Nm Probate Forms: Fill & Download for Free

It's designed to fail. How else are you going to keep that prison for profit full? Any way you can.. it's just business like it has been from the very beginning so long ago. But I've known one or two po s in my time that would do as much as they possibly could if you were trying to help yourself. The first time I was on parole I went got myself a job on a drilling rig out in the gulf of mexico. I think I reported 4 times in 5 years. They knew there was no trouble to get in out there. They left me alone. It's really up to the PO how easy or hard it's going to be. They have the power to cut you loose if they want to. They do in New Mexico. I was on a 18 month probation once and I kept flunking piss tests and kept getting locked up. I got tired of it and got this lawyer to explain to the judge that I had severe ADHD and have been self medicating most of my life and would to get on legal medication for my condition. The judge sent me back to my po with a court order saying that if I didn't come up positive for amphetamines I'd be in violation of my probation. He was so angry he let me off 6 months early because there was no sense in me being on probation then. Lol. That lawyer had pull. And it's a good thing because I was caught making my own medicine less than a month later and charged with trafficking in the manufacture of a controlled substance. That's a meth lab in case you didn't see Breaking Bad or ever live in albuquerque, nm. Take a guess who my PO was. Yep, didn't have even a small chance of making it 9 years on probation under a PO I made look like a monkee a couple of months ago. That guy gave me a hard time every chance he got. I made it a whole year before that guy revoked my probation for flunking another drug test for amphetamines again. He was all smiles until I called my lawyer again and I was able to go to a two year program called delancy street foundation instead of prison for 18 years at the age of 50. I'm now 65 and still alive. But my lawyer told me if I got another felony, don't call him. LoL.

HMS Splendid today (Royal Navy Photo)POSSUB, HMS Splendid (Malvinas / Falklands 1982)SHARE:On May 5, 1982, at 0705 am, the aircraft carrier (PAL) of the Argentine Navy “May 25” was catapulted, while it was sailing near Faro Punta Lobos, in the Province of Chubut, the aircraft S-2E Tracker number 2AS-23, with the mission of locating the Notice ARA Alferez Sobral.ANTI-SUBMARINE OPERATIONS ON MAY 5, 1982.Contact within 10 miles!On May 5, 1982, at 0705 am, the aircraft carrier (PAL) of the Argentine Navy “May 25” was catapulted, while it was sailing near Faro Punta Lobos, in the Province of Chubut, the aircraft S-2E Tracker number 2AS-23, with the mission of locating the Notice ARA Alferez Sobral.The Warning had been attacked a few days before, in circumstances of having penetrated the total exclusion zone delimited by the enemy forces, in search of the downed crew of a Canberra bomber of the Argentine Air Force.The Tracker, configured for surface exploration (and lacking a magnetic anomaly detector - MAD, and sonobuoy receiver [iii]), was under the command of Lieutenant Carlos Cal. [Iv]Rare photo of Tracker plane in operations on the deck of PAL "May 25" Anonymous author (an attempt has been made to locate him)Taking an SSE heading, he adopted a surface search pattern, and 38 minutes later, flying at 2000 meters with clear skies, sea and calm wind [v], he detected a small contact on his AN / APS-88A radar, which he decided to investigate. .Having landed the aircraft three minutes later on the data point (located at latitude 44 ° 20'S longitude 64 ° 40'W), the crew visually observed the wake of a point object, similar to a periscope / snorkel / radio mast / etc.submarine (there are different versions of whether or not the indicated appendix was crowned by a small cloud of smoke) disappearing from the surface, while the echo on the radar disappeared.Taking into account that the FT79 commander had ordered to attack submarine contacts classified as possible [vi], the aircraft commander ordered the launch of a Mk-44 torpedo and a passive sonobuoy.However, no explosion could be observed, as well as the torpedo's run could not be followed because the aircraft lacked the suitable equipment.Seeing the lack of means to effectively reuse its weapons, the explorer Tracker, after remaining in orbit, returned to its original surface search mission. [Vii]At 0805 am, and after Naval Lieutenant Cal reported the antisubmarine attack, the helicopter "Sea King" 2-H-231 takes off from the aircraft carrier, with Lieutenant Osvaldo Iglesias in the cockpit, as well as 0847 2-H-232 takes off, under the command of Lieutenant Commander Norberto Barro, Commander of the Squadron.A minute later, Tracker 2-AS-24 is catapulted, in ASW configuration and under the command of Lieutenant Enrique Fortini.The aircraft head towards the data point, and at it, the 2-H-231 antisubmarine search begins with the ASQ-13A sonar, beginning the typical “jumps” that the use of the listening system requires, the other helicopter having problems with said sensor. [viii]At 0910, 2-H-231 obtains a hydrophonic sound in sonar and updates the data point at latitude 44º27'S and longitude 64º19'W.Likewise and in the meantime, the Tracker launches three Jezebel sonobuoys (LOFAR) in the Alpha trajectory, obtaining noise of the propellers in them [ix], as