I didn’t go to the anti-Trump No Kings demonstration on Saturday, although I waved as I passed. I agree with the message, but I have my own way of protest.

We’re living in the midst of one of the biggest changes in United States history, but it seldom appears in my column that is supposed to be about things Close to Home. We see a lot of crisis and confrontation in the news, but here things seem pretty civilized.

We haven’t had masked secret police grabbing people off Bullard Street. The National Guard hasn’t been hanging out at Gough Park. Our partisan divides haven’t come out in city council elections. Our problems with homelessness aren’t much worse or better than anywhere else. We worry about the economy, but Grant County has no great depression or economic boom. 

Is the good life going to last? Since last November, I have feared everything will fall apart. Inflation will go wild. The stock market will crash. Violence and chaos elsewhere will arrive here. Fortunately, that hasn’t happened. Yet.

But I’m going to list some of the reasons I’m concerned about the wealth, happiness and honor of our nation.

Trump has no expertise on energy, but is strongly opposed to free energy. He doesn’t like wind or solar, and is stopping projects that are already started and partially paid for. He’s enthusiastic about coal, even though it is generally recognized as the most expensive and dirty energy source. Basically, he is doing everything he can to increase electric prices.

You might argue for energy neutrality and oppose tax breaks for renewables. Let the market, rather than the president, decide what’s cheapest. If you do that, renewables win.

It’s expensive to build wind and solar infrastructure — which includes grid improvements and batteries or other energy storage. But after you build it, the energy is free. With coal, gas and oil, it’s expensive to build the infrastructure, and then you keep paying for the fuel.

China figured that out, and has gone in a short time from dirty energy pig to world leader in renewables and electric vehicles. If we continue on the Trump path, China is going to kick our butt. That’s just the economics — without worrying about the end of the world.

Moving on, Trump’s campaign against immigrants, even legal ones, is over the top. We need immigrants to harvest and process food (and much more). Republicans control both houses of Congress and the presidency. This is the time to pass legislation to regulate legal temporary foreign workers.

But no, we’re just going to get rid of them, no matter the cost. Trump is on the edge of war with Venezuela because their government is corrupt and illegitimate. At the same time, he’s deporting people who fled that government, with no distinction between gangs and victims.

I’m especially upset about Trump sending Afghans who fought with our armed forces back to the tender mercy of the Taliban. It’s dishonorable to break promises to the people who supported us. It’s also dangerous. Afghans beat the Russians, and then they beat us. We shouldn’t betray the ones who were on our side. 

And then there are the tariffs. I’m paying higher prices for equipment I need for my business. It’s going to hit everyone eventually. 

But what about the good things Trump has done? What about peace in the Middle East? I give Trump credit for getting the Israeli hostages released, but Hamas and the Israeli Defense Forces haven’t changed their goals. The peace is already falling apart. Besides, everything he did could have been done a year ago. Ditto, Ukraine. 

I could go on about what I don’t like about Trump: the congressional shutdown, gold baubles in the White House, the National Guard in Portland and Chicago, vindictive losing prosecutions, the George Santos pardon, the Jeffrey Epstein files.

 My brother drives a truck, and talks to a lot of people in truck stops. He says many people who voted for Trump are now regretting it. I haven’t talked to any such people, but I assume they might include Midwest soybean farmers. China was their main market, but China now buys none from us and lots from Argentina and Brazil. Meanwhile, Trump bailed out Argentina with a $40 billion credit line.

I’m torn. I think Trump’s hold on Congress and his many supporters will end when his mistakes have a high cost for his supporters. But if it turns out that, after all, “you reap what you sow,” it’s going to hurt me and everyone else more than it’s going to hurt him.

The post Bruce’s personal No Kings Day appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

Not everyone likes the extremes of the right or the malaise of the left. One of the people who prefers the middle is Lynda Schuh, who readers of the Daily Press may recognize as a frequent author of thoughtful Readers’ Forum letters.

Schuh recently organized a class called “Exploration of a ‘Middle’ Political Party” at the Western Institute for Lifelong Learning. Since we had discussed my columns about political parties by email, Schuh suggested I enroll in the class. I joined 11 others for the discussion.

I wish I could predict that our class will be the first step in a national movement for complete revival of true American values. We didn’t finish that task in an hour and a half, but I think many Americans are having similar discussions. I was surprised and impressed with the variety of backgrounds and opinions leading to the same conclusion.

One of the topics we discussed was why it is so easy to criticize the two-party system, but so hard to change it. Several people mentioned ranked-choice voting as a possible improvement. I’m an enthusiastic supporter, as long-term readers of this column will recognize.

