D e s e r t E x p o s u r e
January 2010
Stinging Criticism
After reading one too many of Jeff Berg's pieces ("Dentured Servant," December), I finally write to express my surprise that he is listed as Senior Writer in your masthead since I feel he does not measure up to the standards of your publication. In fact, I will follow his lead in his total lack of knowledge about anatomy of bees by saying what he has to say must come out of his ass.
Rick Burns
Caballo
Senior Writer Jeff Berg replies: In
response to Mr. Burns' comments on my adventures in dental work, and my reference
to honey being referred to for years by many, in jest, as "bee poop," I was
at first puzzled at what he was talking about. But then when it came to me,
I wondered how someone could be offended by something so silly, which was
meant to be silly. But then I thought: How would I have
responded? Would I send a note to the editor that would sound even sillier
than the reference to "bee poop" (actually, it is bee barf)? Or would I see this as an opportunity to invite the "offender" to
learn more about my interest, research or work with bees, which perhaps could
have led to an article that would allow others to learn as well? Rick, I
think I'd have chosen the latter.
DE Deletion Solved
I am writing in response to your final comment in December's Tumbleweeds column ("Just Wondering"). I am a contracted coordinator for the Lighted Christmas Parade. My responsibilities included recruitment of the judging panel. The manager of MainStreet, Frank Milan, was responsible for writing the articles for the insert in the Daily Press. When I provided the list of judges for him I omitted Ms. Wignall's affiliation. So wonder no more, the omission was my fault and I have no hidden agenda. My apologies.
Ted Shinkle
Silver City
Teague Time
Your comments about Harry Teague's healthcare vote (Editor's Notebook, December) seem a bit off the mark to me. As a registered Independent, I generally look at both major parties with the same alarm as an experienced bird dog looking at a skunk. Nevertheless I think Teague should have some defense.
First, he's the only politician elected to a national office that I've ever seen make himself personally available to his constituents and it not be a media sales pitch circus. He has repeatedly been available for personal constituent conferences and he politely listens to your comments. So, I suspect his vote reflected the concerns of his constituents.
My own assessment of all the "healthcare reform" proposals is that they amount to turning the US government into a thug to collect money for the medical and drug industries. I expressed this to Mr. Teague. First, it is absurdly expensive and time consuming to become a "legal" doctor in our healthcare system. When a doctor starts his practice, he's already spent a king's ransom and is 10 years late going to work. They are forced to be outrageously expensive to just break even. Nothing in any of the proposals addresses this issue.
Second, we have a large portion of our "healthcare" based on suppressing symptoms with drugs instead of curing the health problem. The drugs produce more health problems and eventually permanently damage vital organs. The result is incapacitation years before your lifespan is finished. The cost of this absurdity is enormous. Nothing in any of the proposals address this issue.
Third, we have millions of people who've had their jobs transferred to Asia; if they are "lucky" they now have a part-time job, with no benefits, at a wage that basically pays for the rent, utilities, groceries and little else. All the proposals mandate these folks pay thousands of dollars per year for "healthcare" or face heavy fines levied by the US Dept. of Thugs. This is right out of the Marie Antoinette book of justice and compassion.
Therefore, I think Mr. Teague voted exactly as he should have. Maybe his constituents want real healthcare reform and not attempted robbery from an empty wallet.
Charles Clements
Las Cruces
Editor's note: Thanks
for your thoughtful comments. We would have been happier had Teague voted
the way he promised his future constituents he would when running for election — that's how representative democracy is supposed to work. For more on Teague's voting record — and how it may reflect the wishes of his donors rather than his constituents — see
this month's Editor's Notebook.
I hope Harry Teague and the rest of the Democrats figure out how to cater to their progressive base, since I would hate to have Steve Pearce et al back in power again. Not to mention Sarah Palin as president.
Gordon Solberg
Las Cruces
Snakes Alive!
Editor's note: We really thought we were done with the Larry Lightner snake controversy, with last month's Letters. But then we discovered that this letter somehow got waylaid en route to our inbox. In the interest of fairness, we'll give it the last word:
I found it hard to believe all of the folks that disliked Larry Lightner's article, "Snake Miseries" (October). Those folks apparently live in apartments or in the middle of town and obviously their only knowledge of snakes is what they read. They have never lost a dog, seen a cow suffer when its head swells like a basketball, or had a friend crippled for life from one of those "beneficial" snakes. I spent most of my life in snake country (South Texas) and believe me, the pain, suffering and death that they can cause far outweigh any benefits they provide.
I have often heard the old saying, "If you see a snake, just walk around it and leave it alone; they were here long before we were." Well, so were scorpions, cockroaches and rats, but I think we should get rid of them when we can. I do agree that snakes help rid us of rodents, but I would much prefer having the rodents in my yard than any venomous snake. I think Mr. Landrum's comment (Letters, November) was partially correct. I would change it to say, "Stand back 10 feet, observe an amazing evolutionary adaptation (whatever that is), take a picture, say good day, and blow his head off."
Thank you, Larry Lightner for a great article! The only thing I did not agree with you on was your regards for "small snakes." They do grow up! I think any venomous snake should be killed on sight.
Don Shows
Hidden Valley Ranch
Deming
Corrections and clarifications — To clarify the information in "The Case of Lieutenant John Lafferty" by Jerry Eagan (December): Fred Lafferty was never a Realtor in New Mexico, only in Texas. He prefers the title "conservationist," rather than "rancher," as La Querencia was never a ranch. His father, "Pat" Lafferty, was not a general, but rather retired after 33 years of military service as a colonel in the US Air Force. Fred Lafferty retired from the Navy in 1969 as a commander and took up his residence in El Paso.
Also, an eagle-eyed reader of "Cultivating Cranberry Press" (December) points out: "Billy the Kid died in 1881 and was not around in 1889 to be able to visit Kingston."
Let us hear from you! Write Desert Exposure Letters, PO Box 191, Silver City, NM 88062, fax 534-4134 or email letters@desertexposure.com Letters are subject to editing for style and length, and must be in response to content that has appeared in our pages. Deadline for the next issue is the 18th of the month.