It's remarkable to see all those patriots out with their tea bags after eight years of silence. Not one bag showed up for eight long depressing years of having the Constitution trampled on, our civil liberties infringed on, not to mention the shameful war, domestic spying, Hurricane Katrina and more. Never before has the nation been so polarized.

Wednesday's protesters even derided the amazing performance of President Barack Obama at the G20, though admittedly it wasn't hard to outshine the former president. Never before has the gulf between the left and the right been so wide. From the first dog, to the handling of the Somalia pirate incident, there is not one move our president can make without being attacked. Maybe its time we on the left hit the streets like we did in the '60s and showed the tea-partiers what they should really be protesting against.


Where were all these "tea-partiers" the last eight years of George W. Bush's tax policy? While taxes on the rich were reduced to ridiculous levels, the middle class made up for it. Government grew under Bush, and he started two wars while reducing taxes — on the rich.

Bush outspent the money coming in, and now we are going to have to pay for it. Isn't it ironic that with Obama's tax plan, 99.9 percent of these "tea-partiers" will see an increase in their take-home pay beginning this month? Obama represents tax relief to the working class and will let tax breaks for the rich expire. Methinks these "tea-partiers" have been hoodwinked.


Those relatively few Fox News-inspired "patriots" who held Tea Parties on the 15th are woefully misinformed, or possibly are just part of the Party of No who wish to attract attention to themselves.

The Tea Party that was held in Boston Harbor prior to our Revolution was to protest taxation without representation. Now the Congress sets taxes, ergo, we have taxation with representation.

Also, ignorance is bliss for these folks. If Obama's plan to increase taxes on the wealthiest, while lowering them for the rest of us, goes through, the highest tax bracket will still be lower than it was under Reagan (the demi-deity of conservatives), and way, way lower than the 90 percent top tax bracket of post-World War II days.


In a time of war, when thousands of families have lost fathers, sons, husbands (also mothers, daughters and wives), staging self-righteous protests about the merely monetary sacrifice represented by taxes seems awfully petty and mean-spirited.

Of course paying taxes is no fun. I understand, too, that protest against government policies is a right that everyone can exercise proudly. But staging tax-day protests conveys the unmistakable message, "Others may have to sacrifice their loved ones for their country, but I won't part with a dime." It sounds greedy and contemptible.


I attended the unfortunate "Tea Party" rally on the Plaza Wednesday night. When Democrat John Grubesic tried to give a speech, the crowd of well-dressed, well-coiffed, self-satisfied "tax refusers" jeered, booed and harassed him so that no one could hear what he had to say. They seemed to be having a great old time of it.

Next, former Republican Gov. Gary Johnson appeared in a T-shirt with the peace sign (I guess he thought that's what you wear when you go to a demonstration). For Johnson, reverential silence from the crowd.

I saw a man with a sign that said something like: "Socialism, trickle up poverty." I asked him, "What is socialism?" He made up some malarkey, but he didn't have a clue. I spoke to others who were there demonstrating. From them I got ignorant sloganeering like "taxes are punishing success."

This was not a nice crowd. Johnson tried, but he made no sense; the well-dressed crowd was insolent and crude, and I couldn't hear Grubesic.


Regarding "A prudent party" (April 16): Your report of Wednesday's "Tea Party" on the Plaza stated that "Many of the signs displayed at the Santa Fe rally indicated an intense dislike of President Barack Obama, including one that read, "233 Years to Build a Nation, 3 Months to Destroy It."

What are these people thinking — that eight years of President George W. Bush do not play into the fact we are in this mess? Come on people. Look toward the "fearless'' Republican leader Bush, not the new guy trying so desperately to fix his mess. Eight years, two wars, torture, criminals in power — who got us here?

Interesting too, the coverage this whole fiasco got. I don't remember as much coverage when we were protesting the true cause of this failed government.


I have been reading the articles in The New Mexican about the "Tea Party" on the Plaza. Some of the comments make me wonder if the Mad Hatter and the March Hare were there also. Especially the sign that read " 233 Years to Build a Nation, 3 Months to Destroy It."

I have to wonder if they subtracted the eight years of the Bush Administration from the 233, or added it to the 3 months. Have they forgotten that President Obama in his three months in office did not create this mess, he inherited it?

I've read some articles where they are talking about secession and revolution. This does seem a bit strange to me. When I protested the Iraq War and other of Bush's policies, these same people called me un-American and unpatriotic, and they advised me "to love it or leave it." Maybe they are finally understanding that freedom of speech and protest is an American right. I don't agree with them, but I will agree with their right to protest, even if they were not willing to do the same for me.


Is the Republican Tea Party over? What's next? Paul Revere's Ride? The Battle of Bunker Hill?

The GOP is no longer a political party, but a Ministry of Propaganda. With a spectacularly failed past they cannot own up to, and a future to which they have nothing to offer except those failures, they resort to childish games and pouting.

In their earlier temper tantrum, they spent eight years trying to destroy Bill Clinton. Will they spend President Barack Obama's entire term in office stomping their feet and holding their breath?

