
that reflect many cultures, how should we arbitrate a desire for a different
place name?
For example: if the Native Americans
in the Albuquerque area want the Sandia and Manzano Mountains to reflect what they
were known by for centuries before the Spanish arrived, how do we decide the
name to use?
More so, what about the WisePies
Arena which was known only as The Pit in Albuquerque? Should dollars name it?
It seems we need two things: place names that are measured and fair to all
citizens and we need to make sure that the story of these place name people is well
told.
Changing place names is a can of
worms with the top off now.

Place names for those honored and not forgotten
Swickard: Whom is stealing from whom?
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Friday, September 11, 2015
![]() |
Danger Will Robinson and us |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "It
is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we
expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interests." Adam Smith,
1776
We need the robot in the television
series Lost in Space to say,
"Danger Will Robinson" when we start playing with what made our
nation strong and wealthy. More so, people in our society do not realize what
keeps each of us alive and therefore they often take actions that are adverse
to our own survival.
Example: no one wants to pay more
for electricity. You never see people holding signs, "Please increase my energy
costs." But people have not really thought this through.
El Paso Electric wants an increase
to cover that they increased their generating ability. Protestors say the
government needs to punish this energy utility.
El Paso Electric along with some
other energy utilities were on the hot seat, wait, it was a cold seat when a
cold wave hit New Mexico in February 2011. What's really bad were the many
people who existed for days without power. Their pipes froze and burst. That
was the start of bad moments.
Fast forward to today when the rate
increase protestors want the power in their homes without paying for the
increased capacity. They accuse the companies providing coal, gas and oil or
taking advantage of them. Yet without power they would die within a week, if
that.
In our modern world we must have
power to transport our food, pump our water, heat or cool our homes and to
travel. Yet the majority of Americans seem to loath the energy producers.
Several people have told me that the proposed El Paso Electric increase is
theft. Really? Whom is stealing from whom?
Most of the bounty in my life has
been provided by strangers for the purpose of each having more for themselves.
I drive a truck made by people who did not know, love and care for me. They were
working because they wanted more. Sure they were professional so I love my
truck but none of us knew each other.
Some say gas prices are high because
of the greedy oil industry. However, the record profits made by oil companies
were exceeded 250 percent by the taxes on those companies. The government made
2.5 times as much as the oil companies with you at the pump paying both the
profit and taxes.
Further, those are just the overt
taxes. Everyone who works to provide fuel, from the researchers and developers
to the drillers and refiners to the transporters and stores, is taxed. You pay
both overt and covert taxes when you buy gasoline.
We know that the high price of gas
is caused entirely by our government not doing the right things to increase
supply. It is stupidity, not greed, that makes energy expensive for Americans.
How much profit should people make?
There is a fuel stop in the middle of nowhere between Phoenix and Los Angeles.
It has a sign, "This gas is expensive. If you don’t need the gas, don’t
buy it." Would those drivers be better off if no gas was sold?
Pushing a car by hand for 50 miles
is at the least daunting. After the first couple of miles of pushing by hand I
think those drivers would gladly pay $100 per gallon.
Everything is regulated by price in
our country. If hamburgers were a quarter, more people would eat them. Gas
costs what people will pay and no more.
It does not matter to me if you do
not want more. Some people live on the land, foregoing electricity, using only
what they need. I would not stop them, but I do not want them to impose their
lifestyle on me. Our country has been and is very prosperous. Let's keep it
that way.

Swickard: Whom is stealing from whom?