The current plurality winner system is the worst of all worlds. The candidate with the most votes short of a majority may be the least popular. I think no one should be elected without being acceptable to the majority of voters.

Ranked choice voting is a system that ensures the winner has a majority. Voters rank acceptable candidates. It is used in Maine, Alaska, New York City and various other cities, including Las Cruces and Santa Fe in New Mexico.

The other way to ensure majority winners is to have a runoff between the top two, if no candidate tops 50 percent. This system is used in primaries in many southern states including Georgia, Louisiana and Texas.

Forming a new party will be extremely difficult without election reform. Many voters fear their votes will be wasted if they vote for a third-party candidate. The example most often cited is the 2000 election, when enough people in Florida voted for the Green Party’s Ralph Nader to have elected Al Gore had they not cast a protest vote.

Despite the risk, many members of our class said they had voted for third-party candidates. I worked for and voted for Republican- turned-independent John Anderson in 1980. Others voted for Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996. One person said he had once voted for Communist Gas Hall rather than for major-party candidates he didn’t like. I supported George Wallace in 1968, but fortunately wasn’t old enough to cast my ill-informed adolescent vote. None of us admitted to voting for Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party (officially the Progressive Party) in 1912.

In an election with either ranked choice or a runoff, voters could vote for their favorite candidate first and an acceptable major-party candidate second, without fear that their vote would actually help their least favorite candidate.

Another issue that several people in our group thought important was the need for legislative term limits. I’m skeptical about limiting who I can vote for, although I understand the argument and could compromise. But what are the limits of compromise?

Everyone has lines they won’t cross. Some won’t join a party that supports certain issues and others won’t join a party that doesn’t support those same issues. The idea of a political party is to agree on common principles. Even in our group of 12 there were significant differences. Would “middle” voters get tangled up in arguments that undermine their need for unity?

We talked about closed primaries. Last year, for the first time, independent New Mexico voters could request a major party ballot in primaries. This had been possible, but so bureaucratically difficult that many independents didn’t bother. Now it’s easy.

The votes for and against the open-primary bill were bipartisan. Some party stalwarts fear strategic voting, where people cross over to weaken the other party rather than support their own. But apparently most legislators wanted the 23 percent of independent voters to vote in their primary rather than in the other one.

For my first 20 years in Grant County, I reluctantly registered as a Democrat, because there weren’t many Republicans running in primaries. I’m glad that I can now register honestly as an independent, although I don’t agree much with our Republican state legislators.

It’s nice to know that I’m not alone in my distaste for the two major parties. Unfortunately, I fear that we’ll have to put up with them for a few more years. Talking about a middle party is easier than creating one.

The post Finding The Middle Party appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

It seems the Trump administration has a new threat for environmentalists every week. Local environmental agencies are up in arms against the pending removal of the Roadless Rule.

The Roadless Rule protects areas called inventoried roadless areas, or IRAs, within Forest Service land that lack roads and development. Most roadbuilding and commercial logging are prohibited in IRAs. The Gila National Forest has a lot of roadless areas than are not wilderness — about 730,000 acres.

The Gila Wilderness is not at risk. It is roadless because it is wilderness, not because of the Roadless Rule. But if you drive north toward the wilderness or east through the Black Range, you can see wild vistas with no roads.

A big part of the area between N.M. 15 and N.M. 35 is roadless. That made it hard to fight the Trout Fire, as there were limited access points to build firebreaks.

Notice that it’s the Roadless Rule, not the Roadless Law. It’s a regulation that is controlled by the executive branch. You and Sen. Martin Heinrich have approximately the same leverage to affect the outcome.

The Roadless Rule was established in 2001 after months of public comment nationwide. But in June, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced the rollback of the Roadless Rule as if it were a done deal. The proposal was part of President Trump’s intention to increase logging on public lands by 25 percent. It was justified as a way to restore decision-making from a national mandate to local managers. By local managers, they mean Forest Service managers appointed by the administration.

Changing a regulation with almost 25 years of history doesn’t happen as automatically as Secretary Rollins implied. We’re in the first phase of comment until Sept. 19. After that, the Forest Service will write an environmental impact statement that the public can comment on. And then — Well, there are two theories: One is that if enough people protest, some undefined legal action can delay or stop the change. The other theory is that the more people protest, the happier the Trump administration will be to ignore their foolish objections.

The first theory is why New Mexico Wild and other organizations are urging you to send in your comments supporting the rule. Others may urge comments against the rule. Whatever your leaning, you can post comments here: bit.ly/41JBdpK.