well as various MAD contacts (which are classified as “not submarine”).At 10:06 the 2-H-232 obtained a new contact in its sonar, appreciating that the contact increased its speed and making a plot coherent with that of a submarine [x].Taking this into account, it proceeds to guide the aircraft to carry out a torpedo attack, finally launching a new Mk-44 antisubmarine torpedo at latitude 44º33'S and longitude 64º16'O.The commander of the Tracker aircraft can appreciate the entry into the water of the torpedo, the operation of the same and the characteristic emission of its active sonar.Likewise, moments later he hears the duplication of the "ping" (signal that the active sonar "hooked" its target) [xi].However, once the torpedo had run, no explosion was observed, although the abrupt change in underwater conditions was observed, while reverberations, cavitation and hydrophonic rumors ceased to be heard in all the listening sensors [xii].Contact had been lost.Possible submarine.The debriefing carried out on board the aircraft carrier with the participating crews, as well as their respective reports, were analyzed by the various specialists of the Embarked Air Naval Group, finally concluding that the contacts obtained were classified as POSSIBLE SUB (POSSUB), CONFIDENCE 2/3 [xiii ].Now, in the Argentine Navy the contacts in which submarines could be involved are classified doctrinally, and according to their degree of certainty, as:1- True Submarine.(CERTSUB) Meanwhile, the contact was seen by suitable personnel and positively identified as a submarine.2- Probable Submarine.(PROBSUB) The contact has multiple and strong evidences of being a submarine.Degrees of confidence are established for the case, which are set by the Officer in Tactical Command according to his criteria.They range from 1 to 4, with 1 being the lowest and 4 being the highest.3- Possible Submarine.(POSSUB) It is believed that it is a submarine due to the circumstances of the case, but there is not enough evidence to give it a higher certainty classification.Degrees of confidence are also established for the case, from 1 to 4.4- Not underwater.(NONSUB) Visual contact, radar or sonar indicate unequivocally and reliably that the contact is not a submarine.In other words, after analyzing the case, it was concluded that a submarine had possibly been attacked, although there is no assurance of this.It should not be forgotten that a great problem in any Anti-Submarine Warfare operation is to correctly identify an underwater contact, be it as a submarine or as any other human or biological phenomenon.This generally requires a long period of contact from multiple sensors.This classification period is already extraordinarily tense during exercises in peacetime, being the same more complicated in times of war, when tensions grow, causing there to be higher rates of false contacts there [xiv]In the case at hand, no extensive plotting was carried out in any case, but the various contacts were lost and resumed throughout the morning of that May 5.None of the sensors, on the other hand, appears to have been conclusive in relation to the presence of a submarine.Sensor operator in Tracker plane - Photo by MY Martin, taken from “Malvinas, la Guerra Aérea”, Ediciones Open, Buenos Aires, 1988Therefore, it was understood that the contact should be classified with the relatively low index of certainty noted above.It should not be forgotten, likewise, that the problem of underwater identification was not exclusively on the Argentine side, while during the hostilities in the Falklands, the British Task Force carried out 200 antisubmarine attacks against what they believed to be the ARA San Luis or the ARA Salta , without making a single target. [xv]In short, promptly and immediately after the operations, it could not be reliably classified upon contact as a submarine, merely as possible.AN ANALYSIS 25 YEARS OF THE CONFLICT.Appreciations about the contact.Now, with the data that were released after the war, it is interesting to ask, carrying out an impartial analysis, if it is now possible to determine if the contact attacked on May 5 by a submarine (which should have been British), or it turned out to be a biological and / or human phenomenon alien to said ingenuity.Certainly the attacked contact, prima facie, and even on basic analysis (merely taking a chart and a calculator), did indeed behave like a submarine.That is, beyond the information that the analysis of the acoustic signature and the multiple contacts in various sensors could provide, it is worth noting that, since the contact was attacked and sighted, it moved at an approximate speed of 11.5 knots from 0746 (first contact) to 0910 (second contact), which is almost twice the usual speed of a southern right whale (approx 7 knots), and then slows down to 7 knots.This speed is certainly consistent with the stealth required in a submarine for operations in littoral waters, even when escaping from a threat.In addition to this, the object moved from shallower waters (74 meters at the first contact) to deeper waters on its way (95 meters at the last contact), consistent with what in the usual cases would be carried out by a commander of submarine when attacked: that is, search depth to put more distance with the weapons and search systems of its aggressor.Finally, the duplication of the active sonar of the Mk-44 torpedo (indicating that the "ping" found