Have we finally elected nothing but "Hollow Men?"

I read a lot of Science Fiction way back in my teen years, up into my adult years.  A good bit of what I read dealt with possible scenarios for the "End Of The World As We Know It."  The more horrible stories dealt with nuclear holocaust, but some of the more grisly, and indeed more dark speculation found in the many stories did deal with - essentially - overpopulation, and both the affects and the effects this might have on this once beautiful planet.

And, of course, books like "Brave New World" and "1984" also presented less than bright futures for mankind.

Being basically an optimist, though, I usually dismissed the ideas from most of this genre in favor of the theme of man finally leaving planet earth, colonizing the known solar system, and then, moving outward to conquer the universe.  I was convinced, especially after we put men on the moon in 1969, that this was the more likely future for humankind.

Now, I am an old man, and I look at the world around me, and it sure looks like 1969 was our high point, and we have done nothing since then.  We are mired in wars all over the world, the major products of the once mighty U. S. A. are weapons of war, and we have even exported war itself, as we have Americans actively engaged in combat situations in too many places around the world today.

Meanwhile, it took a 14 year old girl, with Asperger's Syndrome, to bring to the attention of most of the world the reality that we are rapidly destroying our world!  Our over reliance on fossil fuels has - and continues to have - a most deleterious effect on our environment.  We were warned about this many years ago, and all attempts to do something positive about this have been squelched by big business.

Our nation, once a leader in efforts to save the planet, has opted out of all of those efforts under the current, corrupt administration.  Somehow, Congress has become powerless to do anything at all, and deliberately evidences no sign of any effort to help the disastrous situation.  Well, maybe that is not completely accurate.  The House of Representatives shows a willingness to help, but all legislation that might be helpful to the people of the country is blocked by a truly horrid toad of a man in the Senate.

And, this brings us to my question:  Have we finally elected nothing but "Hollow Men?"
Yes, that is a reference to a once famous poem by one T. S. Eliot.  And, yes, I think these horrible lifelong politicians, who have held their various offices for far too long, are literally dead inside.  They have no heart.  They have no compassion.  They have no interest in preserving this world for future generations.  Their only God appears to be money, and they devote their strongest resources to achieving more and more of it, at the expense of their constituents.  And, finally, due to their overall neglect, their utter failure to do their jobs, indeed to their greed, we are facing a global crisis the likes of which has never been more than imagined.  So, that means, that the below quoted ending from that T. S. Eliot poem may well be the final truth:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

(T. S. Eliot/"The Hollow Men" 1925)

Here's part of my Two Cents worth.

After all these years of GOP obstructionism (remember, they met as a group and decided to oppose everything that came from our duly elected President, Mr. Obama, way back at his first inauguration), including Moscow Mitch's causing constipation of the Senate (wherein he has flat ignored almost all of the legislation passed by the House of Representatives), I am not optimistic about the chances of Impeachment succeeding at this time.

That said, however, I still feel very strongly that this is the right move, if for no other reason than to send the clear message to them, and to the American people, that we still have some politicians in this nation who are willing to put our best interests ahead of their political party's interests.

It is very unfortunate that voter apathy has led to this sorry pass, allowing the GOP to effectively control (which in their case always means obstruction of anything that might benefit normal people) the entire government of this once free nation.

Somehow, we must find ways to persuade more people to register and to actually vote, at every level, across the nation.  We must stop voting for republicans, and start voting for people who offer hope for all of us, instead of the very rich, who literally own most politicians today.

I could go on, but let's leave it here for now.  Whoever you are.  Wherever you are.  Please register and vote!

Tell your senator to vote no on VanDyke

I Ain't Gonna Settle No More!

All my life, from the first car I ever bought, I have settled for one car over others, more times than I can recall.  I would get the idea that I wanted to buy a car, I would have one particular brand or model in mind, but then, when I got to the car sales places (lots, dealers, private individuals; made no difference), I would too often end up buying something different because of many factors.  The most common reason, however, had to do with the fact that I would go to a sales place after looking at what that place advertised, and find out that the car I was coming to see had already been sold.

In mid-1965, when I bought my very first car - and, don't get me wrong!  I loved that car! - that beautiful 1954 Ford Crestline Skyliner, was not actually my first choice.  I was referred to a private party who had two cars for sale.  One of the two cars was a 1952 Cadillac Club Coupe Deville, two door hardtop, and it was very nice.  That was the one I wanted, but it cost $150.00, and I could only afford $125.00, which was conveniently the cost of my Ford.  I settled, that time because I couldn't afford $25.00.