But regulations aren’t the only thing affecting what happens. There’s the law of supply and demand, and the rule of unintended consequences. It turns out that many roadless areas are roadless not because of a federal rule, but because it’s uneconomical to make roads there.

About a quarter of the Gila National Forest is designated roadless, meaning that three-quarters are considered road accessible. So if there were a push for logging in our area, it would be easier to do it next to existing roads than to create new roads in rugged areas.

Most of our timber is ponderosa pine, which is not particularly valuable — at least not compared to the fir and cedar in the Pacific Northwest or the redwoods in California. When I had to remove ponderosas on my rural property, I couldn’t give the logs away. I’ve got a nice log now, if someone wants it. But most people don’t even take ponderosas for firewood. 

Rolling back the Roadless Rule would decrease legal protections for primitive areas, but it’s not necessarily going to turn Southwest forests into clearcut wastelands. The same cannot be said for national forests with more valuable timber in Washington, Oregon and California.

I know about this because as a young adult, I was a logger (aka Destroyer of the Forest) in Washington state. Things have changed a lot in the 50 years since, but I do know what clearcut devastation looks like, and I don’t want to see it on both sides of the highway when I drive out to the Gila Cliff Dwellings.

Logging in my day was a well-paying unionized job with adventure and a lot of muscle- building. Many young people came from all over the country to try it without worrying too much about the environmental consequences. Perhaps it’s hypocritical for me to hope that young people today don’t do what I did.

As an enthusiastic user of wood, I support sustainable timber harvesting. That means thinning the trees, rather than mowing them down the way we did. I hear the technology now exists to manage timber in a more environmentally friendly way, but that doesn’t mean we’ll use it.

This is just one more battle in the Trump administration’s intention to roll back a lot more than the Roadless Rule. We can resist or support, but there’s not much room to ignore.

The post Forests’ Roadless Rule at risk appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

To follow the metaphor of “founding fathers,” some parents have very specific desires for their children: to marry a particular person, to continue the father’s profession, to follow the parents’ religion. Those parents are usually disappointed. Other parents want to set their children on a good path and turn them loose. They want their children to be happier and more successful than themselves, and trust their children to find the best path.

Most of the founders would probably be in the second group of parents, proud that the adolescent America they helped establish has grown into an adult nation beyond their dreams. That’s not to say they would like everything they saw. Parents always have disappointments. 

The parent metaphor breaks down at some point. Better to imagine grandparents 10 generations back suddenly resurrected. The first response would be stunned confusion. But as these ancestors gradually learned the nation’s history and saw how we got where we are, they might not be as surprised as we expect, since most of them saw great changes in their own lifetimes.

The founders did everything they could to discourage “faction,” but then created political parties even more divided than our own. They saw amazing growth, but also political chaos. They participated in the early stages of the western expansion and the impending slavery disaster. They knew of the steam engine, the cotton gin and other precursors to the coming industrial revolution.

So, the more open-minded founders might not be surprised to see women voting or that we recently had a Black president. They wouldn’t judge our results so much as how we achieved them.

Each founder would have different views on the political changes today. George Washington would be pleased to see “energetic” (a favored description of executive power) presidents, but not so pleased with the foreign entanglements he warned against.

Alexander Hamilton would be thrilled with our military power and world leadership. Thomas Jefferson would appreciate our expansion to the West, but not our moving far beyond being a nation of farmers. Benjamin Franklin would love to play with our cool technology and would be less shocked than others at our social changes.

How would James Madison, the “father” of the Constitution, look on current government? I suspect he would be angry: “We gave you provisions to amend the Constitution. Why didn’t you use them?” We’ve had only 15 amendments (Prohibition excluded) since the Bill of Rights, many of them unimportant. “We passed 12 amendments in the first 20 years,” he might say. “You should have reformed more.”

Madison would have mixed feelings about a more central government — which he supported at the Constitutional Convention, but later opposed as president. He would probably wish some changes had been done by amendment rather than by judicial interpretation.

Of course, this is speculation. Historical what-ifs can be fun and perhaps educational, but the Founding Fathers are not here to rate our achievements. We are on our own to decide what we can do to fulfill their hopes and expectations. 

People today don’t hesitate to associate their ideas with the founders. Often, the less they know of our early history, the more certain they are of following the founding footsteps. We see this on both sides as people rate the administration of President Donald Trump. 

It’s hard to compare Trump to founders like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, but some compare him to Andrew Jackson, who was too young to be a founder. But Jackson changed American society — for better and for worse — as radically as Trump is doing.

