Ed Gurowitz's Blog

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel.

2011-08-27T06:02:00.000-07:00

A friend forwarded this to me and I think it's worth wide circulation. Please pass it on, post and tweet.

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel.

This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a retired reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day.
545 vs. 300,000,000 People

- By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy","inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess.

Bonanza Column 244 - Ave et Vale

2011-07-15T15:28:00.001-07:00

I began writing this column in September of 2004 – this particular column is number 244 and will be the last, at least for a while.

After writing about TRPA critically during the Juan Palma years, hopefully during the John Singlaub regime, and enthusiastically as I’ve watched Joanne Marchetta engage with reinventing the Agency, I’ve decided to put my money where my mouth is. Several weeks ago Joanne approached me and asked if I’d take the job of Chief Operating Officer and partner with her in transforming TRPA along the lines that, at about the same time, were being demanded by Nevada SB 271. I agreed to do so on a half-time basis so that I didn’t have to bail on my other clients and began work at TRPA on July 1.

I’ve been in the business of organizational transformation since before the discipline had a name, starting with pioneering work at IBM, moving through other companies in a variety of industries. I’ve been a contract executive before, but not with the organizational redesign portfolio, and after thirty years of working with organizational leaders at arms’ length as a consultant, the opportunity to actually get in and work inside organizational change was just too good to pass up.

Unfortunately, now that I’m on the TRPA payroll, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to continue to write a political column – even if I did, I couldn’t write about TRPA, and that wouldn’t be fair to the paper or to its readers, so with surprisingly mixed emotions, I’m going to discontinue this column and hope the Bonanza will find someone else willing to represent the Progressive view on a weekly basis.

I know there will be those who are glad, even gleeful to see my departure from print, and even a few who will be sorry. I know from letters and blog responses that I’ve really annoyed a lot of Conservatives, and that has been more than half the fun for me – the rest has been satisfaction when other Progressives told me how much they appreciated my speaking their views, and there have even been a number of thoughtful folks who have told me they didn’t agree with me, but I made them think – no writer could ask for more.

I’ve never subscribed to the definition of an intelligent person as “someone who agrees with me.” (Given the number of times I’ve been called dumb, stupid, and a moron in response to my columns, there are those around here who do subscribe to that definition.) I can’t fathom most of what Conservatives think or believe, but I don’t disrespect them for thinking it (except for the far Right fringe, but then again I feel the same about the far Left fringe). I believe that one of the key things that makes America great is our diversity – of opinion, of culture, or religion, all of it – and I originally took on this column to be sure that there was more than one voice in the Bonanza. I think I’ve done that and I hope it won’t end with my stepping down.

I consider Freedom of Speech the cornerstone of all the other freedoms we have – without free speech and a free press, if the other freedoms were abridged, there would be no way to make that known or to act against it. It’s no accident that the recent democracy movements began with acts of speech, or that repressive regimes focus on making sure people don’t have the freedom to speak. For that reason, writing this column has been a privilege, and opportunity, and a gift.

By the same token, there would be no point in speaking if no one was listening, so I want to take the opportunity to say thank you – to friends, to foes, and to innocent bystanders. Your reading made my writing possible and, not incidentally, fun.

In that first column in 2004 I quoted JFK’s definition of a Liberal. I think it’s fitting that I close with that in this last column:

A "Liberal" [is] someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

And don’t worry – I’ll be around, and you’ll hear from me. Y’all take care now…

Bonanza Column 243 - Who Are the GOP Working For?

2011-07-08T19:44:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports that high-ranking executives at 200 of the biggest U.S. companies saw their pay increase an average of 23 percent from 2009 to 2010, bringing them close to pre-recession earnings. Those big paychecks didn't trickle down to the rest of the workforce, with the average American employee seeing less than a 1 percent increase in pay. The average CEO made $10.8 million last year, with CEO Philippe Dauman leading the pack with a whopping $84.5 million.

You read it right – eighty-four and a half million dollars. Now I’m sure Viacom is a very nice company – they are in the entertainment business, and it’s hard to fault that. Still, after a lifetime of working with some top CEOs, I can’t imagine anyone being worth that kind of money, or even $10.8 million, particularly when the people who are actually doing the work that earns the company its money get a 1% increase against 23% for top executives.

In addition to working with CEOs and top executives as a consultant, I’ve been an executive myself, and I don’t subscribe to the view that “the suits” or “the people on the top floor” don’t produce anything of value. On the contrary, it’s been my experience that the work of strategic design and strategy execution are what allow companies to grow, innovate, and be profitable and what allow employees to focus on customer service, quality, and sales. Still, if the top salesperson in a company makes, say, $250,000 per year and top executives make $10 million, it’s hard for me to imagine that what the executives do is worth 40 times more to the company than what the salesperson does.

