Democracy for New Mexico

Celebrate Cesar Chavez' Birthday Thursday in Santa Fe

From the NM Department of Health:
The Department of Health has been coordinating a series of Cultural Celebrations, focusing on different cultural groups and emphasizing the importance of understanding the ways that cultural beliefs influence health, health care access, and health care delivery. Each celebration has had its own special flavor appropriate to the culture that is celebrated. All, however, focus on health.

The upcoming celebration is for Hispano/a culture, focusing around the birthday of Cesar Chavez, his life’s work, and the impact of his work today. The celebration will be held on Thursday, March 30, 2006, from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM in the Harold Runnels Building in Santa Fe.

We hope you will attend and encourage your colleagues, family, and friends to participate as well. We would like to see many community members, Department of Health and other agency staff, and elected officials participating in this celebration.

We will have speakers, cultural performances, educational booths, and artists displaying and selling their work.

The celebration will open with the DeVargas Middle School Mariachi band at 9:30 AM, and the program will begin at 10:00 AM

Speakers will cover the following topics (beginning at 10:00 AM):

(1) Cesar Chavez, his life and the impact of his work, then and now, (Sam Baca and Rick Nahmias)

(2) Environmental Health, particularly issues directly affecting the Hispana/o community

(3) Integrated Pest Management (Fabian Chavez),

(4) Latina health in rural areas (Elaine Montaño) (invited), and

(5) US/Mexico Border Health issues (Dan Reyna).

And the following entertainment:

(1) Mariachi band from De Vargas Junior High School (starting at 9:30 prior to the event)

(2) Spanish guitar and singing (Sam Baca and Fred Sandoval)

(3) Los Niños de Santa Fe y Compania

(4) Spanish Guitar and singing - Nacha Mendez (play at the end)

A feast of traditional foods, prepared by Department of Health staff and local restaurants will follow the activities. We are looking forward to an educational, entertaining, and exciting celebration, and we hope you and your colleagues, community members, contractors, family, and friends will be
able to join us.

If you have questions, please contact me, Doris Fields, in the Human Resources Bureau at (505) 827-0608.

Udall, Bingaman Report From Iraq

U.S. Rep. Thomas Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, speaks to reporters in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, March 25, 2006. (AP Photo/Jacob Silberberg)

An article in Sunday's Albuquerque Journal by Michael Coleman of the paper's Washington Bureau reported on separate trips to Iraq made last week by New Mexico's Rep. Tom Udall and Senator Jeff Bingaman. Their assessments of the current situation there were less than reassuring. Excerpts:

... Rep. Tom Udall told reporters during a conference call from Baghdad on Saturday that the U.S. military should pull its troops out of Iraq by the end of this year.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, making his second trip to Iraq since the war began, told The Associated Press on Friday that he saw some progress on this visit, but not nearly as much as he had hoped.

Both Bingaman and Udall voted against the initial Iraqi invasion under President George W. Bush.

Udall said Iraq's failure to organize a legitimate, functioning government has severely hampered the country's economic and democratic progress.

"It's been a letdown for the Iraqi people, and it's made the American people very impatient," Udall said. "You can't make progress with a lame duck government."

The congressman said he hopes the Defense Department will "redeploy" American soldiers from Iraq by year's end, preferably to other locations in the Middle East. He said American troops need to remain in the region­ in places such as Kuwait­ to provide a ready response to other threats.

"We want to let them know we don't want instability in the region," Udall said.

He said President Bush made a tactical mistake last week when he conceded that U.S. troops will likely remain in Iraq at least until the end of his presidency. The president's declaration allows Iraqi leaders and soldiers to dither while Americans do much of the heavy lifting required to secure the country, rebuild its infrastructure and improve its economy, Udall told reporters.

"What incentive does that give them to step forward?" Udall asked. "I don't see that incentive."

... "You see areas where significant movement is being made, but it's not being made to the extent it should be," Udall said, noting that oil production in Iraq is still significantly lower than it was before the U.S. invasion.