Consider the following summary. Is it about Donald Trump or Andrew Jackson?

“He has been described as a populist who promoted faith in the wisdom of the ordinary citizen, as well as an autocratic demagogue who crushed political opposition and trampled the law.”

Ultimately Trump, like Jackson and all political leaders, will be judged by long-term results. Americans may put up with authoritarian tendencies if all of us, including his opponents, become successful and wealthy. So far, the predictions that tariffs, deportation of workers and militarism will lead to inflation, recession and loss of freedom have not been borne out for most of us. But it’s still early.

Are we cursed or blessed to live in times as earth-changing as the founding? All I can predict is that neither liberalism nor conservatism will ever be the same again.

The post Are we following the Founding Fathers?  appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

There’s nothing I hate more than writing columns about gerrymandering. I’ve written several, but I thought I could give it a rest until the next census in 2030. But thanks to President Donald Trump and Texas, here we go again.

Gerrymandering means partisan cheating in drawing congressional district lines. Lines have to be redrawn after every 10-year census because of population changes. Nothing in the law states that you can’t redistrict (possibly with gerrymandering) in between, but redistricting is so ugly and painful that no one wanted to do it more than necessary — until now.

At Trump’s suggestion, Texas Republicans are trying to redraw their already dubious lines to be even more dubious halfway between censuses. And in response, Democratic states have proposed changing their laws so that they could do the same. New Mexico probably won’t join that party because we’re already maxed out on cheating.

Some of you may have read Merritt Hamilton Allen’s column in Saturday’s Daily Press. She reviewed her role in the 2021 Redistricting Task Force, a bipartisan organization that tried to draw nonpartisan district maps. Following the Legislature’s direction, she worked with other citizens to consider all factors and draw fair lines, only to see the Democratic majority throw out their work and draw partisan lines.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats in other states — with Republicans winning overall — were gerrymandering like salamanders on psychedelic mushrooms. Gerrymandering started in 1812, but modern practitioners use computers to draw crooked lines more efficiently.

This stupid controversy shouldn’t exist. Gerrymandering is a well-known constitutional problem, and most countries have eliminated it. The solution is independent redistricting commissions, as used (without loopholes) in Arizona, California, Colorado and a handful of other states.

There is no perfect redistricting solution in any country with districts. The district lines have to be drawn somehow, and somebody is bound to be unhappy with the results. The best solution may be difficult, but the wrong solution is easy to identify. The majority party should not be allowed to draw corrupt lines in its favor.

That’s what the Supreme Court should have decided in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause. The case was based on a perverse Republican gerrymander in North Carolina and an unscrupulous Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, agreed that excessive gerrymandering is “incompatible with Democratic principles,” but said the solution is not with the judiciary, but with state or federal legislatures. The court could not come up with nonpolitical standards to apply.

But here I will exercise my fundamental American right to declare the justices completely wrong. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says states cannot deny equal protection, but that is the only purpose of gerrymandering. No one would do it if it weren’t fraudulent.

The court doesn’t need to come up with standards for redistricting; it just needs to restrict obviously crooked methods. Imagine that a state wanted to redistrict by corporate auction. Let the highest bidder draw the lines. The Supreme Court shouldn’t try to set standards for auctions; it should just forbid them.

And that’s why, when New Mexico Republicans filed a lawsuit against the Democratic gerrymander, they didn’t cite the majority Supreme Court opinion. They cited Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, which was even more critical of gerrymandering than this column. But dissents have the same legal standing as my declaration that the justices were wrong. Republicans lost their lawsuit, and Rep. Gabe Vasquez squeaked out a victory in gerrymandered Congressional District 2.

But now states that have rejected gerrymandering on principle have to decide whether they will abandon those principles to counter the midterm gerrymander in Texas. This would have to start with California, a state large enough to challenge for the title of most unethical.

When the choice is corruption or defeat, even the most principled party will sin. If the House of Representatives is at stake, and the result will be decided by a few districts, any party will do what it must. Political parties are designed for power, not integrity. 

But gerrymandering to increase your already-big lead is risky. The way gerrymandering works is that you take a district that has too many of your supporters and slice off a piece to give to a district with too few of your supporters. But if you cut it too close — or if the political situation changes — you might lose both of those districts. You just can’t count on those fickle voters.

If Republicans have no principles and Democrats compromise theirs, who are you going to vote for? Fortunately, the law of unintended consequences has not been repealed. I’m hoping that none of this skullduggery turns out the way its authors expect.