And, over the years, I have settled for other, second or third, or even later, choices because of (usually) fast talking salesmen, and other reasons.

I'm car shopping again, and I have some observations about the process, and about the business of selling used cars.

First of all, remember that I am old, and the way we used to shop for a car was different than today.  I used to get the Sunday paper, and go through all the large ads placed by the various car dealers.  I also remember going through the daily papers' want ads, because that was a thing.

I don't know about you, but I no longer subscribe to or even purchase any newspaper, and I don't even know if they still run ads for either personal or business sales of cars.

So, what I do today is visit the many sites online, and look at Craigslist and even Facebook Marketplace (which is pretty shitty, actually).  One thing I have noticed that has not changed about the old days as compared to today is this:  Dealerships still have a tendency to advertise specific automobiles for sale when in fact they do not have said automobile on their lot.  Now, I don't know if this is because they really do sell them that quickly, or if it is because they still believe that they can sell anything to anybody, so they put ads to pique your interest, and try to entice you to go to their location just because they are sure they can get you to buy something else.

Personally, I don't have time for this sort of thing.  Currently there is one listing that has been consistently running on Cars.com, Cargurus.com, autotrader.com, Carfax.com, Craigslist, and Facebook Marketplace for at least two weeks.  I went to the dealership in question (Mission Chevrolet, on Zaragoza, in El Paso) last week, and was told that the car had already been sold.  Yet their ad is still up on all of these locations!  As of this morning, 11/5/2019:
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/428536504730494/


Worse, on the web sites that are specific to car sales, even though they usually offer ways to inquire about specific listings, I find that few dealerships ever respond to those inquiries.  They only way to find out if the car listed is actually there and for sale is to call and waste my time with a sales person, who too often claims that they do not have any information at hand, and who then tries to entice me into going to their lot.

I don't want to waste my time with cars that do not match what I want.  I settled for 'something else' too many times in my car buying life.  Now, I want what I want, and if you don't have it, don't advertise it!

Pay Per View Plus

How is one to obtain a good selection of television broadcasts from which to choose?  I mean, we still have over the air (OTA) channels, which are very close to what we had way back in the 1950's, but with a lot more available today than was out there back then.  As a matter of fact, where before we had, say, channel 4, we now have 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, all with different programming, and all virtually free.

We also have cable and satellite providers, who offer many more channels, most of which hold little or no interest for most people.  Way back when satellite television first became popular customers could pick and choose what satellite channels they wanted to receive, called a Cafeteria Plan.  That excellent idea did not last very long, once the providers figured out that they could force people to pay for garbage in order to receive quality.

One reason for the growth of cable and satellite television has to do with the fact that television signals are transmitted by a system that requires a clear line of sight between the transmitter's antenna, and the receiver's antenna.  Interestingly, with the advent of digital signals, that clear line of sight can be obstructed in high wind conditions.  Yes, even dust and moving tree branches can block your signal!  The farther from the transmitter you live, the worse your signal will be.  So, the growth was due to more than the fact that you can get a shit ton of channels with cable or satellite.

People who live far from the transmitters' antennae, like me, need to have a rooftop antenna, with a pretty high mast in order to receive their local channels.  I happen to be located about 35 miles, as the crow flies, from our local antennae, up on the Franklin Mountains.  So, even though on a clear day I get a lot of stations, with a great image, the slightest weather condition causes my signal to instantly drop, and I have to get up and adjust the indoor antenna, just like when I was a kid!  Unfortunately, my research tells me that I would still be subject to loss of signal with weather changes even if I had a 30 foot antenna!

So, I have been looking around for ways to get just the channels that I might watch, which pretty much means that I know I could exist just fine with only those local channels.  I must confess that I am thinking in terms of the upcoming football season, and the fact that I would like to watch college and professional games.  So, what is one to do?

In addition to the cable and satellite packages that are offered for a hefty chunk of change, there are now several streaming services available, and most of them advertise a lower price than cable or satellite.  Unfortunately, they do not offer local channels' live stream.

Now, we come to my greatest frustration.  The best price out there, for me, appears to be a plan offered by Spectrum (used to be Time Warner, now sucked up by the giant monopoly that is AT&T) that provides only ten cable channels of your choice (the plan is called TV Choice, coincidentally), plus your local channels.  It is advertised at only $24.99 per month, which is not great, but I might be able to handle it.  However, when I went online to seek more information, I learned that this price does not include my local channels!