a specific object on which to "bounce"), taking into account that at the place of the attack the bottom is flat and sandy, it is a strong presumption of the existence of an intruder in the area.Map positions of the three contacts (Author's elaboration)In other words, in a basic analysis, and even ignoring the analysis of acoustic signatures, etc., the contact can be said, analogously to what was established at the time, that it was possibly a submarine.Now, was the contact from a British submarine?British submarines in the Falklands War.In principle, it should be noted that, from documents immediately known about the conflict [xvi], as well as from others much later [xvii] (which denotes a certain coherence that makes the information credible), it appears that five nuclear submarines participated. in the Falklands War: HMS Conqueror, HMS Splendid, HMS Spartan, HMS Courageous and HMS Valiant, as well as a conventional one (diesel-electric), the HMS Onyx.However, only three of them were in the South Atlantic on May 5, HMS Conqueror, Splendid and Spartan, which had entered the area of ​​operations on approximately April 11 [xviii].Indeed, HMS Courageous and HMS Valiant did not set sail from the United Kingdom until May 3, and it took approximately 15 days to reach their patrol stations [xix].And for its part, HMS Onyx departed from Gosport (England) on April 26 [xx].Taking into account that it made part of the journey on the surface (with a maximum speed of 12 knots) and part submerged (maximum speed: 18 knots), it did not reach the area of ​​operations, more than eight thousand nautical miles from its base, but until approximately one month after leaving [xxi].Now, taking into account that, insistently, it was indicated that HMS Onyx was the attacked submarine (even though, it was noted, it was not in the war zone), it is convenient to return to this later.Therefore, and beyond some divergences of sources regarding the precise dates of arrival of the units in the area of ​​operations [xxii] it is clear that, as of May 5, only the aforementioned submarines were in the theater. .Taking into account the departure date of the rest, it would have been impossible for them to be there on the aforementioned day.Therefore, the above questioning is now limited to three of the British submarines.Position of the submarines HMS Conqueror, HMS Spartan and HMS Splendid on the morning of May 5.Positions of British submarines in the area of ​​operations.(Author's elaboration)Obviously, little is known about the precise locations of the three submarines on May 5 in the morning.However, with the available documentation, their position can be politely ascertained.It is well known that HMS Conqueror had attacked the cruiser ARA General Belgrano (CRUBE) on May 2.After the attack, feeling attacked, his captain headed south.According to his blog [xxiii], on May 3 (last entry available to the public) at 0800, he was in position 56º 10´S, 62º 34´O, with the intention of navigating to meet on the 4th at the afternoon in a patrol area between the area of ​​the attack on CRUBE and Isla de los Estados.That is to say, 48 hours.prior to the May 5 encounter, HMS Conqueror was approximately 720 nm from the position where TN Cal located a surface appendage.Obviously, with a maximum diving speed of 28 knots [xxiv], the submarine had the theoretical ability to reach the area on May 5 in the morning, but three circumstances make this doubtful.The first of these is that the manifest intention of the Frigate Captain Christopher Louis Wreford-Brown, commander of HMS Conqueror, was to patrol, at least on the afternoon of the 4th, the area in the vicinity of the sinking, making no mention of to a northbound run.The second circumstance is that HMS Conqueror had orders to patrol in the assigned area, while another submarine was trying to locate Task Group 79.1 (the aircraft carrier).The third circumstance is that the relatively shallow depth of the transit zone (in very general terms around 180 meters) prevented the submarine from developing its full speed, limiting its safe operating speed to 10 to 15 knots.And still, the sub should have slowed down frequently for passive sonar listening purposes.In other words, in practice, it lacked the necessary speed to complete the journey in the required time.For the above reasons, there is little chance that HMS Conqueror was the submarine attacked by its own forces.As for HMS Spartan, the patrol area assigned to it since mid-April was in the vicinity of Soledad Island [xxv].Likewise, it was clear that HMS Spartan could not leave its patrol area, something that not even Admiral Woodward could, despite himself (as he needed the two nuclear submarines to find the "lost" PAL May 25), modify [xxvi].Of course, that one of the nuclear submarines remained close to the battle nucleus of the Task Force, implied, in a certain way, complying with the current naval doctrine, which imposed that a nuclear submarine should provide anti-sub and anti-surface protection of barrier to it. [xxvii]In other words, it is also difficult for this submarine to have been attacked in the vicinity of the continent.For its part, the last known position of HMS Splendid is near the 12 nautical mile line of the continent, just off the coast of Puerto Deseado (212 nautical miles from the place of contact) on the morning of May 4. , when it was trying to locate and sink the