Meanwhile, back at the troubled ranch called the U.S.A. ...


'Green' challenges wide-ranging

I commend Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for proposing to cut or reconfigure weapons that do not work, or that are based on threats we no longer face. These systems don't make us safer, but they do financially benefit the defense contractors.

I realize that the role of funding the military belongs to Congress, but disregarding the wishes of Secretary Gates would make it quite clear that Congress is really working for the defense contractors more than for the American people.

Members of Congress may suggest that spending money on the military will create jobs, but there are many better ways to increase the number of jobs. For example, investing in mass transit and education creates many more jobs than investing in the military. In this time of climate concern, money should be spent on green jobs that would protect the biosphere's future, not on outdated weapons.


Oceanic cure

Thank you for your April 11 report, "Race to save the climate," which includes the "pros" and "cons" of the various technologies that might be used to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is clearly no "silver-bullet" solution.

There have been, however, several ocean demonstrations over the past decade of the "bio-engineered photosynthesis" technology, i.e., ocean iron fertilization. In addition to carbon dioxide sequestration via phytoplankton, one additional "pro" for this technology not mentioned is its ability to increase the (food-chain) productivity of specific ocean regions. This could be an important consideration with the increased global demand for quality fish and protein sources.


WIPP warning

Your recent biased WIPP coverage leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many in Northern New Mexico. The March 29, one-sided puff piece, "WIPP Wonders," called the facility's safety record "sterling," while never mentioning the big question: Will WIPP contain its poisons long-term?

WIPP is designed to collapse, making the nuclear waste irretrievable. Since day one, politics and pork have trumped science when it comes to WIPP. Happy workers? A trivial issue compared with chemical and radioactive contaminants ultimately reaching the Pecos River, Rio Grande and Gulf of Mexico — via numerous pathways. Why does the Department of Energy get to dictate its press coverage through its public-relations departments?

Next, your April 5 editorial," As WIPP proves safe, should its role expand?" echoed that one-sided story and speculated that high-level spent fuel rods should come to WIPP, too — a nightmare New Mexicans were promised would never happen. The energy department has a ghastly environmental record.


Missing numbers

Regarding the April 11 My View, "Do the Math: OHVers not asking for much": Off-highway vehicles have impacts far beyond their surface-area footprint. OHVs can be heard from hundreds of yards to a mile or more depending on the terrain and vehicle. This noise is known to disrupt and repel wildlife, as well as humans. The net effect is a disruptive footprint thousands of times greater than trail surface area.

OHVs churn soil, especially when traveling uphill, producing erosion, altering water flow and increasing sedimentation. While all recreationists can have negative impacts, OHV impacts are disproportionate. Beyond their sounds, exhaust fumes, speed, dust-raising, and dirt-ripping knobby tires, OHVs can travel 10 times further than a hiker or horse per average day.

Do the complete math and you'll see that, overall, OHV impacts are not minuscule but enormous. The Forest Service is correct to be cautious in designating OHV routes.


Prairie-dog exodus?

The dilemma of fragmented prairie-dog populations in Santa Fe has a simple solution: Relocate them to protected grasslands where they can thrive (an enforced city ordinance already requires this from developers).

These city populations are not sustainable, either in forage or genetics. The constant feeding of vegetables and grains to the city prairie dogs instead of their natural grasses has created a mineral deficiency epidemic that causes seizures and death.

Additionally, the weekly feeding of prairie dogs creates unnatural population booms, resulting in even more animals without a forage-base, expansion, and often death from automobiles or inhospitable land owners. This population growth also results in inbreeding among the few original survivors, a scenario that never happens in a natural environment. If we want to see the prairie dogs survive, we must sacrifice our own enjoyment of seeing them around town and help them escape from Santa Fe.


Ignored real story

Recently, our company hosted a group of French reporters and corporate employees. This small group of 11 people drove from Chicago on Route 66 aboard brand new French semi trucks (shipped from France just for this trip) equipped with advanced technology that increases gas mileage and reduces pollution.

In these depressed economic times, we thought that would make a good story. It's not every day that such an ambitious project is put together and includes New Mexico in its itinerary. Yet, when we offered access to the crew, trucks and their technology, we got absolutely no interest from The New Mexican. Zip. Nada. I guess it is better to remain a provincial newspaper and cover stories of drunks and corrupt politicos than to show interest in something new, greener, and which brings money and publicity to the city at a time when tourist dollars are few.


Don't forget beauty

It saddens me that our local press has been so hampered by our current economy that it has limited its coverage of local attractions. Nevertheless, let's note what continues to exist (as celebrated by our locals!): the Palace of the Governors and other great museums; historic places outside Santa Fe, such as Rancho de Chimayó.

I have had the pleasure of ''hosting'' out-of-state guests to Chimayó and Tesuque, after touring Santa Fe, and they all, without exception, fall in love with our area. Is it any wonder? Let us not forget the beauty in New Mexico as we gaze upon our sunrises and sunsets, to remind us that it is Mother Nature who gives us this "gift'' we so much admire.