Letters to the editor (10/24/12)

........................................................................................................................................................................................

Candidates say a lot, but not much to offer
Editor:
There is a lot being said about something I call too much to do.
It’s certainly not a profound view, but in an environment full of relative ignorance regarding world happenings, it speaks volumes about being able to untangle things … if they become clear.
Then, an event in a region a half-world away, entangles the USA in an unfathomable and violent human experience. In that, the election of a person to high office is stirred and tossed by confusing information, and no agenda appears to serve the election.
The leader is called upon to prosecute a successful relief strategy “over there,” while conducting all the affairs of state, and managing the all-important strategy for re-election. Too much to do?
When there is support from a majority of the electorate, the power is palatable, and the leadership “believes” in success. If disestablished, (split-party houses and a recalcitrant Congress), many reasons for wanting the job are offered by the new candidates.
Party wolves howl their criticism as they champion a need to return to “better times.” It is a confused and difficult time for the voting population, difficult to grasp and the confusion fuels dissension.
The candidates say much, but offer little substantive details of what they would do in the same situation. So, how does one tell the difference t’wixt doing better, and where they find themselves now?
There may be a very important answer in that rhetoric … maybe.
The changes (expected) to the programs of the present leadership must come through bi-partisan agreement, and skills not readily evident, to obtain sufficient support. If not, there will be clamoring, “… there is nothing new; things are not returning to better times.”
If that sounds familiar, it is the song all new leaders hear as they attempt to manage changes to a previous administration’s programs. Can those newly elected change things by some secret program, an unknown, but more workable plan for the USA?
Maybe, and that is a supporting pillar for dreams.
In America, we believe there is a valid and knowledgeable person elected to ensure that things work-out. In the structure of our election process we listen, and hope to hear, that a political messiah wants to serve us in Washington.
If we vote poorly (for what-ever reason), the leadership may change, but that does not mean the “new” is any better. It reminds me of that old Southern expression: “don’t change horses in the middle of the stream… just help him across!”
Why? Because being familiar with the depth, he knows where the river crossing is best. That probably serves my decision to vote again for the one that I voted for, then!

F. Guy Glover
Los Lunas

Don’t be misled by Planned Parenthood
Editor:
There are almost as many reasons people choose a candidate as there are people. It usually comes down to some special interest we hold dear.
For some people it is self-interest. What can this candidate do for me? Organizations will often endorse a candidate for this same reason. What can this candidate do to help promote our agenda?
Knowing which organizations support the candidates can help us know where he/she stands on the issues that are important to us.
If the president of an organization was invited to speak at a partisan national convention, one could presume that they have a serious interest in the outcome of the election.
Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parent Federation of America and Planned Parenthood Action Fund, was invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Their support for one particular candidate is very clear. This candidate will be the one to further their agenda.
The question: What is that agenda? According to the Planned Parenthood website, “In its nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has grown to become the nation’s foremost provider of sexual and reproductive health care and sex education, and America’s largest and most powerful advocacy organization for women’s health and rights.”
That sounds great. Who wouldn’t want to see our women and children helped?
I don’t question the fact that it has become the nation’s foremost provider of sexual education, but what is the goal and have they helped or hindered it?
Students have been well educated in how to apply as well as supplied with condoms. Many girls have received free birth control pills. One would think that the reasoning behind this is to reduce the number of teen pregnancies.
Look around. You don’t even need to look at tables of statistics to see that there are vastly more teenage mothers today than there have ever been in the past. They have failed sorely in this respect.
Should we continue to fund them and allow them to continue on with the same results?
I do question the fact that they provide reproductive “health care” and advocate for women’s rights. In this age of technology Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide mothers an ultrasound at any stage of pregnancy. They have the funding to do this but lack the desire.
They are aware that mothers who see their unborn children in the womb will truly have a choice and can’t be misled into having an abortion. What other forms of reproductive health cared do they provide?
Have you ever known of any woman going into a Planned Parenthood clinic with the intention of seeking maternity care?
We all know the reason women go there. They go there because they are misled through “sexual education” into thinking that they have no other choice. Do we really want our tax dollars to be spent on that?
Don’t be misled by those who would tell you that Planned Parenthood and the candidates who fund and support them are merely providing women the “health care” they need. Don’t be misled by surveys and statistics. Look around.
Things have not improved in the 100 years Planned Parenthood has been around. It’s time that we speak up and look for a better alternative.

Kellie Lopez
Los Lunas

Unborn babies should have rights
Editor:
It is interesting what stories about people you see and read in the newspapers.
(Recently) I read about a man who sat out on a five year traverse riding his horse. He wanted to make folks aware of the plight of today’s horses. He planned to take his message through out the United States and overseas as well.
I  too have been hurt when I read such stories and see the pictures of the poor starved horses that were left to fend for themselves. I realize people have come up on hard times and are unable to feed and take care of their horses needs.
Now, I am wondering why we do not read stories or see pictures in our newspapers of the precious little unborn babies that are killed by the million each year.
These little unwanted babies will never get a chance to run and play, to go to school, to grow up, to love someone and to have the joy of having children of the their own. This may be because they were not planned for, or they may not be of the right sex, or what ever selfish reason the parents might have.
I am fearful for our country, as we continue to support something so horrible that our country calls “legal.” Some of my people running for government offices have told me.
“It is the women’s right.”
I ask, “What about the unborn person’s right?”
These little unborn babies do not have a voice. I ask you the reader, “Won’t you please be a voice for these precious little ones?”
Let us take our message to the White House.