No, if I want them I have to pay an additional five dollars per month, bringing my total up to at least $29.99.  When I asked why this additional charge for OTA signals, I was told that this is required by those local stations!  Now, consider this.  The cable provider is extending the service area for these local television stations, which already make money from their local advertisers, right?  But, in their greed, the local TV stations want more!  They want me to pay them to watch what they are supposed to be offering for no cost!  How is this fair?  How is this good business?

I am still having trouble understanding something about this, however.  I am sure that the precedent was set some time ago, but it is confusing to me to consider that a local broadcast station can demand payment from a cable or satellite or streaming provider for extending the range of their broadcasts!  Wouldn't that be a good selling point for their advertising?  "We can offer X number of local viewers, which is enhanced by X number of additional local and nearby viewers who are watching us on cable or satellite or streaming device."

Am I wrong?  Ultimately, for me, I suspect I will go with something like this TV Choice, but I will go reluctantly.  I'm thinking that perhaps one of my cable type channels could be the NFL Network, and another could be ESPN (as much as I hate them), and that way I could receive more stable options for live football action.

And The Horse You Rode In On

If, at this point in time, you still cling to your blind, uninformed, ignorant and aimless support of that man in the white house, I got no time for you.  I got no sympathy for you.  I got nothing for you.

Nothing about these two plus years has been normal.  Nothing about this administration is acceptable.  Nothing from him and his minions has been good for the average American citizen.

The whole world hates us, through him.  We no longer can be considered a world leader in much of anything but hate, fear mongering, the making of war, and greed.  We have allowed the few rich to own everything we once held dear.  They have increased the speed of their efforts to destroy everything good in the world, as we watch Global Climate Change worsen and bring new horrors nearly every day.

We see a manufactured crisis on our Southern Border that has our own government agencies and many of our fellow citizens acting just like the people of Germany did with Hitler and his Nazis, and we do nothing!

We are responsible for any mess in Latin America that is causing people from that part of this continent to seek a better life here, even though our lives are not as good as they once were.  MAGA, my ass!  We were great once upon a time.  We are not great at this time.  Not even good.  We are a boil on the ass of the world, and we are all complicit!

I am sick and tired of it, and I have no wish to engage with any more of the myriad of lame excuses you might use to justify what you and he are doing.  Stop.  Stop now.

That pesky First Amendment to the Constitution.

I believe that there is one thing pro-lifers just don't get.  No matter how much reality smacks them upside the head, they still don't get it.  I have actually talked to at least one who still supports donnie because he has said things that they interpret as being supportive of their cause.

The thing they do not understand is that their stance, being based on mostly religious reasons has no place in politics or government.  They do not understand that they have no right to demand, or request that laws be passed to support their religious fervor.

What they most significantly do not understand is that, despite the many years of GOP politicians always saying things that they believe means those politicians will work to overturn Roe v. Wade, those politicians do not now, nor have they ever intended to lift one finger to change reality.  The politicians know that there is no place in law for a ban on abortion, or for controls over access to female healthcare.

All these politicians want is to get elected so that they can jump on the money train, and become millionaires like the rest of Congress.  They don't care about you or me.  They just want the money.

Even after taking office, like that son of a bitch who is in the white house now, they will say things that suggest support, yet continue to do nothing that will change anything in this area.  Partly because they know that these people believe their lies, and somehow think that laws are changing, when in fact they are not!  And, you pro-lifers will keep on voting for these same liars, and nothing changes!

It is just like the ERA.  Remember that?  It was a no-brainer, right?  But, after all these years, only 35 of the necessary 38 states have ratified it.  (You can find out which states have failed to ratify it here:
  https://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era-ratification-map )

You think that overturning Roe v. Wade is easy?  Believe me, if not enough states support true equal rights, then not enough will support your minority view.  And, that is the bottom line.  Your religious belief does not give you the right to force others to follow it!  That's not what the Constitution says!  Never did.  Never will.  Y'all need to learn and remember that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.  And, especially remember that not everyone in the country is either Catholic or any other kind of religion that shares your belief.  For that matter, why do you suppose the majority of the people on this planet are still not Catholic, or even Christian?!

And, finally, this is what that darn First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution actually 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."

