![]() |
| Professor Marion Hardman |
Place names for those honored and not forgotten
Posted by
News New Mexico
on Sunday, September 13, 2015
© 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.
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?
The always wait until next year NMSU football program
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Sunday, August 23, 2015
| Afternoon football at NMSU without many fans early or at all |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. As I have done for most of fifty
years I have New Mexico State University Football Season Tickets. Over the
years there has been a complete lack of Aggie success. NMSU has not gone to a post-season
Bowl since Eisenhower was president.
This has not been due to individual
players or coaches, nor has luck played a part. But there have been
questionable leadership decisions that are keeping the Aggie football program from
being competitive.
Today’s collegiate teams require a
large fan base. NMSU has had no success filling the stadium. Each new coach strides
into Las Cruces a conquering lion and slinks out of town a slaughtered lamb. It
is the administration that chases the fans and dooms the coaches.
The faithful season ticket holders
are a small loyal group. Otherwise the stadium seats are empty except if local
high school teams are playing and then the stadium fills up.
The question each year: will this Aggie
football team finally be successful? Then in October the faithful are forced
to say, “Just wait until next year.”
That said, I have enjoyed moments in
many of the seasons, and have gone decades repeating “wait until next year.” I
have liked many Aggie players, coaches and some college administrators.
The exception was the late 1980s,
when I looked like a dog chewing hot pitch as I left the stadium. During that
stretch the Aggies had four wins and 40 losses.
I believe that the reason for the
lack of success is that for four decades NMSU has been selling losses. Playing
powerhouse teams for money when NMSU has no real chance of winning began as a
temporary tactic to cover a budget shortfall but continues even now. Some teams
try it a few years and give up. Not the Aggies.
On September 5th the Aggies take on
the Florida Gators for money, rather than competition. Then October 10th they
take on Ole Miss again for money not competition. NMSU doesn't have any chance
to win.
NMSU's money-game record is horrible.
And it isn't just the seventy or now eighty or a hundred sold losses that hurt.
The Aggies play powerhouse teams that are much bigger. Aggie players are often hurt
thereby causing the team to lose games later in the season that could have been
won.
The rest of the 2015 NMSU Football
schedule looks playable. Some of the games can be won if the team doesn't get
devastated playing the much bigger teams for money.
I'll be there cheering but I am
angry that the team gets beat up and has two losses outside of their own
making. Football programs are judged by their win/loss records with no asterisk
for money games. There is never a time when the NMSU football program should
sell a loss.
Selling football losses to support
high salaries castrates the program. All NMSU has gotten over the decades is
the need to sell even more losses. I have complained in my columns about this
for thirty years. I am told every time that I just don't understand. Yep, I
don't, even though I have a Ph.D. in Educational Administration.
NMSU’s primary goal should be to
fill the stadium for every home game. How do you do that? By playing teams NMSU
can beat. And becoming Bowl Eligible. This isn't Rocket Science.
Every year I am painfully aware of
the near-empty stadium toward the end of each season and sometimes from the
get-go. Each successive athletics department has reasons why filling the
stadium cannot be done. Year after year, decade after decade comes a long
litany of people who do not fill the stadium for every game.
Collegiate Football is part of the
institutional identity. Those who say NMSU can do without football are not
viewing students, town residents and alumni as consumers. The university must
have a viable football program. The Aggies must concentrate on playing teams they
can beat and break the Bowl Game curse.
NMSU needs to develop an effective
process of moving from mediocre to good to great. Teams like Boise State have
done that. Start smart and small. Build the program not by selling losses. Every
great team fills their stadium.
The always wait until next year NMSU football program
The movement to ban all air conditioning
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Sunday, August 16, 2015
![]() |
| Passenger side air conditioning in 1953 for my aunt and uncle |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. For most of our country's history
what we wanted was fine if we worked for it and did not cheat anyone. But now
we are talking about changing the debate to: you should only have what you absolutely
need, not that other stuff you want.
Take money. the Socialists among us talk
constantly about the fact that people don't need as much money as they have.
This is especially so for those who have money left over at the end of the
month. Shouting about income inequality there is a move to take from the rich
and give to the poor until everyone, regardless of how hard they work, has the
same as everyone else.
But there is something worse. Money
is one thing, air conditioning is another. A headline caught my attention: New
York University Professor Wants Government To Stop Us From Using Air-Conditioning.
Gosh! And the professor thinks he has a good reason to get the government to
take all of our A/C units away from us.