Eleanor Lake Love
Los Lunas

Republican agenda isn’t very good
Editor:
The Republican Party has put together an anti-citizen agenda, and their package stinks.
Much of the Republican party’s plans to increase control over “We The People” by the Oligarchy — simple fascism — are hidden.
The GOP (‘greedy old plutocrats’) waves key words in the air that make the “sheeple” (that is a word!) get all het up and salivate and march in circles.
But raise your hand if you read the actual text of the official platform of the Republican Party for 2012.
I didn’t think so.
For the uninformed, the Republican (slash) neo-con (slash) Tea Party agenda includes:
• Nullifiying a woman’s choice to make her own decisions, up to eventually cancelling a woman’s right to vote.
• Cutting the minimum wage in half.
• Eliminating the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Labor Department and other regulator bureaus of the federal government.
• Privatizing the U.S. Postal Service (so that the Oligarchs can steal the $25 billion in the pension fund).
• Shutting down Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare.
• Privatizing Social Security (which is quite solvent — the Republicans are lying).
• Further eliminating regulation of banks and the artificial and very unnecessary commodities markets (the deregulation of which are the root cause of the 2008 recession which has lasted four years so far, with no end in sight — thanks to Republican congressional intransigence).
•  Allowing corporations to take America’s natural resources and leave behind any pollution that they create. (Continuing the “fracking” methodology for natural gas will eventually pollute America’s water aquifers, but the Oligarchs don’t mind, they’ll just sell us purified water in plastic bottles for more than the cost of gasoline.)
• Allowing the folks who caused the Gulf Coast oil mess in 2010 to do the same in the pristine Arctic and in our national parks.
• Turning the U.S.A. into a theocracy, like Iran and the Arab states, which will not be your religion, assume bitter Baptist fundamentalist taliban.
• Ending Pell Grants and student loans and inner city schools — the neo-cons are against all actual education and for indoctrination. Fox News and the right-wing talk swamp.
• Preventing formation and operation of labor unions — you know, the folks who risked their lives at Haymarket and Ludlow and since, so that you could enjoy a safe work environment and a 40-hour work week and paid overtime. Those guys.
The Republican methodology is to incite the “sheeple” with trigger words and concepts — guns, gays, God — as the smoke screen for their real purpose, which is a return to feudalism.
But what readers and citizens of New Mexico and the rest of America need to know is that any vote for any Republican candidate is approval of every single agenda item above.
You will vote this November for or against the complete package, and you will signify approval or disapproval of fascism in America.
Paul Ryan and John Boehner have already stated publicly that if they receive a “voter mandate” of a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, then they will use the legislative process called ‘reconciliation’ and write every bill as a budget item, which means that it cannot be blocked in committee nor by filibuster and that it requires only a simple majority (them) to pass.
Then Romney will rubber stamp each bill and the entire agenda will become law before Easter 2013. Won’t that be great?
If the fascist Republican Party had anything of value to offer the American voter they would not have to lie and cheat and steal to win elections.
Staying home or voting Republican this year is a vote for fascism and for the rule of the Oligarchs.
Voting for Democratic Party candidates across the ballot will ensure that small-d — democracy — will survive in America for at least two more or four more years, at which time the battle begins again.
Pass it on.

G.E. Nordell
Belen

Romney can’t hide from his many lies
Editor:
Once upon a time in America, it was not cool to lie repeatedly in front of a TV camera.
Those days are long gone.
After the first presidential debate, the media punditocracy breathlessly rushed to declare Mitt Romney the winner! So masterful, his interrupting and butting in! So visionary, the way he avoided details! So intelligent, the speed at which he talked!
But fact checkers were also watching the debate. Romney had to talk fast to rack up 27 proven lies in only 38 minutes. (Search “Romney” and “27 myths.”)
Some of Romney’s misinformation fell into the so-irrelevant-it’s-stupid category. For instance, Romney said he’d attack the deficit by cutting funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, thus throwing Big Bird and debate moderator Jim Lehrer out of work. (My mother would have slapped his face for being so rude.)
But no matter how much the far right hates non-corporate owned TV, PBS’s total funding is only about one hundredth of one percent of the federal budget.
Romney frequently lied about established facts, particularly math and economics. He claimed several times that Obama had cut $716 billion from Medicare services for seniors. But that $716 billion is the amount Obamacare saves by getting rid of the horribly overpriced Medicare Advantage program and furnishing the same medical care to seniors directly through Medicare.
Romney claimed “about half” the renewable energy companies receiving loan guarantees from the Obama administration had filed for bankruptcy. But in reality, only three out of the 27 loan recipients went belly up. Mitt, honey, 3 is one ninth of 27, not one half of 27.
Then there were endless examples of Mitt the Onion—no core beliefs left when you peel off the layers.
At the debate Romney yammered non-stop about how he’d create jobs. But this is the same Romney who made his Bain millions by gutting American companies to destroy American jobs, the same Romney who wrote off 47 percent of Americans as worthless scofflaws who didn’t want to work.
Right, left, up, down — in the last 18 months, Romney has reversed his position so often he looks like a pink slinky.
Meanwhile, under Obama’s policies, unemployment has fallen below 8 percent for the first time since the Bush administration created economic disaster.

Laura Sanchez
Los Lunas