aircraft carrier May 25 [xxviii].This position is consistent with the orders received on April 15, which established its patrol area between the Falkland Islands and the mainland. [Xxix] (and which, remember, limited the presence of HMS Spartan to the vicinity of Soledad Island )By May 4, the submarine had located four sonar contacts within Argentine territorial waters (which it estimated were the PAL and its escorts), those that were transiting with north heading, so it can be inferred, and according to the current orders, which he proceeded to follow up on.However, according to known positions, the submarine was 212 nautical miles south of the sighting site, 24 hours before it, and heading north.To have arrived at the appointment with the Tracker plane at the appointed time, and to have run in a straight line, it must have sailed at an average speed of 8.3 knots, which is logical, taking into account the shallow depth of the area in which it was operating as well as the frequent need to listen to sonar.In sum, if one of the three British submarines in operation at that time had been the attacked contact, and according to its position, heading and designated exclusive patrol area, it should have been HMS Splendid.It should be added, on the other hand, that there is no reference to an attack on this submarine by the British forces.Beyond this, the secrecy imposed by the enemy on all operations in the Malvinas, as well as the natural discretion that surrounds submarine activities, make this silence inconclusive..The HMS Onyx.From Argentine sources, it has been repeatedly written that HMS Onyx was the contact attacked on May 5.There are two versions, one with slight variations on the other: either that the ship was observed in a dry dock in Brazil, damaged and with a torpedo lodged in its hull [xxx], or that in an exhibition after the war, taken to carried out in the United Kingdom, a photograph of the submarine was shown with the bow completely destroyed and a torpedo lodged in it [xxxi].With this, an attempt is made to prove that the submarine was hit by an aerial torpedo on the date under study.The testimonies that are cited are never first-hand, but rather someone who saw, or worse, who was told.That is, they lack the minimum probative value.The various versions grew as the submarine had slight to moderate damage, presumably and according to British sources, having hit a submerged rock.The Argentine versions of damages to this submarine must be discarded, without prejudice to the fact that HMS Onyx may have been injured by its own forces on some other occasion, which exceeds the scope of this work.Indeed, in the first place, and as already noted, the submarine was not in the theater of operations at the time of the attack.Next, it must be said that HMS Onyx completed its war patrol with some normality, returning to its port of origin after 117 days of patrol [xxxii], which included, on June 21, the sinking of the remains of the LSL Sir Galahad as a war grave.Of course, all this would have been impossible if the submarine had a totally destroyed hull and a live torpedo in its superstructure.In other words, it is impossible that the target attacked on May 5 was HMS Onyx.Notwithstanding what has been stated heretofore, taking into account the depth of the attack zone, that the Mk-44 torpedo is for active search only, has a helical locating trajectory, and that it dives looking for its target at around 7 At 7 meters per second [xxxiii], the damage to HMS Onyx, if it had been hit by the torpedo, should have been on the sail and the upper part of the hull, but not on her bow and lower part, as it happened.Submarine HMS Onyx on its return to the UK.Note that he is carrying the Jolly Roger (perhaps due to the sinking of the LSL Sir Galahad or special forces operations).There is no visible damage to the upper part of the hull and / or the sail.(Photo by M. Lennon, taken from English, Adrian and Watts, Antonhy "Battle for the Falklands. Naval Forces", Osprey Men at Arms Series, London, 1982)IN CONCLUSION.The contact attacked on May 5 was, according to the Argentine Navy, possibly, and with a degree of certainty 2/3, a submarine.The basic (and independent) analysis of the behavior of said contact carried out on these lines also allows us to conclude that it was a POSSUB.We have seen that, by that date, only three British submarines were in the South Atlantic, the HMS Conqueror, Spartan and Splendid, and it was not feasible, for the reasons indicated in the text, that the first two were attacked.However, the HMS Splendid was, a few hours before the attack, on patrol in a place close to where it happened, with an ideal course to find the aircraft of the Embarked Air Group.Therefore, it can be stated that, had the contact attacked on 5 May been a submarine, this should have been HMS Splendid.Beyond this, and whether or not an enemy submarine was harassed on that date, the truth is that the anti-submarine air assets of the aircraft carrier effectively achieved their mission, as it did not suffer any damage in the war, despite the efforts made. by British forces in their destruction.And it is that, in anti-submarine warfare, as important as achieving a sinking of your own, is to prevent the enemy from making his own.[i] Mariano Pablo Sciaroni ([email protected]) is a lawyer and holds a Master in Strategy and Geopolitics from the Higher School of War of the Argentine Army.