Sociology professor Eric Klinenberg
wrote an op-ed in Time magazine entitled, Air-Conditioning Will Be The End Of Us.
He is concerned American's power use for air-conditioning will increase the
effect of Global Warming and of course Global Warming is just about to
extinguish the human race.
He is not alone. Several people I
have spoken with agree A/C is not needed by most people, it is only wanted.
Count me as wanting A/C in the New Mexico summers. Do I need it? No, but this
is America where I should be able to live as I desire, not as the Socialists
desire me to live.
I have lived in the heat quite a bit
of my life, some of the time with just shade and cool water as my only relief
from hot days. During the summers of my youth I lived on my grandfather's ranch
and there was no A/C. He said, "If you work in the sunlight, the shade
will be cool enough."
Back then all of our vehicles had
the open window air-conditioning: roll two windows down and drive. When I came
to college in 1968 I did not have a car so I walked to campus, about a mile
each way. I did so in the heat, cold and gloom of night. There wasn't rain and
snow because this was New Mexico.
Even when I got my first car all it
had was windows to lower the temperature. The truth is that most of us did not
have what is now considered a necessity, air-conditioning. I have lived in
houses without A/C and we just sweltered in the heat but survived.
So the Socialists among us are right,
A/C use in this nation is because we Americans want it. Socialists think they can
end this danger to the planet. The problem will be when the government decides
that not enough of us are voluntarily casting off this want and they mandate
the end of citizen owned air-conditioning. How will Americans take losing
something they really want?
I owned a weekly newspaper when
President Jimmy Carter was trying to push Americans to be hotter in the Summer,
colder in the Winter. My shop was visited by an inspector who marveled that it
was 60 degrees in the building so we were good Carter people.
Actually I didn't own the building
and it had no insulation so 60 was as warm as I could get it. Then the
inspector looked for our piece of paper that was supposed to be on the wall
saying we supported people being cold in the Winter.
I deadpanned, "We burnt
it." He was aghast and started filling out a replacement certificate. When
he handed it to me, I said to my print shop foreman, "Dame fuego" - give
me fire - so Pete threw me his lighter. I lit the certificate as the government
worker sputtered inarticulately. He never came back.
When the government takes all of our
A/C units away from us, I wonder if we sheep will continue to vote as we have
in the past. Or will there be a tidal wave of sweat sending different leaders
into office? Yep.
The movement to ban all air conditioning
Swickard: Getting swats at school
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Sunday, August 9, 2015
![]() |
| Back row middle left - Kindergarten graduation, what a relief! |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. This last week has been the start of
another public school year. I remember well my very first day in public school.
Quickly I was put in the corner for misbehavior. I thought I was sent to school
because they needed help running the joint. Not so.
They were alarmed that I said,
"Hey!" often to get their attention. "Wait your turn,
Michael," I was told. Within minutes I found that liquid doesn't flow up a
rope. The people at school didn't want help. Shuckins. The Ayatollah
Kindergarten decided drastic measures were needed. She called my parents.
They were relaxing at home and were
chagrined that they needed to come discipline me. I was glad to see them. I
explained that the place needed help running and that was what I was doing. I
noticed my parents were trying not to smile. They tried "The Kindergarten
knows better than you" but I wasn't having it.
Weekends were better since I didn't
have to deal with short-tempered school teachers. The worse part of it was I
was in an experiment where kids had to go to Kindergarten two years. It was a two
tough years of me putting up with those Michael-aversive people.
They thought the purpose of kindergarten
was to give them a job and to reign in boisterous boys. Every morning of those two
years my teachers took their bossy pills and thought I should do what they
commanded. I thought them wrong and we fought to a draw.
Then there were those public school years
afterwards. Along the way school leaders decided my brains were in the seat of
my pants and to get my attention they should give me swats. I do have to say I
never got an educational swat after high school.
It seems to me that the public
schools spent untold hours swatting me and it had no real effect upon me ever.
I always vowed to make no sign that they had hit me. So I refused to be intimidated
by the swat paddle which upset the sadistic teachers.
Mostly what they were able to do was
cause me to view school as a gang of thugs beating up small children. While the
swats have stopped in today's public schools, the thuggish behavior continues
with teachers being intentional mean to small children. It is considered rigor
but we know what evil lurks in some hearts.
I did get swatted the last week of
public school a few days before graduation. Two friends and I were making noise
in the hallway as we left the school. A teacher came out of her room to quiet
us. We blew raspberries and the assistant principal grabbed us. He said,
"Three swats or you do not walk at graduation."