After dining with top Iraqi officials from the country's feuding parties Saturday night, Udall said he was encouraged that they seemed intent on reaching agreement on a new government structure.

"None of them told us they are going to be deadlocked and will walk away," Udall said.

Instead, he said the Iraqis pleaded for patience from the U.S. government.

"Iraq hasn't really known democracy for 1,000 years, and this is hard work," said Udall, who will also visit Kuwait and Jordan on this trip before returning to Washington on Monday.

Spring Sunday Bird Blogging

Sunny the sun conure parrot is experiencing his first bout of Spring fever these days. As you can see above, Spring brings out his Tarzan qualities. He swings! And if he could swing on a star, he would. I wonder if his prodigious appetitite for parrot chile (yes there is such a thing, with red chiles and beans) revs him up even more.

He also likes to charge the camera, rumbling up with that pirate look in his eyes that says, Aye Matey! He's a little unbalanced right now, too, since he's lost most of his tail feathers and is waiting for the new ones to grow in. You might say he toddles, as in "toddlin' town."

But when all is said and done, all he's really stealing is your heart ... awww ... (Click on photos for larger versions.)

Cheers and Jeers Greet NM Dems' Impeachment Resolution

(Click on image for larger version or click to view source.)

Passage of a floor amendment to the NM Democratic 2006 Platform that supports the impeachment of Bush is getting nationwide attention. Not only was the story linked on right-wing website The Drudge Report this week, so-called Freepers are up at arms. Robb Chavez's successful floor amendment on impeachment was also were featured on The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and a number of other progressive blogs, where it received many cheers.

I'm sorry to say that the responses of some Dems have been less than stellar, in my opinion. According to a story in the Albuquerque Tribune, here's what Patricia Madrid had to say:

Madrid, trying to oust Republican U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson of Albuquerque, said in a statement today she wasn't present when the vote was taken Saturday. She called the action "premature."

"I hope I get the chance to go to Congress to participate in a full investigation of the underlying issues," she said.

The same article reports this on Senator Jeff Bingaman's response:

Bingaman also says it's too early to support sanctions against Bush for the wiretapping issue, said his spokeswoman, Jude McCartin. Bingaman was in Afghanistan Saturday and is in Baghdad today.

I thought Governor Bill Richardson had the best public response. Even though I personally think he could have gotten out front on this issue nationally by supporting the impeachment resolution, he at least said he understood it and gave delegates props for being engaged on the issues. I think he gets it. According to an article in the Albuquerque Journal, which I couldn't find online:

...the Democratic Governor understands the anger of party members who supported the Bush resolution, given the direction the president's policies are taking the country, spokesman Pahl Shipley said.

"The Governor is opposed to this call for impeachment and feels that is premature," Shipley said. "Nonetheless, he recognizes the mounting frustration with the policies of the Bush administration," Shipley said. "However, he is pleased the party delegates have become very issue-oriented and commends them for their activism."

To those Dems saying they can't support the impeachment or censure resolutions because they're waiting for an investigation, I say read this. When and how, exactly, do they think the dishonest, secretive, cover-up Republicans are going to launch a genuine investigation into Bush's abuse of power regarding NSA domestic surveillance?

Glenn Greewald lays out the compelling arguments against waiting in his piece on Huffington Post entitled Myth-Making and Excuse-Making on the Feingold Resolution.

Senator Pat Roberts STILL hasn't allowed Phase II of the pre-war intelligence "investigation." Remember when our Senate Leader, Harry Reid, shut down the Senate in protest because Roberts was in eternal delay mode on this? Still nothing, months later. How long will we have to wait for Roberts to "investigate" the NSA matter? You can be sure it won't be before the 2006 midterm elections, if ever.