[ii] Martini, Héctor A., ​​"History of Argentine Naval Aviation", Volume III, Buenos Aires, 1992, available athttp : // www . trackerenmalvinas . com . ar / html / download . html[iii] Mayorga, Horacio A., "Not expired", Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998, p.473.[iv] Fortini, Enrique A., "War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)", in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.243.[v] Mayorga, Horacio A., “Not defeated”, Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998, p.474.[vi] Mayorga, Horacio A., “Not defeated”, Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998, p.474.[vii] Martini, Héctor A., ​​"History of Argentine Naval Aviation", Volume III, Buenos Aires, 1992, available athttp : // www . trackerenmalvinas . com . ar / html / download . html[viii] Fortini, Enrique A., "War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)", in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.244.[ix] Fortini, Enrique A., “War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)”, in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.244.[x] Mayorga, Horacio A., “Not defeated”, Planeta, Buenos Aires, 1998, p.474.[xi] Fortini, Enrique A., "War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)", in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.244.[xii] Fortini, Enrique A., “War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)”, in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.244.[xiii] Fortini, Enrique A., “Anti-Submarine Operation, carried out by aircraft based on aircraft carriers on May 5, 1982”, atwww . naval forces . com, Magazine nº 18.[xiv] Rader, Karl A “Forward… from the sea into the torpedo danger zone”, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1994, p.52.[xv] Benedict, John “Third world submarine developments,” The Submarine Review, October 1990, p.53.[xvi] Fieldhouse, Sir John, "Dispatch by Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, GCB, GBE, Commander of the Task Force operations in the south atlantic: April to June 1982", London Gazette, December 13, 1982.[xvii ] Evans, Michael "Underwater and undercover: how nuclear subs were first line of Falklands defense" in The Times, November 27, 2007.[xviii] Finlan, Alastair "The Royal Navy in the Falklands Conflict and the Gulf War", Routledge , London, 2004, p.81.[xix] Rader, Karl A “Forward… from the sea into the torpedo danger zone”, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1994, p.fifty.[xx] "War Patrol The Falklands - HMS Onyx", in The Submariner, March 2004, available atwww . submariners . co . uk[xxi] Rader, Karl A “Forward… from the sea into the torpedo danger zone”, School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1994, p.50.[xxii] For example the sitehttp : // www . britains - smallwars . com / Falklands / Brit - units . htm, which generally has good information, indicates that the arrival dates were: HMS Conqueror: 16.4.82, HMS Spartan: 12.4.82, HMS Splendid: 19.4.82, HMS Courageous: 30.5.82, HMS Valiant: 16.5.82 and HMS Onyx: 28.5.82.[xxiii] “Operation CORPORATE 1982, Key documents concerning the sinking of the BELGRANO Released in support of the Official History of the Falklands Campaign”, MoD, (UK), p.151, athttp : // www . mod . uk / DefenseInternet / AboutDefence / CorporatePublications / BoardsOfInquiry / OperationCorporate1982 . htm[xxiv] Submarine speeds are generally confidential.The indicated speed comes fromhttp : // en . wikipedia . org / wiki / HMS _ Conqueror _ ( S48 )[xxv] Freedman, Sir Lawrence, “The official story of the Falklands Campaign”, Volume II, Routledge, London, 2005, p.89.[xxvi] Freedman, Sir Lawrence, “The official story of the Falklands Campaign”, Volume II, Routledge, London, 2005, p.286.[xxvii] Finlan, Alastair “The Royal Navy in the Falklands Conflict and the Gulf War”, Routledge, London, 2004, p.58.[xxviii] Freedman, Sir Lawrence, “The official story of the Falklands Campaign”, Volume II, Routledge, London, 2005, p.303.[xxix] Freedman, Sir Lawrence, “The official story of the Falklands Campaign”, Volume II, Routledge, London, 2005, p.89.[xxx] Muñoz, Jorge “Attack Rio Grande”, Institute of Naval Publications, Buenos Aires, 2005, p.143.[xxxi] Fortini, Enrique A., "War of the South Atlantic, little known experiences (Task Unit 80.2.2)", in the Bulletin of the Naval Center, No. 817, May / August 2007, p.247.[xxxii] "War Patrol The Falklands - HMS Onyx", in The Submariner, March 2004, available atwww . submariners . co . uk[xxxiii] Friedman, Norman “The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems 1991/92”, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1992, page 710.The referenced web pages were accessed and were working on February 12, 2007.-