The post Gerrymandering just won’t rest appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

The president wants to make foreigners pay taxes to sell us stuff so that we can cut the taxes we charge ourselves. I like this idea so much that I want to expand it.

Let’s start right here is Silver City. We need money for better roads and utilities and to pay for our new recreation center. The way to get it is to charge tariffs on foreigners — starting with the ones from Bayard.

Let’s put a 15 percent tariff on Bayard. Their products would be charged when they enter Silver City. What does Bayard produce that would be subject to the tax? Tortillas. Mi Ranchito Foods is in Bayard, and its products are available in Silver City grocery stores. The idea is not only to collect more taxes, but to encourage companies to make tortillas in Silver City instead of Bayard.

Great! Free money for Silver City from Bayard. Except it’s not from Bayard; it’s from Mi Ranchito. But the owners may not agree to less profit. They might just raise the price to Silver City stores.

If the price of Bayard tortillas goes up, people can choose to buy what they like for more, or they can switch to other brands. For example, some stores in Silver City sell La Bonita tortillas. Great, this must be the local La Bonita bakery. But if you look at the package it says: “Packed by La Bonita Mexican Food Products” in Las Cruces. Well, I guess we’ll also have to put tariffs on Las Cruces. Except what do they mean by that phrase “packed by?” Doesn’t La Bonita make their own tortillas? Haven’t you seen those huge fields of corn near Las Cruces? No? Neither have I. Nor have I seen cornfields near Bayard.

Is the corn used to make local tortillas actually coming from Iowa or Nebraska? Or is it being shipped from Mexico?

All those questions also apply to our one remaining car dealership, Hatch Toyota Stateline, which is also Hatch Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep-Ram. I remember when Silver City had separate Ford, Chevy and Dodge dealers. Now it’s just one dealership, and their main product, Toyota, comes from Japan, which just got the same 15 percent tariffs I suggested Silver City should apply to Bayard. 

So will you pay 15 percent more for your next Toyota? Not necessarily, since many Toyotas are manufactured in Kentucky, Indiana, Texas, Mississippi and Alabama.

Most Chryslers, Dodges, Jeeps and Rams are made in the United States, Canada or Mexico, but their parts (including steel) come from all over. It’s kind of like where the corn for tortillas comes from. Does the tariff apply to the finished car or to the parts it’s made from?

And we haven’t even got to reciprocal tariffs. If Silver City applies a 15 percent tariff to Bayard, what will Bayard do in response?

What does Silver City manufacture that Bayard could put tariffs on? Well, we produce a lot of Syzygy tiles. I’ve seen Syzygy products in high-end interior decorator stores in Seattle, but I don’t think many of them get to Bayard.

Perhaps this silly metaphor of local tariffs has gone far enough. I made up the Bayard tariffs to make points about national tariffs. In real life those of us who shop at Walmart can ignore Bayard and focus our concerns on China — also Mexico, Canada, Vietnam and South Korea. I don’t have to explain that most TVs, kitchenware and toys are made in China or other Asian countries.

The current tariff rate for China ads up to about 32.6 percent, down from 147.6 percent in April, but up from 8.0 percent before 2018. Who’s going to pay that 32.6 percent? China? Chinese companies? U.S. companies like Walmart? Or you and me?

The more you look at tariffs at whatever level, the more complicated and unpredictable they seem. But the confusion is about to end. We’re going to find out once and for all whether tariffs work the way President Donald Trump says they work. He will definitely, absolutely finalize all tariffs by Aug. 1. That will be tomorrow.

I look forward to the end of uncertainty (maybe), but I fear unintended consequences.

The post Let’s Make Foreigners Pay appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

Regular readers of this column may remember that I am a registered independent. The only thing I like less than the Democratic Party is the Republican Party. My slogan is: “No Republicans, No Democrats,” although some friends prefer “No Democrats, No Republicans.”

And now Elon Musk is starting the America Party, which he plans to fund with millions, if not billions. It should be a dream come true.

Unfortunately, Musk is the kiss of death. Any party he backs is doomed. MAGA people don’t like him because of his public argument with Donald Trump. Real Republicans, if any, don’t trust him because he used to be liberal but is now conservative, except when he is neither. Democrats can’t stand him because he just fired a lot of government officials without checking to see if they were the bad ones.

So anything Musk does starts in a hole. Liberals and conservatives are selling their Teslas if they possibly can. Musk can go to Mars — alone.

It would be better if someone else started the new party, and Musk funded it secretly. But Musk is unlikely to fade into the background. Even if he would, the America Party is not what independents want.