I got four swats instead of three because
I said rudely to the poor man, "Knock yourself out Clyde, I don't care
what you do because in a couple days I'm outta here." Then I laughed at
him again but he had administered ten swats and was sweating profusely. He was
all stroked out and had to sit down. We laughed.
We made lots of racket leaving the
school and everyone ignored me. Fast forward eight years and I was teaching at
Albuquerque High School when some graduating seniors were making lots of noise
in the hallway. I stepped out and said, "Hey, glad you are still around. I
enjoyed all of you this year. Wherever you go I will always be your
friend."
One of the noisy kids started to
smart off to me but several others hushed him and the group walked over and
shook my hand and just said, "Thanks." And I have seen some of those
kids over the years. We always smile when we see each other. I never believed
in being a jerk to the students. Even if it got me fired I would never swat a
student. Not ever.
Too many adults in the public
schools carry big sticks and speak with loud voices. They judge and push the
students while students count the hours until they leave school forever. We
adults could do better if we were better human beings.
Email: drswickard@comcast.net
Swickard: Getting swats at school
Swickard: NMSU students becoming more quiet
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Monday, August 3, 2015
![]() |
| Michael Swickard on NMSU Student Radio |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
"The
college that does not feel the need of a medium for the publication of its
various doings and saying must be a very quiet sort of place with students who
never play pranks and teachers who cannot appreciate a "break" when
it is made." In the first New Mexico State University yearbook, 1908
A student newspaper is a vibrant
alive burr under the saddle of the administration and focus of many conflicting
views. It breathes and snorts and fires the imagination. Or, it did in the
past.
Some of us who are former staffers
of the media at NMSU are saddened by this action. I was on my high school
newspaper and yearbook in Alamogordo as a photographer and when I came to NMSU
in the fall of 1968 I continued student photo journalism.
My father, a photography instructor
for the Air Force taught me well all phases of photography. My first year at
NMSU I worked with the Round-Up,
became the Head Photographer of the yearbook, worked on the student radio
station and got in on the ground floor of the television efforts.
I was even elected to the NMSU
Student Senate from the College of Arts and Sciences to protect the budgets of
the three media: the newspaper, yearbook and student radio station. Myself and
Brad Cates were the two real conservatives in the Senate. Brad was later elected
Student Body President.
In October of 1969 Harvey Jacobs, Journalism
and Mass Communications Department Head called me to his office. He almost
single-handedly built the NMSU media program and wanted me to do him a favor.
Justin Weddell, Class of 1908 was the
driving force in starting both the student newspaper and the yearbook. He was getting
a special honor for Homecoming and would be arriving from Chicago. Someone
needed to show him how the campus had changed. As someone who worked with the
student newspaper and yearbook, I was given the opportunity to spend the day
with Weddell.
As luck would have it, I respected
Harvey Jacobs and it was the very first thing he had ever asked me to do so I
was in for the day. Weddell was eighty-two and still in fairly good health. We
walked around with him saying, "Our student dorm, The Klondike was over
there until one night when it burnt down."
His Senior Thesis was The Art of the Southwestern Indian which
he mentioned. I asked if he had gone to see the pictographs at Three Rivers. He
had several times. I smiled and mentioned that my grandmother had taught school
in that one-room school in 1908. He did not remember her directly but
remembered the school.
We had a pleasant day and then it
was time for him to join other graduates for the Homecoming festivities. He
held my hand a few moments and said, "Don't let them kill what the class
of 1908 started." I promised to fight for the media. Already, even in 1969,
student newspapers and yearbooks were thought to be out of date.
The Round-Up essentially quitting the news business would not have surprised
Justin Weddell since students no longer read newspapers. They skim
electronically and stories over fifty words are in danger of being ignored.
I do not mourn for the Round-Up, I mourn for the learning
opportunity that the editors and news producers had in putting out the paper.
It came out twice a week in my era and once a week currently. That required writers
to be on deadline and editors to manage their time effectively.
Publishing once a month is like not
at all. The NMSU students have gotten quiet as they are surrounded by their
electronic world. I am not as old as Justin Weddell was when I spent a day with
him. Still, it was forty-six years ago and I'm no Spring Chicken. We are and
were Round-Up dinosaurs remembering a
better time.
Swickard: NMSU students becoming more quiet
Swickard: Good bomb or bad bomb?