This is a very subjective question and matter which, ultimately is dependent upon the individual’s perspective, life situation and tolerance threshold. I really like Hazen’s answer because he/she took an historical analysis of New Mexico as a whole; interesting and a little confusing though, because New Mexico is hardly a collectivized state; it’s very diverse in all aspects of life, perceptions and philosophical thought; there are inhospitable parts of New Mexico and hospitable parts; there are also inhospitable situations and very hospitable situations. However, on the whole New Mexico is a very accommodating state which is currently, emerging out of political, economic and legal obscurity; as prior to the year 2000 the state seemed all but forgotten by the main stream media, and Washington D.C.; New Mexico is changing dramatically and more rapidly with respect to its economy, sociology, social interactions and the general population, than in recent decades.People whom I have encountered in New Mexico have used the catch nickname “The Land of Entrapment” rather than “Enchantment;” This statement always confuses and infuriates me because, we love New Mexico and love being resident citizens of New Mexico—but apparently this is a vague reference to New Mexico’s staggering rates of incarceration (proportionally speaking); those who ascribe to this distortion of New Mexico attempt to fortify it with the catch phrase “come here on vacation and return home on probation.” We were (still are..figuratively speaking) good citizens of New Mexico, and love being, as such; we never felt a desire to run out and start “breaking bad,” as they say, in order to exploit the sometimes confusing and absent enforcement of natural law within New Mexico or the darker sides of New Mexico; just because there was, at that time, a propensity of many communities to acquiesce and tolerate the success of the gangs and cartels who attempt to operate in New Mexico, as an example; but I can’t help but describe parts of New Mexico and New Mexican life as a Femme Fatale--that is to say, both beautiful and dangerous.During graduate school I switched, temporarily, to our entirely online curriculum for one semester at NMSU College of Engineering (as an experiment) and began purchasing a tract of land outside of a little town called Quemado, NM—of which, the contemporary history of the approximately 468 person town is renowned for its inhospitable social climate, political atmosphere and weather.The town is situated around 60 miles from the county seat of Reserve,NM. There is one modestly sized family there who are very hospitable to new comers and “outsiders,” however many of the residents aren’t; and they only tolerate other people, in general, up to a certain point; namely because they too, are (or were at some point in their lives) technically and historically outsiders who are trying to fit in somewhere in the world. They’re often transient, misplaced or unhinged outlaw cogs from the criminal world, cowboys, gunslingers and wranglers. This definitely doesn’t “speak for” or represent New Mexico and her people, as a whole; as I’ve lived all over New Mexico and have found many hospitable and safe places to live and work; rather this is just one situation that we encountered and the question which you’ve presented is so broadly encompassing and vague as to what is definitively, a hospitable/inhospitable situation.I worked with an outsider at his ranch while in Quemado, where he now permanently resides; his perception of New Mexico is that the area is still a territory of the United States and hardly a state of the union; albeit wrong, he still prints this in his address on his business cards— instead of New Mexico, in the state identifier line of the address, he types The New Mexican Territory. Up until several years before our arrival—before the town went DRY—there are accounts from the locals, that the local saloon (which is now abandoned) still had wild west style gun fights out front during the night, as recently as the year 2000. Incidentally, Quemado and Catron county are predominately white. The town and the county were also flattened by the meth epidemic; mostly due to the county being the largest in terms of land coverage and extremely low population density; Meth labs are extremely easy to construct, conceal and abandon quickly in the remote areas of the back country. Also, fugitives and other criminals have been known to flee to Catron because of the lack of law enforcement and general ease with which to abscond outside of the local towns and hamlets.So, for us there are many different definitions of hospitable or inhospitable; these are viewed cautiously with regards to the history (abuses) of New Mexico and her residents, because history can become a trap of perpetuation (if the courses of history are not altered in order to yield a new change of course in destinies). In New Mexico, it is more than often an understanding for the independent person(s), that true New Mexicans (with respects to being a citizen of the state—and not necessarily an ethnic victim of circumstance; one Father at the Catholic Dioces of Las Cruces who worked in Tortugas has stated “that inclusive membership with the Guadalupana Church is not dependent on ethnicity…”) have to learn self-determination and autonomy (i.e., independence) and assume responsibility for for their own lives. So, depending upon your professional aspirations and orientation toward social status, a person will experience a relative and changing environment with regards to the definition of what is (or isn’t) hospitable.The land and climate in general: unless you intend on “goin’ native” and depending on where you live; you are likely going to procure some sort of sanctuary shelter. Adequate shelter and domestication allows New Mexicans to adjust to the inhospitable climate and extreme variations in the weather which New Mexico experiences, temporally (especially in the low desert south of Albuquerque). The mercury in Las Cruces easily breaks the 105 degree F, on a daily basis, during