I am sending many thanks to veterinarian Dr. Jeanette Kelly for the wonderful news that she will be reopening a 24-hour emergency pet clinic in Santa Fe (“Veterinarian hopes to bring emergency care back to S.F.,” Nov. 13). In June, we lost a beloved 16-year-old dog suddenly. It was a Friday night, and we did not make it to the emergency clinic in Albuquerque. I don’t know that anything could have saved her, but we will never know. Thank you to the compassionate doctor and all who will work for her.
Yes to hydrogen
It is inevitable that we either wean ourselves off fossil fuels or suffer serious consequences. It is also inevitable that hydrogen fuel will play an important role in our future energy structure and that we must proceed with all due expedience toward that future. That said, the current plans for “blue hydrogen” will not suffice in the goal of eliminating fossil fuels but may be a necessary bridge on the road toward the ultimate goal of emission-free hydrogen by electrolysis with wind and solar as the primary energy sources. It is also possible that a carbon tax will be necessary to get off that bridge.
Those who favor a slow approach apparently are unaware of the status of the current technology. Hydrogen fuel cell automobiles have been available for lease or purchase by the public in parts of the U.S. since 2008. There are hydrogen fuel cell ships and trains in operation around the world and at least one major aircraft producer is researching hydrogen-powered airplanes. The worst mistake we can make is to delay progress toward an emission-free alternative energy infrastructure until it is too late to save our coastal cities or our arable lands.
I have enjoyed the account of the Santa Fe Trail. I try to be aware of when I “center” a narrative as if my experience is the norm that all is measured against. I learn to “de-center” by increasing my awareness of it in the culture. The series has given me a chance to observe some of that centering.
Two examples from the series: Travelers were “exposed … to potential trouble from Native Americans unhappy with the intrusion.” Unhappy? Maybe instead, “threatened.” The military is called in to “protect the trail.” When there is trouble, it is the Native Americans who “attack.” What if, instead: The military prevented the Native communities from defending themselves against encroachment (“The pain of Native American life on the Santa Fe Trail,” Nov. 13). And then on Thursday (“Point of promise and tension,” Nov 11), there was this: “The arrival … into lands that had belonged to Native peoples …” Had? Did the Americans mere presence imply sovereignty? Remove the word “had” and the rest of the story is clarified. I’ve learned from this, and I will continue to be open to learning more.
The Santa Fe Plaza’s Soldiers’ Monument should not have been torn down by vandals. The obelisk should be put back up. It should now have four messages on it. One should honor the Spanish soldiers and colonists who settled in this area. A second should honor the Union soldiers who fought and defeated the Confederate army here. A third should honor the Native Americans who fought in U.S. wars, with special mention being made of the World War II Navajo Code Talkers. A fourth plaque should identify the obelisk as the Soldiers’ Monument. Monuments of historical importance can be taken down via proper procedures but not demolished by vandals. Our obelisk should be replaced (almost) as it was and protected in perpetuity. It has been an iconic part of our Plaza, a National Historic Landmark, for over a century-and-a-half.
Robert E. Ross
I am 86 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease. Had COVID-19 shots in January and February. I went to the Department of Health website to schedule a booster and was given a February 2022 date at a pharmacy other than the one where I got my first shots. Called cited pharmacy for confirmation and was told there was a wait list for my scheduled date. Our Department of Health, in my opinion, is useless.