All this becomes more relevant when you consider the current debate between the GOP and the Democrats over closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans (In case you’ve been living in a cave, the GOP opposes this). Now the Right would have you believe that the debate is over raising taxes “on the American people,” but what the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats want is to raise revenues by closing tax loopholes and exceptions for the very wealthiest Americans, not for the middle or working classes. Republicans, on the other hand, under the dubious banner of “no tax increases” would reduce spending by cuts in programs like Social Security and Medicare.

However they clothe it, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the GOP, or at least the right wing of the GOP, which seems to be driving the Republican train, don’t really care about the vast majority of Americans. According to factcheck.org, roughly one family in 50 will make over $250,000 this year – that’s 2% of the population that would be affected by closing tax loopholes or even raising taxes on those making more than a quarter million a year. Said another way, the GOP is fine with protecting this 2% at the expense of 98% of the people in the US.

I know this is not a popular argument here in Incline Village, where probably the percentage with incomes over $250k is considerably higher than 2%. But for humanity’s sake, what happened to noblesse oblige, the idea that people born into the upper social classes must behave in an honorable and generous way toward those less privileged?

If the United States is not to become a two-class society¸ with a huge working class supporting a privileged few, Republicans in Congress will have to stop pandering to their wealthy patrons and lying to people about who is paying their freight, and start thinking in terms of what’s good for the people who elected them.

Bonanza Column 242 - Politics vs. Ideology

2011-07-02T11:55:00.001-07:00

As the state’s new fiscal year begins, I guess you’d have to say we’re in better shape than Minnesota – at least our state government is open for business. At the same time, with Washoe and Clark Counties demanding the return of a total of $123 million from the State to County coffers, it’s clear that Governor Sandoval has a tough row to hoe in managing the state’s economy.

I’ve been an outspoken critic of the past two governors, both Republicans, and the long-time reader of this column (and I’m sure there is one, even if it’s only my brother) might expect me to continue that course of criticism with Governor Sandoval, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you for now. My disagreement with Governor Guinn was largely ideological – he was farther right than I like to see in the State House. My antipathy for Governor Gibbons, while also ideology-based was also based in my distaste for his arrogance and his ethics.

Despite his being a Republican, I’ve liked Brian Sandoval since he was Attorney General, and as I’ve said in earlier columns, his giving up a lifetime appointment to the Federal Bench to re-enter electoral politics and run for Governor bespeaks for me an authentic commitment to public service and to serving where he can make the most difference. We do not always agree on the means for making that difference, but we differ very little about the ends. I supported Rory Reid in last Fall’s election because I thought (and still think) his plan for rescuing our suffering educational system was the better one, but I’m willing to give Sandoval’s approach a chance now that he’s in office.

And I think he’s off to a good start. Because of the timing of the governor’s taking office and the budget’s taking effect (January and July, respectively), most first-term governors go with the budget they inherit from their predecessor. To Sandoval’s credit, he built his first budget from the ground up and, again, while I don’t agree with significant parts of it, it reflects his commitment to resolving the state’s economic ills, and I can respect that and give it a chance to work rather than condemning it out of hand as some of my fellow Progressives might expect me to do.

The point, for me, is this. There is politics and there is ideology. Both involve belief systems, and no one can say that a given belief system is totally wrong or without merit except maybe at the extremes of the political spectrum. But politics goes beyond belief and into persuasion and, as Machiavelli said, into the “art of the possible” – where can we find common ground despite our different beliefs and move forward? At its best, politics is about finding the values that, at the root of it all, we have in common and resolving our differences in favor of those values. Ideology, on the othe r hand is too often about dogma and beliefs that we are certain are right. Concomitantly, any beliefs other than ours must be wrong, and we focus on differences rather than common ground. Too often, ideologues use either force or isolation to deal with those of differing beliefs, and both of those are impediments to progress.

So Progressives can differ from Governor Sandoval politically and not turn it into an ideological battle of who’s right and who’s wrong, but rather have our differences be the heat that forges new ideas and real progress. In an era where national politics has become almost essentially ideological, perhaps Nevadans can demonstrate that real political progress is possible. Let’s hope so, anyhow.

Bonanza Column 239 - The Lake Knows No Parties

2011-06-17T05:02:00.001-07:00

As a veteran of the organizational change business, there are two things I emphasize to my clients – one is that change takes time and the other is that seeing the change reflected in the market’s response to your business takes even more time.

For those of us who watch the workings of TRPA closely, there is no doubt that significant organizational change has occurred since Joanne Marchetta took over as Executive Director, and that that change is continuing in the face of all the stresses impinging on the agency and on Marchetta herself. At the same time, it’s not surprising that much of the public have taken a “we shall see” attitude – I don’t blame them With anti-government feeling at a long-time high, many are not disposed to trust any agency to have their interests at heart, and TRPA has a long history of being one way and a short history of changing.