The name sounds like a big celebration. Americans, party on! You’re supposed to name a party for its philosophy, not its location.

The party most of us want should be more than not Republican and not Democratic. We already have the Libertarian Party (the third largest in New Mexico) and various others. But few join those parties because they focus too narrowly. But what else is there?

Independents aren’t Republicans because the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan is now the party of Trump, with only a tenuous philosophic relation to its history of free trade and sensibly tough foreign policy. We’re not Democrats because that party has also wandered. Independents didn’t like the fiasco in Afghanistan, the coverup of Joe Biden’s decline and the selection of Kamala Harris with no process. 

I wish these two bad parties would fade away, but historically, that’s not how parties disappear. Usually, one party is replaced and the other evolves to counter the new party. That’s the way it has worked in many other countries, and in our own country for its first 65 years 

Here’s the short, simplified history of American parties: The founders didn’t like parties, which they called factions. Nevertheless, founders started our first parties. Alexander Hamilton started the Federalist Party. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison started the Democratic-Republican Party, which eventually evolved into the current Democratic Party.

The Federalist Party disappeared. Eventually a somewhat conservative Whig Party emerged. It died and was replaced by the current Republican Party in 1860. Republicans versus Democrats has been the rule for the last 165 years, although both parties have evolved, sometimes into their opposites.

The change is local as well as national. Grant County is known as a Democratic stronghold, and it voted for Harris last year. But it also elected Republicans to the state House and Senate. If our Democrats can’t find winning candidates, maybe the new party should start at home.

I believe there will soon be consequences for tariffs, deporting workers, climate change denial and short-sighted foreign policy. I hoped (perhaps unrealistically) that chaos might give birth to a new party to replace one of our bad parties. If people came to see Republicans as too conservative and Democrats as too liberal, sensible moderates might dump the lunatics on both sides.

But that’s not likely to happen now, because Musk takes up all the air. Like Trump, he’s kind of random — not even on the liberal- to-conservative scale. I appreciate Musk for his leadership in the electric car industry and in solar and space technologies. I wish he would go back to those businesses.

I don’t necessarily buy the argument that we are stuck with these two bad parties forever. Yes, they make the election rules that make third-party votes wasted or worse. But ranked-choice voting has changed the electoral strategy in Alaska, Maine, New York City and elsewhere. Maybe people are fed up enough to make change possible. A lot can happen before 2026, and still more before 2028.

But remember that those like me who want a new party are a minority. Most voters are sticking with the Democratic and Republican parties, despite criticism of specific politicians and policies. They just want better party candidates.

Well, I’d vote for that. Perhaps there is an opportunity for our parties to renew themselves and become once again the opposing but respectful parties their founders would be proud of.

The post A political dream come true? appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

I can start by remembering places that are probably burned and blackened. For example, if you go to the end of Meadow Creek Road and hike back over a ridge or two, there’s a very nice swimming hole that you have to climb over rocks to get into.

Imagine sitting in that pool and seeing blackened grass and brush all around. I doubt few of us will be hiking there for a while.

I have a painting by local artist Craig Wentz showing a pool of water with pebbles disturbed by radiating ripples. I’ve been to that place on Meadow Creek, and places much like it. Do I only have the painting to remember the scene?

Some of the places that will never be the same: Pine Flats, Lake Roberts, Wild Horse Mesa, Sapillo Creek, Signal Peak Road, Camp Thunderbird — all changed.

I can tell stories about many of those places, but I imagine my stories are tame compared to the stories of elk and deer hunters who have tramped the area. What’s hunting season going to look like this year? Where are those elk and deer now? And what about the black-tail rattlesnakes, packrats and spiny lizards? They can’t outrun a fire.

Thru-hikers heading south on the official Continental Divide Trail will go right through the burn scar. I suspect that the Gila alternate route, which avoids the burn, will be popular this fall.

The last struggle a couple of weeks ago was on the slopes of Black Peak. It’s one of several peaks where I’ve found colonies of ladybugs. Look it up — ladybugs gather on the tops of peaks so thick you can hardly walk without stepping on them. But can they survive fire?

I saw videos made by firefighters showing the fire burning along the bottom of forests and leaving the tops of the ponderosas untouched. Monsoons may turn that blackened grass bright green in a few weeks. But there were also areas where the fire crowned, leaving blackened poles. Fire may be a natural process, but it doesn’t look natural.