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Sunday, July 26, 2015
![]() |
| Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber is in in the Smithsonian |
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
In the 1939 movie, The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy was told by
Glinda, "The Munchkins want to know, are you a Good Witch or a Bad Witch."
Until then Dorothy and the viewing public had thought all witches were bad. But
The Wizard of Oz revolves around Good
Witches and Bad Witches.
That lesson might translate to other
things in our world. August 6th is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bomb over
Hiroshima, Japan. It followed the July 16, 1945 detonation of a 20 kiloton nuclear
device at Trinity Site, New Mexico, and was followed by the detonation of a
second atomic bomb over Nagasaki, Japan.
A few days later Japan
unconditionally surrendered. World War Two was over. It remains the most deadly
war of all time in our world. About three percent of the world's population
died in the conflict and that number might be low. In raw numbers the estimate
is sixty million people died.
And for the most part the dying was
over after two atomic bombs forced Japan to surrender. Especially in the last
thirty years there has been a fierce debate about those actions. Usually it is
an explosive argument when people discuss using two atomic bombs to end World
War Two.
Perhaps we should ask: were they a
good bomb or a bad bomb? Like witches we automatically assume all atomic bombs
to be bad. Were they, are they?
Certainly they have the liability of
injuring people with radiation long after the war has ended. But the official
position of our country and our politicians is that injury by radiation does
not matter at all. How do I know that? I am a Downwinder injured by the Trinity
explosion which injured thousands of other New Mexicans but our government and
politicians are still seventy years later ignoring our injuries.
The question most people ask: Did
the nuclear bombs really end World War Two? The day of surrender Emperor Hirohito
broadcast, "The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the
power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many
innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an
ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would
lead to the total extinction of human civilization."
It was very chaotic in Japan. Some members
of the Japanese Military did not want to surrender but they revered the
Emperor. Japan was in essence a dictatorship not of the Emperor but the
Military. The Emperor was truly a figurehead and General McArthur who ran Japan
in the first five years after the war's end understood this and allowed
Hirohito to have a post-war figurehead role.
For several years I lived in Japan
and heard several Japanese say that they had been ordered by the military to
sharpen broom handles and they were supposed to try to stab invading Americans
when they landed. They were grateful the war ended for whatever reason. They
did not wish to die needlessly.
Further, I drink coffee with a man
who was on a troop ship to Japan and was going to make the first of two major
landings. He says the reason he is still alive and had a career as a high
school teacher is that the war ended suddenly. He is a supporter of the use of
atomic weapons.
Seventy years later we can inspect
the plans that were in effect for the invasion to end the war. Operation
Olympic was to be on the Southern-most Japanese island of Kyushu November 1,
1945 while Operation Coronet the invasion of main island Honshu south of Tokyo
was scheduled for four months later.
The pentagon planning paper was called
Operation Downfall. It projected millions of deaths. But we and the Japanese
were spared that holocaust of death.
Can atomic bombs be good? Yes, when
they end a dictatorship and allow Japan to become a democracy. I told this to a
clerk in a store recently. She said she could not believe atomic bombs to be
good. I replied, the use of force, the use of good atomic bombs allows you to
reject the truth.
Swickard: Good bomb or bad bomb?
Swickard column: Between the ears safety
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Sunday, July 19, 2015
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D. "Safety
is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your
hands." Jeff Cooper
Gun Free Zone signs say to some
people that No One Can Shoot Back. Telling people of evil intent or mental
illness that our military and school children have no means of defense is
insane. It makes them targets while also not giving them a defense.
The danger of attack in our society
comes from two major groups: people of evil intent and people who are mentally
ill. Our society is caught in a dilemma. We have plenty of laws against people
taking guns to certain places. But they are just words and not actions. People
prohibited from having guns get them anyway.
We are told if all guns were banned in
America there would be no guns on the street. That is beyond stupid. The reason
five military servicemen were killed a week ago was they and everyone around
them followed the law while the perpetrator did not.
Remember that we made drugs illegal
and yet illegal drugs are easily obtainable in every community. We arrest and incarcerate
drug violators all of the time and still the drugs flood our towns. Having laws
against guns does not and will not stop their use by criminals and people with mental
illnesses.
The only way to stop a person with a
gun and murderous intent is someone else with a gun who will defend the
defenseless. George Orwell wrote, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at
night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
We cannot reason with people of evil
intent or mental illness, we must respond to force with force. The police
cannot ever respond to violent attacks on our population in time to prevent them.
