Mailbag

Worries About Violence in Mexico Are Odd Considering the Dangers
in the United States

I just read your article about Mexico (“Please Come to Mexico!” May
21). I guess I am not the typical gringo, because I travel all over
Mexico all of the time.

My girlfriend is from Mexico City, and I am with her every month
there. I was there when the swine flu hit. I found that it was serious
but definitely over-hyped by the press.

As far as the gun battles go, I guess that most people from the
United States forget about the violence at home—drive-by
shootings in gangland America, the mass shootings at our schools and
workplaces, and the mob hits of our professional criminals—when
they shoot off their mouths about the violence in and around Mexico. I
have never had a problem with crime in Mexico in all of the years I
have been going there. This is an observation on my part: If you do
stupid things, hang out in dark places or deal with questionable
people, you are going to find trouble.

The only thing I have to say to fellow gringo travelers is this:
Cross the border with your head on the outside of your butt; treat the
people from the country you are visiting as though you are invited to
their home (because you are)—with respect—and you will not
find trouble. Don’t go acting like some pompous ass-American.

As they tell me in Mexico City, “We are Americans, too, and the two
cultures are intertwined.”

James Fabins

Claim: Public Media Are Responsible for Growing Dangers

After reading and re-reading Tom Higgins’ letter (“A Letter From
Someone Who Has Issues With Arizona Public Media,” Mailbag, May 21), I
am reminded of some of my many reflections on so-called public media in
this country:

• It is a lie to use “public” in the name when the following
are considered: many funding sources which are corporate and private;
unequal individual access limits; funding structures and contributor
relationships; organizational structure; and fiscal secrecy.

• Just who are the dictators of the digital technology being
imposed on us, in which no viewer or listener has had a say? How will
the future quality of programming be able to keep up with this complex
technology?

• Rarely in my experience does “public media” content inspire;
rather, it is constantly taking the life-breath out of anyone exposed,
especially to the video. A major example of this is children’s
programming, which will ruin a child’s health with even moderate
chronic exposure. One important reality check on this is the book
The Sense of Wonder by Rachel Carson. Just who decides how many
hours each day KUAT Channel 6 broadcasts child programming and thus
takes away from public health and individual wisdom?

• Whereas healthy communities have a diversified control of
information, “public electronic media” concentrate this control with a
few people who are unknown to most residents. With this misuse of
electromagnetic communication systems, and without a change in our
thinking, “Thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe” (as Einstein
said of atomic-weapons systems). It is a constant threat to the
well-being of residents that very complex electromagnetic systems are
used by mostly publicly funded large institutions to chronically beg
for resources. With the recent mass-distrust of our false national
economies, have more people become aware of the great destructive power
of electronic media systems?

• It is particularly unhealthy in a democracy that allows
debate, critical questioning, careful examination and due process that
there is very little of any of this in the history of U.S. public media
since the beginning in 1967. Almost no consumers of these
“noncommercial” electronic media know where to go for balanced reviews
of systemic performance, which failed everyone especially between 2000
and 2008. See the references in note 53, Pages 230 and 231, on public
radio and television in Communication Revolution by Robert W.
McChesney, 2007. Also see www.freepress.net and www.fair.org for further self-education and
possible appropriate action.

This letter is written with the intent of positively empowering any
interested media consumers to be more aware of growing dangers. There
is no expectation of influencing any media producers.

Carter Rose

McPherson Should Not Worry So Much About Peak Oil; Greenhouse
Gases Are the Real Issue

Guy McPherson’s Guest Commentary (May 14) is a hysterical rant that
does disservice to those of us who believe that the world would be
better off without burning up all the oil. He claims that the
International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts a 9.1 percent decline per
year in the crude-oil supply. The actual IEA facts can be obtained at
www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2008/fact_sheets_08.pdf.
Therein, it states that, “Proven reserves of close to 1.3 trillion
barrels equal more than 40 years of output at current rates; remaining
recoverable resources of conventional oil alone are almost twice as
big.”

The real problem, according to the IEA report, is greenhouse-gas
emissions, which will rise by 45 percent by 2030.

There is plenty to worry about, but trying to scare people with
bogus information is not helpful; nor is moving to your rural paradise,
a luxury that few of us can afford.

Sean Bruner

This article appears in Jun 4-10, 2009.