I was depressed for a couple of weeks, checking every time the Fire Watch app buzzed on my phone. How close was it to my vacation rental property north of Pinos Altos? Should I go up and remove everything of value? If I waited too long, they would close the road and turn off the electricity. But if I went too soon, I might do (and later undo) work for nothing.

I didn’t go, but firefighters visited my property and removed every bit of brush within 30 feet of the houses. They were obviously in a hurry, and the results looked like a one-minute haircut with dull scissors. My houses are much safer for the next fire, but not so attractive. Cleaning up the mess will be up to me. Thanks, firefighters. I guess. 

People in the Mimbres Valley would just laugh at my unrealized fear compared to their real losses. Most of them had to leave their homes. Imagine the stress if you know firefighters are starting backfires in your backyard.

I kept a close watch on the fire perimeter, but at some point, I figured out that the map perimeters didn’t distinguish between controlled backfires and the wildfire. So maybe the fire edge wasn’t as risky as it looked. Still, I worried about how many miles of forest would burn if the fire jumped over N.M. 35.

People like me don’t really understand how fires and firefighting work. We can’t help worrying about whether the professionals know what they’re doing, but it’s not productive to second-guess them from ignorance. Meanwhile, everyone is united in appreciating the young people doing the dangerous work. 

And then there were the indirect effects. I know someone who needed to see his doctor, but couldn’t get an appointment because the doctor’s home was at risk. A family I know in Bayard moved temporarily to Silver City because of smoke — even though Bayard wasn’t evacuated. At least we won’t have any shortage of landscaping wood chips for a while.

There were good things to remember about the fire: the awe of a jetliner dumping tons of red retardant on smoking hills; the beauty of a giant plume of smoke looking closer than it really was; the community feeling that we were all in this together.

And now it’s over, except for what isn’t over. We’ll be feeling the side effects for a long time.

The post Fire touches everything appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

As a citizen of Silver City, I get to vote for one council member and for the mayor. If I think one of the other three council members is voting wrong, too bad. I can’t vote against them. But if I lived in Bayard, I would get to vote for all five council members, one of whom is the mayor. Nobody could get past my vote.

And of course we have similar systems at different levels. We have five districts for the Grant County Commission. We have districts for state senators, different districts for state representatives and still different ones for U.S. representatives. Everybody in the state votes for the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and other offices that I can’t remember. We all vote for our two U.S. senators, and we all vote for the president, although indirectly.

Before we get to details, let’s look back at a weird historical anomaly that I discovered when researching this column. New Mexico used to elect its U.S. representatives at large. We had two representatives, elected at large, from 1943 to 1969. Then the two seats were converted to separate districts. A third congressional district was added in 1981.

Would you like to vote for (or against) Melanie Stansbury and Teresa Leger Fernandez as well as Gabe Vasquez? In recent years New Mexico has been mostly Democratic (except for the Susana Martinez era). That would mean that when New Mexico voted Democratic, Democrats would win all three seats. We wouldn’t have the partisan struggle for CD2 that we have had for the last eight years.

Consider how New Mexico’s congressional districts got drawn up in the last gerrymandering — uh, redistricting — session. All three districts got a piece of the Albuquerque metro area. In other words, there was an attempt to minimize differences and homogenize the districts. It worked out for the Democrats who planned it.

Remember when Congressional District 2 was Republican and Districts 1 and 3 were Democratic? But that’s when Silver City was a tiny liberal island, constantly outvoted by conservatives to our east. Our Republican congressman seldom set foot here. But even then, we had plenty of conservatives who felt outvoted in their own community.

The argument for districts is that different geographic areas vote differently. You get more diversity from districts with different geographies, ethnicities and economies. The argument for at-large elections is that everybody gets to vote for and against everybody. Every member of Congress or the state Legislature affects us, whether we can vote for them or not.

But towns have to reach a certain size before dividing into districts makes sense. Imagine splitting Hurley into districts. It would be reminiscent of the bad old days, when Hispanics were limited to certain parts of Hurley at certain times. Ask the oldtimers how that went.

In many large cities, district lines are drawn to increase ethnic and class divisions. There’s the Black district and the Asian district. Or maybe the division is economic — manufacturing, suburban and financial districts. Well, that’s not how it works here. We are the historic home of Buffalo Soldiers, Chinese Gardens and Apacheria, but electorally all that matters are Hispanics and Anglos, with Hispanics holding a thin majority. It would be naíve to think ethnicity has no effect in local elections, but it would be presumptuous to say what that effect is. We’re all kind of blended, except when we aren’t.