They can end the carnage but precious minutes go by as they travel to the area
where people are being attacked. The only logical answer is that some of the
people be able to respond instantly.
Now I do not want to see lots of
open carry firearms because that means that the person who intends to defend
the defenseless is apparent to someone of evil intent. Rather, I like conceal
carry and making sure that someone coming to military facilities, public schools
or churches does not know who may be packing.
The defenders of Congress, the
Supreme Court and the President of the United States work very hard at not
disclosing their strategy for defense. It is multi-layered and robust. The
primary defense of these people is between the ears and not in the hands.
Let me ask you: is the President
that much more important than a class of first graders in your local elementary
school? Both the President and the innocent children deserve our best defense.
But defending children has been hijacked by political operatives who wish to
impose gun control on the population as a whole. They unintentionally sponsor domestic
terrorism in our public schools by taking away all semblance of defense.
Yes, the police can come within
fifteen minutes and take a report but the need is for people to be armed and
ready every second. Most of those armed and ready people will never be called
upon because people of evil intent avoid places where those people will shoot
back.
That leaves the mentally ill who
have watched hour after hour of coverage when someone shoots up a military facility
or a public school. They may attack regardless of if there is a defense. Then
the defense need to work and work very effectively.
Our safety really does rest between
the ears of our leaders. Only they can remove the Gun Free Zones and replace
them with effective defensives.
Swickard column: Between the ears safety
Swickard: New Mexico Downwinder justice denied
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Wednesday, July 15, 2015
© 2015 Michael Swickard, Ph.D.
"Justice
delayed is justice denied." William Gladstone
That twenty kiloton nuclear
explosion was in a remote area of New Mexico seventy years ago this July 16th. The
scientists wanted to be sure the device would explode correctly when dropped
over a Japanese city.
The implosion-design plutonium
device at Trinity Site was similar to the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan
August 9, 1945. In the seventy years since that nuclear test our world has
changed dramatically and yet some of that 1945 world perhaps stays with us
Downwinders.
We suspect we are survivors of invisible
pollutants from that nuclear explosion leading to our health problems. For me
it was an aggressive form of thyroid cancer. Around Chernobyl it is called Radiation
Induced Thyroid Cancer.
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power
plant accident injured many people downwind of the area, however, there are
robust efforts underway to identify and help those injured by the radiation. In
our country our government has no interest in the radiation injury to New
Mexico Downwinders. Does anyone doubt that the atomic explosion polluted New
Mexico?
Years ago one politician stated,
"We beat the Japanese, what do you want?" He seemed mad that I was
bringing up stuff from years ago. Politicians and journalists alike are not
interested. I have written these issues in columns several times to the yawns
of our leaders.
Worse, we Downwinders are dying out.
Our movement is like the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) founded in 1868 with
their membership limited to Union military in the Civil War. Five US Presidents
were GAR members. Then Albert Woolson, age 109, died in 1956 and then there
were no longer any GAR members.
The same will happen to the New
Mexico Downwinders. One of us will be the last one alive and then the movement
will end. Will we Downwinders find justice in our lifetime?
The problem is we do not know for
sure. Suspicion is not proof, but we have a right to be suspicious. Our
government has not done what was done in Europe after Chernobyl where they studied
carefully the people who thought they might have been sickened by the release
of radiation.
I appreciate that U. S. Senator Tom
Udall held a meeting a couple weeks ago in Tularosa and New Mexico
Representative Steve Pearce and I have spoken several times. But another day goes
by, another week, another month, another year, and some more of us Downwinders
have died.
Why do I think it was the radiation
release from the Trinity explosion that caused my cancer? Research is
compelling around Chernobyl that a very aggressive form of thyroid cancer is
tied to the radiation. I had that very aggressive form and was lucky that I
noticed the tumor early and it was removed within ten days of diagnosis or
perhaps I would not be here today.
Again, suspicion is not proof but my
government has not done anything to help Downwinders find out if our health
maladies are tied to Trinity Site. These maladies are not cheap. We are out
lots of money and there are quality of life issues.
Our government is quick to throw
money at other countries and other maladies in our country, why not this? Or
even come up with the cost of looking at this issue. Because there is no
political advantage and our people in government must always gain a political
advantage.
This issue will go away if
politicians and government leaders can ignore us long enough. There is only one
group who can bring justice to us if they will work at getting to the truth of
the radiation.