There are many stuck in the conventional wisdom box who say this impeachment and censure talk is premature, a distraction or just plain silly. An Albuquerque Tribune editorial takes this tack, saying impeachment talk is just sour grapes. It directs Dems to concentrate on winning by ignoring the illegal acts of a sitting president for now. They actually claim that Bush won NM in 2004 by "focusing on bread-and-butter issues close to home." Hmm. I didn't notice that. I thought they won by placing hysterical flyers about abortion on cars in Catholic Church parking lots, using McCarthy-like tactics to trump up indignation and fear about gay rights and bellowing dishonest propaganda about Dems being soft on terrorism.

Oddly, the editorial sets up an artificial either-or situation: If Dems are boldly challenging lawlessness in the presidential suite, they cannot possibly focus on winning races. Sadly, the editorial staff of the Tribune apparently believes that tepid is better than bold when serious wrongdoing is uncovered in Washington. They seem to have bought into the right-wing bluff that dares Dems to speak out and face the blare of neo-con fearmongering. What they don't seem to realize is that the right-wing noise machine will continue regardless of what Dems say or do. Truth and facts have nothing to do with their propaganda.

I guess whoever wrote the editorial hasn't been watching politics for the last decade. Did they miss Repubs spending billions of taxpayer money on an "investigation" into Whitewater real estate deals and impeaching a president over consensual sexual acts? Given the much more serious wrongdoing by Bush, why should Dems be disuaded from challenging President Bush for clearly circumventing the FISA law, lying us into war and ignoring the Geneva Conventions?

As usual these days, candidates and editorial boards, insulated from the rigors and realities of Bush's America, lack the sense of urgency and outrage that is rippling through our neighborhoods all over America. Repeatedly they caution us to act like nothing out of the ordinary is happening in our nation, that nothing strange and dangerous is threatening our constitution and our democracy. If Dems must speak about issues, they'd best do so while saying nothing of substance. Just play the political game as it's always been played, or risk derision. This is a winning stratetgy?

How out of tune with Americans can these forces get? Your guess is as good as mine. I point you again to the recent polling on Senator Feingold's censure resolution. Even without widespread persuasion and outreach on this issue, All Adults support censure 46-44% and voters support it 48-43%. Moreover, Democrats support it by a margin of 70-26%. The real issue is whether Dem candidates will represent the strong views of people whose votes they seek, and whether Dem voters will give their votes to candidates who refuse to represent them on issues like this. We'll see.

God to Bush: Take a Hint

Bill Maher's closing bit last Friday night on HBO's Real Time:

Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's  no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit card's maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.

Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could  involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do.

There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to  Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.

But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like  a man. Herbert Hoover was a lousy president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airlines, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you
don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if  you were on the other side.

So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: Take a  hint.

Just Think If We Led On "Wedge Issues"

A just released national Pew Research poll includes these findings:

Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.

... The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.

... Strong" opposition to gay marriage, which surged in 2004, has ebbed to a new low. This is particularly the case among seniors, Catholics and non-evangelical Protestants. Among people age 65 and over, for example, strong opposition to gay marriage jumped from 36% in 2003 to 58% in 2004, but has fallen to 33% today. White evangelical Protestants are the only major group in which a majority still strongly opposes gay marriage, but even here the intensity of feeling has receded somewhat.

Yes, positive attitudes about equal citizenship rights for all, including gay civil marriage, are trending strongly upward, even though most Dems are doing next to nothing to change people's minds. Think what could be achieved if we decided to lead on this and other "controversial" issues -- to offer persuasive arguments to counter biases nursed by the conservative noise machine, to educate citizens on what's really at stake if we don't secure basic rights for all. Instead, too many seem mired in fear and even shame about what we Democrats really believe.

I think we should be proud of our decades-long pursuit of justice, equality and fairness for all, not fearful to admit it. The Democratic Party has taken many risks in the past supporting positions that were very controversial at the time -- strongly lobbying for labor rights, for equal civil rights for racial minorities, for women's rights, for environmental regulation and much more. Since when are we afraid to take on the biases and injustices of our time, to confront the forces of prejudice and narrowmindedness and convince voters of what's right?