Some serious thought about our present Border Situation.

This is an email that I received today from our Border Spokesman, former Congressman, and recent candidate for Senate, Beto O'Rourke: The President came to El Paso this week. He promised a wall and repeated his lies about the dangers that immigrants pose. With El Paso as the backdrop, he claimed that this city of immigrants was dangerous before a border fence was built here in 2008. Beyond refuting his comments about border communities like ours (El Paso was one of the safest communities in the United States before the fence was built here), about walls saving lives (in fact, walls push desperate families to cross in ever more hostile terrain, ensuring greater suffering and death), and about immigrants (who commit crimes at a lower rate than those Americans born here), it’s worth thinking about how we got to this place. How it came to be that 11 million undocumented immigrants call America home, how we came to militarize our border, how we arrived at such a disconnect between our ideals, our values, the reality of our lives — and the policies and political rhetoric that govern immigration and border security. El Paso Times, 2003 I’ve come to the conclusion that the challenges we face are largely of our own design — a function of the unintended consequences of immigration policy and the rhetoric we’ve used to describe immigrants and the border. At almost every step of modern immigration policy and immigration politics, we have exacerbated underlying problems and made things worse. Sometimes with the best of intentions, sometimes with the most cynical exploitation of nativism and fear. Much of the history of immigration policy (and the source for the graphs that I’m using) is powerfully summarized in a report entitled “Unintended Consequences of U.S. Immigration Policy: Explaining the Post-1965 Surge from Latin America” by Douglas S Massey and Karen A. Pren. In 1965, the U.S. ended the bracero farmworker program in part because of the substandard wages and conditions in which these Mexican workers labored. And yet, after decades of employing this labor, with our economy dependent on the laborers and the laborers dependent on access to the U.S. job market, the system of low-cost Mexican labor didn’t go away. Many of the same Mexican nationals returned to the U.S., returned to the same back-breaking jobs, only now they were undocumented. Ironically, despite the intent of the 1965 law ending the program, they enjoyed fewer protections and wage guarantees in the shadows as they continued to play a fundamental role in our economy. As this same population converted from being documented to undocumented a wave of scary metaphors was employed to gin up anxiety and paranoia and political will to employ ever more repressive policies to deter their entry. It was good for politicians and newspapers, terrible for immigrants and immigration policy. Thus began the “Latino threat” narrative. As Massey and Pren write: “The most common negative framing depicted immigration as a “crisis” for the nation. Initially marine metaphors were used to dramatize the crisis, with Latino immigration being labeled a “rising tide” or a “tidal wave” that was poised to “inundate” the United States and “drown” its culture while “flooding” American society with unwanted foreigners (Santa Ana 2002). Over time, marine metaphors increasingly gave way to martial imagery, with illegal immigration being depicted as an “invasion” in which “outgunned” Border Patrol agents sought to “hold the line” in a vain attempt to “defend” the border against “attacks” from “alien invaders” who launched “banzai charges” to overwhelm American defenses (Nevins 2001; Chavez 2008).” The fear stoked by politicians produced the intended paranoia and political constituency demanding ever tougher immigration measures. The result of this was not to stop undocumented immigration. Instead it caused the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States to grow. Here’s why: as we made it harder for people to cross into the United States, we made it less likely that once here they would attempt to go back to their home country. Fearing an increasingly militarized border, circular patterns of migration became linear, with immigrants choosing to remain in the U.S., many of them ultimately joined by family members from their home country. This government-created condition continued to feed on itself: The “sustained, accelerating accumulation of anti-immigrant legislation and enforcement operations produced a massive increase in border apprehensions after the late 1970s, when the underlying flow of migrants had actually leveled off. For any given number of undocumented entry attempts, more restrictive legislation and more stringent enforcement operations generate more apprehensions, which politicians and bureaucrats can then use to inflame public opinion, which leads to more conservatism and voter demands for even stricter laws and more enforcement operations, which generates more apprehensions, thus bringing the process full circle. In short, the rise of illegal migration, its framing as a threat to the nation, and the resulting conservative reaction set off a self-feeding chain reaction of enforcement that generated more apprehensions even though the flow of undocumented migrants had stabilized in the late 1970s and actually dropped during the late 1980s and early 1990s.” This would only get worse. El Paso Herald Post 1981 — source Patrick Timmons After terror attacks in the 1990s and in 2001, the Mexican immigrant was a ready scapegoat for politicians, and the intensity and brutality of enforcement and deterrence measures increased. In the face of terrorism that originated in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, the United States chose to conflate the war on terror with immigration from Mexico and Latin America. With the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001 the number of deportations skyrocketed, with nearly 400,000 sent back to their country of origin in 2009 alone. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists entered through Mexico — and yet Mexicans bore the brunt of this country’s immigration response to the terror attacks. Last year, the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism found that “there are no known international terrorist organizations operating in Mexico, no evidence that any terrorist group has targeted U.S. citizens in Mexican territory, and no credible information that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the United States.” This year’s report found much the same: “there was no credible evidence indicating that international terrorist groups have established bases in Mexico, worked with Mexican drug cartels, or sent operatives via Mexico into the United States.” In addition, walls and fences authorized by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 pushed migration flows to ever more treacherous stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border. More than 4,500 human beings died crossing the border from 2006 to 2017. Far too many of them children. In recent years, as Mexican migration slowed and then reversed (more Mexican nationals going south to Mexico than coming north to the United States), and as total undocumented immigration reached its lowest levels in modern history, the country was met with the challenge of tens of thousands of Central American families fleeing violence and brutality to petition for asylum in our country. This too is an unintended consequence. Our involvement in the civil wars and domestic politics of Central American countries, in addition to our ability to consume more illegal drugs than any other country on the planet while leading a military- and law enforcement-first drug control policy, has helped to destroy the institutions of civil society necessary for those countries to function. They can no longer protect their citizens, and their citizens are coming to us. And how do we meet this challenge? The President, using the same racist, inflammatory rhetoric of years past, seeks to build a wall, to take kids from their parents, to deploy the United States Army on American soil, to continue mass deportations and to end the protection for Dreamers. In other words, he seeks in one administration to repeat all the mistakes of the last half-century. And with past as prologue, we know exactly how that will end. Not only will it lead to thousands of Americans losing their farms and ranches and homes through eminent domain to build a wall despite the fact that we have the lowest level of northbound apprehensions in my lifetime; it will lead to greater suffering and death for immigrants who are pushed to more dangerous points of crossing; it will fail to meet the legitimate challenge of illegal drugs that are brought to this country (the vast majority crossed at ports of entry); it will further erode our humanity and our standing in the world; and it will not do a single thing to reduce the number of undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers coming to this country. But we still have a choice. In this democracy, if in fact the people are the government, and the government is the people, we still have a chance to prove it. We can decide that we’ll get past the lies and fear, focus on the facts and human lives in our midst, and do the right thing. The end goal is a stronger, safer, more successful country. Critical to achieving that goal is having immigration, security and bilateral policies that match reality and our values. Extend citizenship to the more than one million Dreamers in this country. Not only those who are in our classrooms but those who are teaching in our classrooms; those who are keeping our country safe around the world tonight; those who contribute more to our communities than they’ll ever take. Give permanent legal protection and a path to citizenship to their parents, the original Dreamers. Bring millions more out of the shadows and on a path to citizenship by ensuring that they register with the government and gain status to legally work, pay taxes and contribute even more to our country’s success. Make us safer and more secure. Significantly reduce illegal drug trafficking and stop human trafficking by investing in infrastructure, technology and personnel at our ports of entry. The ports that connect us with Mexico are where the vast majority of everything and everyone that ever comes into our country crosses. Increase the visa caps so that we match our opportunities and needs (for work, for education, for investment, for innovation, for family reunification) to the number of people we allow into this country. Ensure that those who want to work in jobs that we can’t fill can legally come here and legally return to their home country. Fully accept our opportunity and responsibility under our asylum laws to welcome those whose own governments can no longer protect them — including women fleeing abusive relationships. Address visa overstays (which accounts for the majority of undocumented immigration) through better tracking of and notification to visa holders (a first step could be text message reminders) and fully harmonizing our entry-exit systems with Mexico and Canada (when a visa holder exits the U.S. and enters Mexico, we will then know that they have left the U.S.; currently, if they leave through a land port of entry we literally have no clue if they are still here or have returned to their country of origin). Make Latin America and specifically Central America a top foreign policy priority — stop relegating it to second-tier status — invest the time, talent and resources to assist in the development of the domestic institutions that will allow these countries to thrive and offer their citizens protection and economic opportunity. It is the only long-term solution to the number of asylum seekers and refugees coming to this country. End the global war on drugs. An imprisonment- and interdiction-first approach has not worked, has accelerated the erosion of civil society in much of Latin America and has militarized a public health issue to the detriment of all concerned. Speak with respect and dignity when referring to our fellow human beings who happen to be immigrants and asylum seekers, who in so many cases are doing exactly what we would do if presented with the same threats and opportunities. No more “invasions”, “animals”, “rapists and criminals”, “floods”, “crisis” — dehumanizing rhetoric leads to dehumanizing policies. We cannot sacrifice our humanity in the name of security — or we risk losing both. This week, we welcomed the President to one of the safest cities in the United States. Safe not because of walls, and not in spite of the fact that we are a city of immigrants. Safe because we are a city of immigrants and because we treat each other with dignity and respect. A city that has the opportunity to lead on the most important issues before us, out of experience, out of compassion and out of a fierce determination to see this country live its ideals and rise to its full potential. El Paso — Juárez We can learn from the errors of our past, have the courage to do what’s right while we still have the chance, and ensure that the President doesn’t commit this country to making mistakes from which we may never recover. It’s up to us. Beto