the summer; there are frequent haboobs (dust storms that will leave extra crusty boogers in your nose) and sometimes exotic and strange electrical storms in the desert; although the winters are mild, there is generally at least one week in January when LC gets pummeled with snow, the town shuts down and everybody goes ape s@#t. Around August or so, the Monsoon season encroaches upon Southern NM, and Los Arroyos flow torrents of tsunami like flows of water, which are extremely dangerous (people like to play in Los Arroyos and Acequias when they are dry).Most “normal” working people in New Mexico are wholly hospitable toward one another; Las Cruces was voted at some point the most courteous city in New Mexico. However, the science of economics is a ubiquitous and omnipresent force of man. Las Cruces was, until recently (around 2007 or 2008), an extremely depressed city; the city center downtown has been undergoing a complete makeover (when we were there we were able to observe it in its “before and after” states); now prima facie downtown appears very hospitable; where as before the renovations, downtown was like a remnant of a war and made some people uncomfortable to even go there; New Mexico State University is also undergoing a transformative process—the campus is being overhauled with new, modern and exquisite architecture; today the campus feels much more modern and cutting edge than it did before; I was proud to be an NMSU Aggie and Alumnus before but I am even more proud of my Alma Mater today.Certain Real Estate markets are booming in cities like Las Cruces, Clovis, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Taos, Clayton and Farmington, just to name a few—and it is very easy to find oneself in very hospitable suburban environments. All through undergraduate and graduate school we lived in University Mesa in Tortugas. We rented a beautiful and spacious 800 sq ft, one bedroom apartment at Las Cruces market rent rates—started at less than $400 per month; most of our neighbors were very friendly and social with us; very hospitable. However, across the parking lot another property manager owns the other half of the complex—of which their rental requirements were very lax at that time and they catered to “gang members” and drug dealers; Their residents not only usually wrecked their quarters but frequently had conflicts outside directly in front of the neighborhood: very inhospitable environment. Clovis and Portales are extremely hospitable communities; both cities are on the conservative growth ticket; these two cities are mostly agricultural communities and would be considered not-sexy and kind of boring to mainstream pleasure seekers.We live in Denver now, (this is where we are from and most of our family reside here, as well) and the differences with respect to the two economies and political environments are mind boggling; both quantitatively and qualitatively. I love it here, however, I miss New Mexico frequently (especially Las Cruces and Santa Fe). Las Cruces is a perplexingly remiss and simultaneously hopeful irony. The city is Bethlehem-esque; as it’s nested peacefully under the organ mountains and has profoundly quiet and still evenings when a person can relax and introspect on varying issue. The university is the city’s heart and promise for the future by way of its vaporous nostalgic past; when all students—Chicano, New Mexican, Native Tribe (White or Hispanic or both) and every other category you can list— possessed the promise of a prosperous future. This aspect is captured in our NMSU yearbook (the Swastika, later renamed the Phoenix after the Second World War).The yearbook went out of print in the 1990’s. The Senior graduating classes are no longer celebrated with ornately romanticized photographs of their accomplishments while at NMSU or their prospective contributions to the state and the nation; I am constantly haunted by the sensation of this ever changing and nominally SOCIALIZED internet environment. Where the prevalent tendency is to digitize every F#%KING aspect of life is; and is, in reality, a systematic contribution to robbing everyone within its radial grip of ANY and ALL identity, and genuine life experiences; right down to a singular citizen’s esteem which they feel when graduating from ANY accredited university (in the world but especially in the U.S. University System). BTW, I wear my NMSU class ring conspicuously and with great pride; I try to make sure that every person with whom I interact with sees it casually and with peripheral observation.There is a saying among some working professionals in New Mexico: “All money in New Mexico miraculously flows against gravity straight to Santa Fe.” It is true, while the economy of New Mexico is changing for the better; the economy of New Mexico is very “concentrated.” Demographically speaking, the concentration of wealth occurs in the most well known cities, and some of the rural areas at times border, marginally, upon a synonymous definition of third world; this is because the state, historically speaking, is one of the poorest in the union and relies too heavily on the State Government to provide for a greater number of its residents; this dependency, through over-regulating every aspect of life, creates by default an oppressive atmosphere for businesses to grow and thrive.The respective governments of New Mexico are most of the primary employers. While