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: Their First Day in America

Swickard: Voting for a different future

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "This is a frightening statistic. More people vote in 'American Idol' than in any US election." Rush Limbaugh

             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: Voting for a different future

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 

Swickard: Being foolishly fuelish because of politicians

21st century journalism different yet much the same

Photo by Michael Swickard, 1969

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us." Bob Woodward

             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 

21st century journalism different yet much the same

Swickard: Gun Free Zones attract attacks

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  "There are two fundamental problems in American politics. The first is that most Americans do not believe that elected officials represent their interests. The second is that they are correct." John Gastil

             This last week with the murder of people unable to defend themselves in the classroom of a college in Oregon we Americans have come to the very ends of sanity. Our elected officials do not represent our interests and our media is absent in this discussion.

            Over the last several decades an insane policy has been foisted upon the American public and it is time to repeal it. The notion of Gun Free Zones is defective and is leading to needless deaths. As a country we protect everyone but the most important Americans, our students.

            Our elected officials who are protected with guns have a political notion that endangers us. As George Orwell noted in the 1930s, "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us."

            But we Americans have fallen for the defective notion of Gun Free Zones as being safe. They are not in the least, in fact, they expose people to violence because they are attractive to criminals who have no intention of following the law in the first place.

            Everyone who wants Gun Free Zones should be compelled to live in a Gun Free Zone. Those members of Congress who huff and puff about gun violence but are protected by guards toting guns should have to face their fate without hope of defense, the way they condemn our young people to attack without defense.

            Banning guns makes as much sense as saying that now that drugs are illegal there is no way for an American to get illegal drugs. Let us count the ways that making guns illegal does not work: first, criminals do not follow the law or especially that law, and second, it neuters the American tradition of protecting ourselves.

            Do we Americans have the right of self defense? Or must we be defenseless in the face of crazed killers who pay no attention to the placard: This is a Gun Free Zone? More so, how long will we continue a strategy of defense that actually draws killers to defenseless victims?

            There always has been and there always will be people who are evil or sick or both. How have we handled it in days past? Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association wrote, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

            In his book, Principles of Personal Defense, Jeff Cooper wrote, "If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim. If a felon attacks you and lives, he will reasonably conclude that he can do it again. By submitting to him, you not only imperil your own life, but you jeopardize the lives of others."

            For those of us who have the means of defense, we owe it to the next victim to not roll over. We must stand and fight for ourselves and the next victims. Know this: every time we stop a criminal we make safe untold other victims who may not be able to fight.

            At the core of this discussion is the realization that guns cannot be removed from the world, there are too many factories making weapons. Some of the most prolific gun manufacturers are in other countries. Like drugs, if someone wants a gun enough, they will have it. What we are discussing is if their intended victim will have a gun for defense or not.

            Blogger Mike Rowse noted: a man pulled a knife on me and asked, "Would you die for your friends and family?" I laughed as I pulled my gun, "No, but I would kill for them."

            If he was in a Gun Free Zone would you rather that he gets killed by the evil man with the knife?

Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Gun Free Zones attract attacks

Marita Noon: The Pope, climate change and VW

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.

In BloombergView, Clive Crook offers this excellent explanation:

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.

Marita Noon: The Pope, climate change and VW

Swickard: The arrogance of educational leadership

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.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: The arrogance of educational leadership

Swickard: Trying to impair the urge to be impaired

© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.  At a traffic light the car in front of me did not move when the light turned green. The driver's head was down, I suspect looking at text messages. After angry honking finally caused the person to look up and realize the light changed, the person made it through the light just as it turned red.

            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.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Swickard: Trying to impair the urge to be impaired

Dead Horse Theory

Dead Horse Theory

Place names for those honored and not forgotten

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.

 Email: drswickard@comcast.net 

Place names for those honored and not forgotten