This morning’s Albuquerque Journal carries a story about the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce and another on SWOP (the SouthWest Organizing Project).
The story on the Chamber lacks any description of the group. The story on SWOP describes it as "an activist organization…"
I have no quarrel with this – we’re all familiar with the Chamber and SWOP is less well known and certainly is activist.
Ah, but surely the Chamber is as activist, too. Why not say so?
Because the Chamber is part of what is, the status quo. And we all assume the status quo. In that sense, we are all conservatives.
SWOP, on the other hand, is more part of what may be.
Putting it another way, Chambers of Commerce are higher on the hierarchy than groups like SWOP, meaning they have more power.
And part of their power is that we assume them.
Why am I telling you all this? Because there’s a popular fable that our news mediums are "liberal," whatever that means.
If it means they favor change, what may be or the underdog, that’s simply not true. They favor what is. Not dishonestly, but because we are all conservatives.
.
Here is the column that ran in today's Albuquerque Tribune.
A VISIONARY DOCTOR
A Santa Fe physician is treating macular degeneration using acupuncture and it’s working
By Arthur Alpert
I fear going blind the way my grandfather and my mother did, She was diagnosed with macular degeneration, the most common cause of blindness in older Americans.
My fear is so great that I follow a preemptive strategy - eating kale, rich in zeaxanthin and lutein, almost daily. Jim Harper of Albuquerque taught me that. When his macular blinded him a few years ago the retired executive fought back, researched alternative therapies and…well, Jim drives around town these days.
I happened upon another therapy when, as I entered an OASIS Singers rehearsal. Ed Banks (he of the cool rendition of "Embraceable You") said from across the room, "Hi, Art." From across the room! Ed was blind. He used a white cane.
"What’s the story?" I asked. A doctor Alston C. Lundgren in Santa Fe, he said.
Last week, I watched Lundgren use medical acupuncture to treat AMD or age-related macular degeneration. Eloise James, down from Cortez, Colorado for a follow-up, lay on a table, studs in her ears, tiny needles around her eyes and in her chest, knees and feet. Her sister, Donna Palmer, volunteered that Eloise hadn’t been able to read her Bible, but one day, after Dr. Lundgren’s treatment, she did.
"I think we both just about cried, " Donna said.
Nice anecdote, but Dr. Lundgren prefers precision and hard data.
"Nobody knows what causes macular degeneration, so its pretty hard to say you’re curing it. What I’m doing is improving the vision loss. We can measure visual acuity on an eye chart. Realistically what I’m interested in and what consumers are interested in is function."
What his patients value most – no surprise - is the ability to drive and to read.
Dr. Lundgren says 85% of his patients show some improvement. He’s not certain why.
"I know that certain things I’m doing increase blood supply," he says, but there's not enough science yet on other possible effects, like strengthening muscles.
Having treated AMD, Wet and Dry, for almost five years, he's learned. Originally, he figured patients would need regular tune-ups. Not so. He’s found, too, that improvements seem "to be pretty durable." His refined technique , called the Santa Fe Protocol, is detailed at www.reverseamd.com.
Lundgren is a family physician. Years into his practice he attended a UCLA program in medical acupuncture to find a new treatment option.
"But it seduced me," he says, and he used the new approach often. Then came a Vancouver workshop where Dr. Joseph Wong of Toronto, a pioneer in neuro-anatomic acupuncture, mentioned that he’d improved the vision of people suffering from macular.
"My ears perked up and I just took it upon myself to improve on that."
Despite documentation and articles in the journal "Medical Acupuncture", Dr. Lundgren is not quite mainstream.
"Conventional ophthalmologists by and large do not recommend me," he said.
Of necessity, uncomfortably, he advertises.
"I make things more ethical," he told me, "by saying that if I treat you several times and you do not get better, there’s no charge."
Speeding home from the City Different, I pondered Eloise and her Bible and Ed Banks reveling in his improved vision. And I thought, for now I’ll keep gobbling the nation ‘s kale crop, but boy, I’m pleased to know that Lundgren is only 50 minutes away.
Alpert, a semi-retired newsman in Albuquerque, may be reached at ArthurAlpert@swcp.com. His column appears the fourth Thursday of the month.
In this morning’s Albuquerque Journal, Jeff Jones reports on Nancy Pelosi’s visit to a campaign rally for Patricia Madrid. His story includes a comment from Heather Wilson spokesman Enrique Carlos Knell.
First, here is Jones’ set up line:
"And Knell had other sharp words for Madrid and Pelosi."
Now the paragraph that follows:
"Nancy Pelosi is a liberal with a liberal agenda," Knell said of the California Democrat and minority leader who could become speaker of the House if Democrats win a majority in November. "And she aggressively recruited fellow liberal Patricia Madrid to run for Congress so they can advance their liberal agenda together."
It’s clear that the "sharp words" are "liberal" and, maybe, "liberal agenda."
Was Jones smiling as he wrote "sharp words" or was he perfectly serious?
I don’t know. But characterizing those words as "sharp" is justified.
So long as liberals duck, bob and weave, rather than proudly identifying with the term, Republicans and their friends who dominate our news mediums will use the term as if it’s a bad word.
And reporters like Jones will properly characterize it as "sharp." Smiling, maybe, or perfectly serious.