Are Silver City’s four council districts split into Anglo and Hispanic? Are they split into poor and rich? Well, maybe. Not really. Sort of. If you stare at the district map you might see patterns. Are the lines drawn at boundaries to separate us into groups? Or are they drawn across boundaries to get some of everything in each district?

Silver City’s districts, like those of Grant County and New Mexico, are reconsidered after each census. We last saw minor district changes in 2022. But we could choose to get rid of districts and go with an at-large system.

Few would argue that Grant County or New Mexico shouldn’t be divided into legislative districts, but Silver City is on the edge. Maybe we don’t have enough differences to justify separate districts. But I’m sure the discussion would be heated if we ever considered a change.

Bruce McKinney is a Silver City business owner, close observer of local government and occasional troublemaker. Send comments and ideas to bruce@ greensilverlinings.com.

The post Questioning Silver City’s charter appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.

Why were they there? I had no idea, but we soon found out that they were pet owners who liked to walk their dogs off leash on Boston Hill. Two animal control officers got wind of the ruckus and showed up to defend their policies.

The controversy was caused not by a change in leash laws, but by a change in enforcement policy. Apparently, walking your dog off leash has always been contrary to ordinance throughout Silver City, but dog walkers have been following leashless dogs on open space trails for years.

This spring, animal control officers started giving out warnings, especially on Boston Hill. To the activists, this seemed random and unjustified. The town was trying to solve a problem that didn’t exist. They wanted to negotiate a compromise to allow dogs off leash in some areas.

The two animal control officers justified their enforcement policy: Some citizens don’t like to encounter dogs off leash. Some people might not control their dogs. Some owners (not the activists, of course) didn’t notice when their exuberant dogs made messes.

But why bring this issue to the Trails and Open Space Committee? Yes, we make recommendations to town administrators and the council, but they can ignore our suggestions. It takes time for us to reach a consensus. On an issue of urgency, I thought activists should go to the council directly. Other committee members disagreed, saying our committee was the appropriate place to start a discussion.

But I kept thinking about a similar case about 2010. A diligent animal control officer fined Polly Cook for having chickens in her backyard. The chickens were technically contrary to ordinance. Did this result in Cook getting rid of her chickens? No, it resulted in political hell breaking loose. It resulted in Cook running for council and winning. It resulted in the animal control ordinance being rewritten to allow domestic fowl under regulations, and to update other animal laws.

If one person could cause so much trouble, what could a group of dog owners do in an election year when the council has already taken some controversial stands? If organized opponents went to the council, they might suggest changes to allow off-leash dogs in certain open space areas under certain conditions.

The mayor and two council positions (potentially a majority) are up for election this year. The current mayor is not running for reelection, so we will have a new one. Terms also expire for District 2 (Nick Prince) and District 4 (Guadalupe Cano). This gives citizen reformers more leverage than usual.

They could talk to potential mayoral candidates. The ones I’ve heard of so far are Councilor Cano and former Councilor Simon Wheaton-Smith (now chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission). I don’t know who else might be running for council or mayor. If worst comes to worst, reformers could look for their own candidates.

Of course, going political risks rousing opposing activists who want all dogs on leashes. There are probably individuals who support an always-on-leash policy, but is there a group capable of organizing?

I don’t have a dog in this fight, although one of my good friends is a dog — Frida! I don’t care which side prevails; I just want a good debate. In other words, I’m stirring up trouble. That’s my job. 

I’ve been following Silver City elections for many years, and the results are discouraging. Too often nobody runs, and the incumbent gets free reelection. I’ve seen decent candidates wait until the last minute and have to run (and lose) as write-ins. Once, a candidate won as the only person on the ballot and immediately resigned. We often get mediocre candidates and, occasionally, really bad ones.

So, if you’re angry about the new leash enforcement policy, find your candidate. If you’re outraged (as I am) about the council not passing an ordinance creating a citizen advisory group on police, find candidates who will vote for it. If you’re upset about crime downtown, or if you think we need a new swimming pool next to our new recreation center, start organizing.

Even if you oppose reform, you must choose a new mayor and, possibly, a new councilor, since Cano can’t run for both.

So find a candidate, even if it’s yourself. Form coalitions and talk to friends. Contested races are good, forcing incumbents to defend their records. If you start organizing now, we’ll have better choices in November.

Bruce McKinney is a Silver City business owner, close observer of local government and occasional troublemaker. In his column, which appears every other Thursday, he tries to address big questions from a local perspective. Send comments and ideas to bruce@greensilverlinings.com.

The post Stirring up trouble in town elections  appeared first on Southwest Word Fiesta™.