I'm sure if you polled voters during the eras when we fought for these things, you'd find we were out front on the issues. We were "out of sync" with the attitudes of many voters all right. But instead of shrinking from the challenge, we plunged in and fought for our values. We didn't cave to the threats and badgering of those on the other side of the issues. We stood tall and explained why.

I think about all this in terms of positions that were cut out or watered down in the NM Dem Party's 2006 platform. Unfortunately, strong resolutions on gay civil rights that were approved at every level of the Party were tossed aside when it came time for platform creation. We've been told in no uncertain terms by -- believe it or not -- a gay man who serves on the platform committee, that we'll do our cause harm if we seek to lead on this issue. Can there be a more co-opted or self-defeating attitude than this? And yet it prevails in way too many corners of the Party. At least for now.

We have a long and proud history of representing those whose voices have been stifled, whose lives have been shrunken, whose rights have been trampled upon by prejudice and ignorance and greed. If we stop doing this our of fear and calculation, who are we as a Party?

Reception & Dinner Benefit for Valle Vidal Set for 3/30

From the :
Join us at a reception and dinner benefit Thursday, March 30 for The Fund for the Valle Vidal as we celebrate the efforts of these individuals and organizations:

• Rachel Conn, Amigos Bravos
• Jim O'Donnell, Coalition for the Valle Vidal
• Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, Western Environmental Law Center and Lead Counsel for the Coalition for the Valle Vidal
• & Special Guests supporters/members of the Coalition for the Valle Vidal

Benefit Committee: William Knight, Rena Rosequist, Gus Foster, Charles Strong, Janet Webb, & Theron Horton

Reception & Silent Auction 5:30 PM
at Hotel La Fonda de Taos's KARAVAS CONFERENCE CENTER
Hors d'oeuvres and beverages will be served.

Dinner selections for Joseph's Table must be submitted ASAP. Make your event reservations here. Please visit the following websites for complete project/event information: and The Coalition for the Valle Vidal.

If you wish to contribute by mail, please make contributions payable to:
The Fund for the Valle Vidal
Post Office Box 1281
Taos, New Mexico 87571

A project of
simpleCHANGE.org
pro bono publico

Sound Off: Reaction to Open Letter to State Dem Chair

This Soundoff was submitted by V. Lamkin of Albuquerque in response to a previous Sound Off by Guy Watson entitled Open Letter to Dem State Party Chair:

I attended the March 4, 2006 State Resolutions/Platform Committee meeting with Mr. Watson and a handful of others who came to voice concerns and ideas to the committee members. One aspect of this meeting that stands out for me was the resistance by some of the committee members to even entertain issues that they perceived as "wedge issues." In other words: any issue that might be used by the Republicans against the NM Democratic Party.

During the course of this meeting we were given a chance to participate as long as we submitted our ideas in writing after each section of the platform was discussed by the committee members present. I myself am new to how the platform process works. I submitted several ideas that day in writing and they were included on the platform that was presented to the delegates on Saturday March 18, 2006. I learned a great deal from observing this process and I encourage others to become familiar with it. As the meeting started we were given several packets of resolutions that had been submitted to the committee from around the state. I did not have a lot of time once the meeting started to read all this information.

The day was spent discussing a platform that I thought was a compilation of the resolutions in the various packets. I found out afterwards that the platform discussed on March 4, 2006 was a version of the 1996 platform. I became more alarmed when I had a chance to read the submitted resolutions packets after the meeting and realized that many of the "whereas" that had been adopted from around the state had not even been considered or discussed by the committee on March 4.

There were many wonderful and courageous resolutions submitted that were not taken into consideration. Here are just a few:

Santa Fe presented a resolution that contrasted minimum wage workers and CEO pay. They made a great point about the suppression of local economic growth versus wine and dining of special interest lobbyists. Also the State Central Committee submitted 15 resolution pages under a wide-range of headings. Just to name a few: Profiteering from War, Fairness to the National Guard, the FCC and Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, Predatory Lending and Payday Loans, and Resolutions to Bring Home the Troops. Rio Arriba submitted a resolution focused upon forbidding the buying and selling of votes.