Stop telling me that both parties are to blame

Both Parties are NOT the same

Pie In The Sky

We often claim that our city of El Paso is, geographically, pretty large.  256.26 square miles, as a matter of fact.  Our population of just under 700,000, equates to about 2500 people per square mile.  By comparison, Dallas, Tx, is even larger, with a population of 3.2 million, and an area of 385.83 square miles, and 3469.9 people per square mile, and Houston is over 600 square miles, with a population of 2.3 million, which would be even fewer people per square mile.  Comparatively speaking, then, El Paso is sort of small potatoes.

Therefore, one may well ask, "Why are we always struggling to do things like those much larger cities?"  Particularly strange has been our recent destruction of a still usable City Hall in order to build a minor league baseball park, and the complete tear down of a once iconic, if not unique central plaza to be replaced by a "modern" and rather barren tiny square.  We also have been subjected to the introduction of a very expensive, but not easily accessible Top Golf facility, and something called iFly which, while still under construction, burned.  There is a planned Great Wolf Lodge that will also cost local tax payers a great deal of money.  There is continuous discussion about attracting new business to town, in order to create new jobs, but this is without ever addressing the reality of why new business, such as manufacturing, might not want to move to this isolated corner of far west Texas.

As some of you may know, El Paso has recently launched a Trolley system that runs a total of 4.8 miles.  Below is a map showing our already existing bus routes, which consistently carry buses that are always way under capacity.  As a matter of fact, according to City reports, our taxpayer funded public transit system loses more riders each year.

city bus routes

As you can see, the buses do cover a lot of the city.  However, the tiny little troller pretty much runs from nowhere to nowhere.  The route is obviously located in an area where comparatively few people actually live or work.  And, it is too short to be of any practical use for transportation, even if lots of people lived and worked along that route.
Trolley Route

However, once upon a time we did have a practical trolley system that covered a larger part of El Paso, and even crossed the border to run through a good part of Cd. Juarez, our former sister city.  Below is a photo of the interior of one of those trolleys (today's version features some of the same cars, renovated at great cost) when it was stopped at the international border crossing.  The man in uniform was a U. S. Customs agent checking for status.  It might be of interest to note that we rarely had to show any ID when crossing the border.  All we had to do was declare our citizenship.  Obviously, if one was a noncitizen, then one would be expected to have a border crossing card.

Nestor Valencia, a well known local artist who is behind many of the portraits you may have seen around the city, was also one of the planners for the Cordova Bridge -- Chamizal Park -- was also involved in helping to restore the Plaza Theatre and most recently helped plan the new San Jacinto Plaza:

"In 1920 through 1925 we had 52 miles of trolley system in El Paso. We were a street car system," Valencia said.  Valencia told ABC-7 that in 1922, the street car was moving 2.1 million passengers a year.

photos collected from around 1960, showing trolleys on both sides of the border can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0i5kqn9Efw

So, we are left with a number of questions:  Why did we just build this new trolley system, if we lack any real tourist attractions, don't need it for daily transportation, and cannot reasonably expect it, all by itself, to be a tourist attraction?  Why do we continue to subsidize a public transportation system that consistently loses money, while not really providing necessary transportation?  Why do we allow our elected representatives to neglect our streets at the expense of building unnecessary facilities and waste money fighting for things we don't need or want?