Journalists can continue to ignore
us or they can put it on the front page until our government comes to its
senses and acts responsibly. That is the role of the media in a perfect world.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Swickard: New Mexico Downwinder justice denied
Environmentalists and energy advocates agree: Ethanol reform now
Posted by
Michael Swickard
on Monday, December 29, 2014
Commentary by Marita Noon - We all expect to pay a price for missing deadlines—fail to pay a ticket on time, and you may find a warrant out for your arrest. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can apparently miss deadlines with impunity.
For the past two years, the EPA has failed to meet the statutory deadline under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring the agency to tell refiners how much ethanol to blend into the nation’s motor fuels.
In November 2013, the EPA attempted to announce the proposed 2014 blend levels, which by then came months past the legally mandated deadline. The EPA surprised and pleased RFS opponents when it utilized its authority by taking market conditions into consideration to adjust levels. The agency set the proposed 2014 standard to a level lower than 2013’s, even though the law requires increasing amounts. Ethanol producers, expecting the usual uptick, loudly opposed the reduction. They made so much noise, the EPA agreed to reconsider. To date, the 2014 standards have not yet been announced.
Then, on November 21, the EPA announced it would make a decision next year on how much ethanol refiners had to add to gasoline this year. Yet, if refiners don’t meet the unknown requirement, they get fined. That’s akin to handing out the class syllabus after the students have failed the final exam.
With the goal of reducing foreign oil imports, Congress enacted the RFS in 2005 and revised it in 2007—which also provided incentives to America’s fledgling ethanol industry. At the time, gasoline demand was rising to an all-time high and oil imports comprised more than 58 percent of U.S. oil consumption. No doubt Congress believed it was saving American consumers from their addiction to oil.
Then the world changed. The U.S. economy plunged into a terrible recession, unemployment soared, and gasoline demand fell sharply. Meanwhile, advanced drilling technologies, including the long-used hydraulic fracturing and newer horizontal drilling, began producing oil and natural gas from U.S. shale formations—previously uneconomic to develop—leading to America’s 21st-century energy boom.
Today the U.S. stands as the world’s largest natural-gas producer, projected to pass Saudi Arabia as the number-one oil producer. With crude-oil supplies flooding the market, prices have been cut in half. Although fears over foreign-oil dependence have abated, the U.S. remains stuck with an outdated, unworkable, and even harmful—to vehicles, engines, and the environment—ethanol mandate. Read full Marita Noon column on Breitbart.com

For the past two years, the EPA has failed to meet the statutory deadline under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring the agency to tell refiners how much ethanol to blend into the nation’s motor fuels.
In November 2013, the EPA attempted to announce the proposed 2014 blend levels, which by then came months past the legally mandated deadline. The EPA surprised and pleased RFS opponents when it utilized its authority by taking market conditions into consideration to adjust levels. The agency set the proposed 2014 standard to a level lower than 2013’s, even though the law requires increasing amounts. Ethanol producers, expecting the usual uptick, loudly opposed the reduction. They made so much noise, the EPA agreed to reconsider. To date, the 2014 standards have not yet been announced.
Then, on November 21, the EPA announced it would make a decision next year on how much ethanol refiners had to add to gasoline this year. Yet, if refiners don’t meet the unknown requirement, they get fined. That’s akin to handing out the class syllabus after the students have failed the final exam.
With the goal of reducing foreign oil imports, Congress enacted the RFS in 2005 and revised it in 2007—which also provided incentives to America’s fledgling ethanol industry. At the time, gasoline demand was rising to an all-time high and oil imports comprised more than 58 percent of U.S. oil consumption. No doubt Congress believed it was saving American consumers from their addiction to oil.
Then the world changed. The U.S. economy plunged into a terrible recession, unemployment soared, and gasoline demand fell sharply. Meanwhile, advanced drilling technologies, including the long-used hydraulic fracturing and newer horizontal drilling, began producing oil and natural gas from U.S. shale formations—previously uneconomic to develop—leading to America’s 21st-century energy boom.
Today the U.S. stands as the world’s largest natural-gas producer, projected to pass Saudi Arabia as the number-one oil producer. With crude-oil supplies flooding the market, prices have been cut in half. Although fears over foreign-oil dependence have abated, the U.S. remains stuck with an outdated, unworkable, and even harmful—to vehicles, engines, and the environment—ethanol mandate. Read full Marita Noon column on Breitbart.com
Environmentalists and energy advocates agree: Ethanol reform now







