Letters to the editor (11/21/12)


It’s going to be the best Thanksgiving Day
My friend, Cecila, was talking about the upcoming Thanksgiving — how happy we would be to have our families around our table laughing and loving and sharing each other.
Then Cecila told me this story.
A few years ago, her nephew called and asked her if he could invite a homeless man who had nowhere to go. She has a large family, but as she said: “There’s always room for one more.”
The big day came and her nephew pulled up in his little car (smaller than a Volkswagon). From the front, her nephew and an obvious homeless man got out. Then, from the back, one, two, three, four down-on-their-luck men emerged.
Her family made them all very welcome. They ate and sang and laughed.  Then they ate and laughed and played games.
All the people, young and old, had a wonderful day. When it was time for them to go, Cecila made each of the men a platter to take with them.
As she said, “It was the best Thanksgiving — ever.”
It made me think: I better do everything I can to make this the best Thanksgiving — ever.

Nancy Faust

Editorial page should be for everyone
This letter is a reaction to the ongoing religious debate being waged in the editorial pages.
Apparently, proponents for both sides are not confident enough in their own faith to allow another to worship as they se fit.
This is not what we would consider a “Christian” attitude, more is it consistent with our country’s constitutional protections. These minor disagreements over doctrine have turned violent in Roswell, when two congregations resorted to brawling in the street to settle these questions.
In the larger view, substitute Sunni/Shiite for Catholic/Protestant. We find it both arrogant and comical that these writers would claim for themselves the full knowledge and will of God, when centuries of religious scholarship and debate have not been able to resolve the question of what defines the “one true church.”
While all involved are entitled to free expression of their opinion, we don’t feel the editorial page is the right place for this discussion.
We would encourage the News-Bulletin to create a page dedicated to petty, religious squabbling so as to leave the editorial page for the serious discussions concerning the important issues of our community.

Frank and Ellen Gale

I really wish that my dog could write
I live in New Mexico. I write about New Mexico. My dog lives in New Mexico. He doesn’t write.
I wish my dog had not felt so strongly about public lands. But my dog inherited a half acre parcel in New Mexico adjacent to a national park. Now, he too, believes that park ought to belong to him … like personally.
Smart dog doing smart tricks, but selfish; isn’t that what this little tidbit is all about?
Is a canine view germane to good government for and by the people? I mean, honestly! Incidentally, his next home (th’ dog’s?) will be where ever the rescue folks place him … grrr!

F. Guy Glover
Los Lunas

Writer isn’t an  apologist for church
In answer to Gilbert Ulivarri Jr. letter of Oct. 10, and responding to the several rhetorical statements like found in this one quote, “Mr. Terry Mehaffey, as for the corruption of the Catholic Church in history, it never happened.
All popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, all men and women, the poor, the rich, the educated and uneducated have always been subject to the laws of virtue,” forcing me to inform Mr. Ulivarri that his argument is not with me.
Instead, thinking of sin to corruption, he might want to visit all of Pope John Paul II’s many apologies for the Catholic Church’s 2,000 years of sins (corruptions) against humanity (including the sufferings and deaths of millions of innocents).
I repeat, Mr. Ulivarri, I do not need to pretend otherwise, not being an apologist for the Catholic Church; your argument, rhetorically, is not with me, but with Pope John Paul II and his own use of the words “Catholic Church” in his public apologies and with the church’s own 2,000 year historical record.
The best of luck with your many published, lovingly rhetorical endeavors for rewriting  that often corrupt and bloody history!

Terry Mehaffey
Los Lunas

Stimulus money went to three areas
Sunday’s Oct. 14 Albuquerque Journal had a very good explanation of “where the stimulus money went.”
Twenty-four thousand  jobs were created or preserved here in New Mexico.
The top three areas were public education, health and social services and state and local government. More than 5,000 educators kept their jobs.
Road projects were built, and people were given assistance finding housing quickly so they wouldn’t be out on the streets. Most of the economists interviewed said the impact of the recession in New Mexico would have been much more painful without this help.
Yet, the president and CEO of the Greater Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce said that she didn’t “see any jobs created or substantial economic impact from the stimulus in New Mexico.”
Apparently she is talking about private sector jobs.  Doesn’t that sound like the pure Republican line? Or, does she not know how many small businesses those employed teachers, local government employees, or road construction workers support when they spend their wages on food and clothing?
We need to remember that during the Great Depression in the 1930s, the public schools were closed because there was no money to pay the teachers!
It’s easy to say “where’s the beef?” about the impact of the stimulus money.  But, thanks to the graphs and explanation in the Journal, now we know. It saved us from a lot of pain!

Janet Yates
Los Lunas

Family wants to thank community
I, Patricia Ithurria, and my family and friends would like to thank all the people for their donations that came through for me on saving my home.
I would also like to thank Fat Sat’s Bar and Grill in Belen and  Coyote Store for their usage of their water for our car wash, and also Rutilios in Los Lunas for the water usage.
You have made a big difference in my life. Thank you all.

Patricia Ithurria
Los Lunas

Early detection helps fight cancer
In the United States, breast cancer is the second most common cancer amongst women, behind non-melanoma skin cancer.
This ranking comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and is based on the 202,964 women diagnosed with breast cancer and the 40,598 women who died from breast cancer in 2007 in the United States.
In New Mexico each year, at least 1,100 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 220 women will die due to the disease. The most significant risk factors for developing breast cancer are two things that cannot be controlled, gender and age, more specifically being a woman and growing older.
However, a women’s risk for developing breast cancer is doubled if she has a first-degree relative (mother, sister, daughter) who has been diagnosed with breast cancer. The reason for these high statistics is a lack of participation in screening to detect early diagnosis; this occurs most commonly amongst minority and low-income women. The later the diagnosis of breast cancer, the lower the chances for survival.
This is where policy comes in: research needs to be better supported so that doctors are able to better distinguish between the different types of cancer; and all women need to have access to screening and the best care that is available.
While there is financial assistance out there to help women get screened, and pay for treatment if needed, there are very few women who qualify for it, as the person’s/family income must be extremely low.
Unfortunately, this leaves a larger number of women in the middle who are too “rich” for assistance, but too “poor” to pay for services on their own.
Not only is policy important for breast cancer, but so is education. Many people hear the word cancer and immediately associate the word with a death sentence. Today, breast cancer survival rates continue to increase because women are getting screened and catching the cancer in its earliest stages.
According to the National cancer Institute, women (with no family history of breast cancer) ages 40 and older should have a mammogram every one to two years. Women ages 21 and older, should receive a clinical breast exam every year or at least once every three years.
The most important thing a woman can do is be familiar with her body; know what is normal and what is not.

Adrianna Cole