I hear that the situation is changing, the business climate of New Mexico was very oppressive for businesses (it’s a known fact that no major corporations or Fortune 500s are headquartered in New Mexico and there are dwindling operations from those businesses who have facilities within New Mexico—with the exception of the Intel Fab). This fact was definitely observed on both occasions, when I was an undergrad and during graduate school. Many pro-business professionals would describe this as an atmosphere which, potentially leads to being inhospitable; as the state government can be very prohibitive, status quo, and overreaching at times with regards to both business and citizens. For example, the State lost the opportunity to have Microsoft headquartered in Albuquerque due to conflicts with Gates and Allen.New Mexico is technically purple until one arrives at the Roundhouse. The Democratic party of New Mexico has an almost 70 year monopoly (majority of house seats) over all of the legislative houses in Santa Fe; it’s only occasionally that a Republican gets elected to the governor’s mansion. I was recruited to work PROFESSIONALLY at the NM PRC as an Actuary, after graduating from graduate school in 2011; If one is a professional and republican (or even leans moderately toward the right) then it is often a difficult lesson learned that, the professional not even allude to their party politics in any working environment within the professional arena in New Mexico; the professional runs not only the risk of being terminated WITHOUT DUE PROCESS but, will also risk being harassed, berated and socially sequestered from participating in state governance; potentially very inhospitable, professionally speaking.Anyone who wants to be someone in New Mexico (in particular Santa Fe) must possess a formal understanding of water rights. Legislative deliberations over prior appropriations (water rights) have a purported history of becoming very inhospitable—professionally at least (think something similar to land rights when prospecting for gold in the west). Water is scarce in New Mexico and has become a virtual commodity (or even veritable currency in some respects). The state is on course for a twenty-five year drought per, the scientific definition of the word, drought. When a person becomes a property owner, (with the exception of homeowners in the larger cities), you have to purchase your rights to acquire access and utilization of a landed body of water i.e., drill a well, use water to which the property be approximately situated and for businesses, as examples. There are rumors that people have been “murdered” over unmitigated water rights (to use water) and easements between properties. The purchase has to be approved by the state government and more than likely must receive the blessings of the “mayordomos;” basically a New Mexican governors club (good ol’boys) who govern water distribution to the aldeas in northern New Mexico. These guys also determine who is successful (and who isn’t) within New Mexico’s upper echelon.New Mexico has a history of legal battles over water rights of prior appropriations. In the professional world this fact can make the atmosphere tense at times—adversarial and potentially inhospitable with regards to professional ethics. The water supply for the Rio Grande begins at Canby Mountain, situated in South Central Colorado; and as you probably know, forms the border between Chihuahua, Mexico and the United States. So, for the sake of brevity, there are six governmental legislative bodies whom interact with one another over the water rights which are associated with the Rio Grand (or Rio Bravo—depending on your disposition); these are Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, the Mexican State of Chihuahua, the United States Federal Government and the Federal Government of Mexico; historically, there have been acrimonious and bitter law suits over the river regarding access to the watershed, amount of usage and, pass through pollution of the Rio Grande. Whether one directly participates in these deliberations or not—the issues affect the overall atmosphere among citizens and legislators of New Mexico: not necessarily inhospitable but definitely less hospitable in social and civic terms.So to clarify my answer for you, on the whole, with the exception of the weather, New Mexico is no less hospitable to many different types of people and lifestyles, than other parts of America; the state has many beautiful traditions and cultural aspects; nowhere in this country is the ideal of a state of perfection absolutely attainable and New Mexico has experienced many imperfections (a lot if this is due to the presence of the Federal government and the Nuclear Laboratories)…but honestly, New Mexico is what you make of it…A person living in New Mexico can make their experience Hospitable or Inhospitable. This aspect all depends upon the person’s (or persons’) life choices, with whom the person deliberately interacts and that said person’s intentions for the interaction. The majority of New Mexicans are people who are trying to work, get educated and carve out some sort of autonomous and sovereign destiny for their lives; however, people are people and personalities differ across lifestyles; some people are trouble makers and like to antagonize social situations in order to advance various political agendas while others aren’t.