I haven't even touched base with some of the incredible specific language that was submitted: Los Alamos submitted wording such as: the invasion of Iraq was based upon a false claim, Marriage is an institution that recognizes the lifetime commitment of two people and marriage is an institution that guarantees two people legal and economic rights not available to single people. They also submitted one urging congress to create a Department of Peace. Lincoln County submitted many resolutions focused upon Volunteer First Responders and providing them with Worker's Compensation Insurance etc.... In our state's rural areas most, if not all of the firefighters and EMT's are volunteers. Lincoln County also addressed the drought our state is experiencing with resolutions focused upon groundwater sustainability.

Do you find the above resolutions as compelling as I do? Why were these resolutions and all the rest not considered for inclusion on the platform during the March 4, 2006 meeting? I know this means spending more than one day on them but I feel this effort should have been made. Let me be very clear here. My intent is not to attack the committee members. I appreciate that these members of the Democratic Party have stepped up to the plate and volunteered their valuable time. I just feel the process has room for improvement. During this past Friday's meeting at Smith-Brasher Hall when Mel O'Reilly stated from the floor that more Democrats should get involved in the process -- I agreed with him wholeheartedly.

I among others attended the March 18, 2006 preprimary convention in order to fight for the concept that if we have a resolution adoption process then these resolutions should be included on the platform that is being voted upon. Whether they be mainstream or "wedge issues," if we insure this then we truly all are a part of a party that is inclusive.

In conclusion, I feel if we want more of a say in what is included on the platform -- so it is truly our platform -- then more of us need to take a stand and participate in the meetings where these decisions are made.

V. Lamkin
Albuquerque, NM

Editor's Note: Sound Off is an occasional feature on this blog that provides an opportunity for folks to express their opinons in a longer format than thread comments permit. If you'd like to submit a Sound Off for future publication, please send it to me by clicking on the Email Me link on the upper left-hand side of the main page.

DPBC Third Thursday Meeting Today

From the Democratic Party of Bernalillo County:
THIS MONTH ONLY: THIRD THURSDAY MEETING MOVED TO THURSDAY, MARCH 23, AT UNM LAW SCHOOL, ROOM 2401, 6:00 PM. All Democrats welcome.

Topic: "A Critical Issue - Do We Really Have Enough Water?" We have a record drought that affects both our metropolitan and rural areas in New Mexico. Come to our meeting to hear: Janet Jarratt, Vice Chair, Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative and John Shipley: Member, Board of Directors of Rio Grande Agricultural Land Trust. Everyone is invited to share perspectives and ask questions. Click for map.

UNM to host Peace and Justice Fair

From UNM Today:
The University of New Mexico will host the 2nd Annual Peace and Justice Fair featuring more than 50 exhibits and several panel discussions and performances Wednesday, March 29, from Noon to 10 PM in the Student Union Building ballrooms.

Students Organizing Action for Peace (S.O.A.P.) and the UNM Peace Studies Program sponsor the free event. Nearly a dozen on and off-campus groups are co-sponsors, including UNM International Programs and the Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice.

“We've had a nice show of support and solidarity from the community,” said Peace Studies Director Jenny Moore, UNM professor of law and associate dean.

This year's theme is "Question Violence: Wage Peace.” A 1 PM panel discussion will focus on students integrating a commitment to social justice with life in the classroom. At 3 PM, panelists Martin Brennan, UNM ambassador-in-residence, Matthew Henderson, ACORN New Mexico organizer and William Kyser of the Albuquerque Living Wage Campaign, and others, will discuss careers in peacemaking.

At 6 PM, veterans from the Iraq war and service men and women yet to be called to active duty will speak.

Veterans for Peace will have an installation near the duck pond. Evening entertainment includes performances by local folk/pop band Buddha Betties and the Side Street Strut Swing Sextet.

For more information contact Desi Brown at: desib@unm.edu.