Web site

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."- This is a quote from Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor, in 1787 as he discussed the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years before.

Bobbi informed me, despite what you read in the paper; LCSWA paid $750,000.00 of your money for 24 acres. Insiders were calling it the "Christmas Tree Lot". You've got to love those public servants at LCSWA, always looking out for your best interest. Capitan voted no. A man of vision, your county rep, Leo Martinez, voted yes. He's up for re-election in March; let him know what you think of his vote by casting yours. I can already hear Leo crying, "It's a personal vendetta". He also voted for the operational supervisor's 10% raise to her salary they had doubled last year, plus $7,500 to drive her car. I bet the working folks, who have to smell the garbage and only got less then a I% raise think it is a "personal vendetta". All the while we still do their billing.

We had a "special" meeting on September l6th. I've seen miniseries not last that long. Four hours of should we or should we not hire another police officer. The meeting drug on until Leroy made a motion we adjourn in the middle of the discussion. John quickly seconded. I ask for a roll call vote to which I had to break the tie to remain in session, and the discussion labored on like a wagon with a bad wheel in need of grease. Just before my head hit the table, and after John realized he drank to much coffee, George made a motion to hire a cop and Bobbi seconded. Bobbi and George voted yes and John voted "no". Leroy, like Elvis, had already left the building. So the vote passed to hire a new cop. Before I could gavel the meeting dead the rumors began to fly that George is going to vote down the resolution to transfer the money thus voting down his own motion. Today, I called George, and he assured me it was nothing but a rumor With firm conviction, the board decided to hire another police officer - maybe.

Laws rise out of the warm ashes of need to be enacted by the will of the people through their elected officials, Today, I filed an alleged violation of Capitan, ordinance 4-2- 1, "PUBLIC NUISANCE", against the Lincoln County News the publishers and the writer of two articles that used profanity in the headlines. The Public Nuisances ordinance reads, "It is unlawful to commit public nuisance. A "public nuisance "consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is either injurious to public health, safety, morals, of welfare or interferes with the exercise and enjoyment of public rights, including the right to use public property. (1981 Code 6-6-1)

I was not acting under the direction of the Trustees, nor in my capacity as Mayor, but as a citizen. On January 30, 2003 the News used a word in a headline that is considered to be profanity. Although I'm not a prude and embarrassed to admit I've used the word on more the one occasion, I was shocked and offended to see it staring at me in a headline in bold print. If I knowingly, with no-regard for your feelings, walked into your home with this on my boots, you would be offended and throw me out. Is the press held to a lesser standard? They drug what I scrape off my boots into our homes knowingly and without regard for our- feelings. (If you don't know what I'm taking about ask around, there were plenty of folks hot about it.)

The first time I saw this word in print, on January 30th, I wrote it off as a journalist with a limited vocabulary attempting to be cute and sell papers. Then on August 28, 2003, a pattern developed when the News knowingly used the word again in a headline, above the fold and in large font. They did leave out two letters, replacing them with dashes but the word was there and understood.

I'm sure the News will scream they have a "right" afforded them under the first amendment. The first amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " This word could have been left out and no content would have been lost in the story or their reporting. It was not a quote, nor did it have any bearing on the story, it had no meaning other then to shock in a feeble attempt to sell papers.

With this in mind, I submit to you the right of the press ends where our rights as citizens begin. We too are covered by the first amendment, we have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances. " I have "petitioned the gonernment" by citing the News into court. The word "redress" is the setting right of that which is wrong. Printing those words not once but twice was wrong. The Capitan School will not allow it out of our children. So why do we allow it out of our paper? We have become way to politically correct in thinking we do not have a right to stand up for what we believe. The only freedoms we have are those we are willing to fight for. The second amendment is in place to ensure the first and the rest remain in place. Our preacher has the right to raise his head from grace, in the cafe, and not be forced to see that trash on the front page. Our children should not have it staring them in the face at the Shell Station because we fear not being politically correct. If I'm polite enough to scrape it from my boots before coming in the house, the News can scrape it from their pages before entering our town.

I'm not tying to curb their "right" to print any thing they care to print. If they choose to print garbage, bag it. We demand the same out of pornographers. We do not tell the trash peddlers what to print, only how they can display it in our town. Freedoms are lost through abuse; the paper has abused their first amendment right to freedom of the press. I believe they attempted to breathe life back into a dying paper by being controversial. I'm not asking the court to fine them, or tell them what to print, only to instruct them if they are going to print in on the front page, have the decency to cover it. We demand it from the pornographers. Why not the paper? Now, I'll climb down off my soapbox.

George had charge of the September Mayor's Report, if you enjoyed the break thank him.