Now the Legislature has passed the bill that was AB and SB 271, and TRPA will have until 2014 not just to have its house in order, but to meet certain metrics that will, arguably, demonstrate that it has done so. This is not an unreasonable requirement to place on the Agency, and it is one that I am confident it will meet. Ideally I would have preferred that the bill not pass. Ms Marchetta and her staff have, I think, amply demonstrated in action their commitment to change how the Agency does business and responds to the public. Still, the inertia of public perception of change is real and needs to be taken into account, so this seems to me like a good compromise. If I were in Ms Marchetta’s shoes it seems to me that I would see the deadline as a real challenge, but one I and my staff can meet and in doing so prove our bona fides.

And make no mistake – we need TRPA. The agency was not set up on a whim – even in 1969 it was apparent that advances in technologies and increased traffic and development would make regulation a necessity if the unique character of the Lake and Basin were to survive. Tahoe’s unique position of having a state border running down its spine, leaves three options for regulation – each state regulating its side separately, the Federal Government regulating the bi-state area, or a bi-state compact leaving regulation in the hands of the coordinated effort of the two states involved. The Federal option is a nightmare that no one wants to see. The separate states option is a logical impossibility – that line down the middle of the lake is imaginary – what affects any part of the lake affects the lake. The compact is the only option that has any hope of protecting the lake and the Legislature has but some teeth into a demand that TRPA meet its responsibilities under the compact.

The bi-state compact is not perfect by a long shot. Given the varied and often competing interests of Northern California, Southern California, the Central Valley, etc., as well as Northern and Southern Nevada, urban and rural Nevada, etc., I’d rather see the Governing Board composed of people from those geographical areas most affected by the lake, but we have the Compact we have, not the Compact we want and it’s working better than not.

Two things should not enter into the scrutiny of TRPA, though it would be a miracle if they didn’t. One is party politics – this cannot be allowed to be turned into a political football. On January 10, 1945, Senator Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan delivered a celebrated speech in the Senate chamber announcing his conversion from isolationism to internationalism saying “politics stops at the water’s edge.” Vandenberg's Senate career stands as a monument to the benefits of bipartisanship in American foreign policy, and applies no less to the edge of Lake Tahoe than to the edge of the Atlantic.

The second thing is misguided environmental Puritanism – TRPA is not perfect, and local environmental groups have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice the good and improving because they can’t have the perfect.

Anything less than TRPA’s meeting the criteria and the Compact being strengthened would be the beginning of the end for the Lake Tahoe Basin.

Bonanza Column 240 - The First World and the Third

2011-06-17T05:01:00.001-07:00

Recently a friend of mine sent me one of those emails that talked about all the things people our age remember that our kids and grandkids have never heard of. You know, like milk delivery to your front door (in glass bottles) (with cream on top). There was a quiz of 25 items to see which ones you remembered first-hand. I got 25 out of 25.

That, along with seeing online reports of the IHS graduation and various college commencements got me thinking about what we may have gained and lost in the past fifty or sixty years.

As I write this I’m concluding a three-week business trip to Botswana in Southern Africa. During my trip here I’ve had the enormous privilege of working with a number of Batswana (the country is Botswana with a long o, the people are Batswana, or in the singular Motswana), mainly in the diamond mining business, and have been impressed with how modern they are in some ways and how old-fashioned they are in others.

Don’t get me wrong – everything is up to date in Gaborone and in the villages around the mine sites. The Internet is alive and well, there are HD TVs everywhere, everyone drives a nice car, etc. At the same time from an American point of view much of the Batswana behavior looks quaintly Victorian. The people here are enormously polite, and you don’t get the feeling it’s put on – it seems quite natural, and they are as polite to each other as they are to outsiders. I quickly learned that even the most trivial conversation, business or personal, must start with an exchange of “how are you?” You can go for days here without hearing a single word you would not say in front of your grandmother – even in the rough-and-ready atmosphere of mining, four letter words are conspicuous (to an American) by their absence.

Botswana has been a democracy since 1965 and has an active political process. While there is only one party on the books, that party is so factionalized that there may as well be several. The current President is the son of the founding President and his popularity is not great at the moment – they’ve just gone through a seven-week public employees’ strike that he refused to settle, and Batswana, particularly parents of children who have had no real school for seven weeks, aren’t happy, but the criticism of the President in the press and by people is political, not personal in nature.

Which brings me back to our 2011 graduates from High School and College. They are graduating into a world of technology that was undreamt of in the days of home milk delivery and Butch Wax, but also into a society the incivility of which is unmatched in our history, where public officials who have done nothing wrong are subject to personal attacks that have nothing to do with reality (see “Birthers”) and others are engaged in activities that would make a Nevada Madam blush and don’t seem to see anything wrong with it unless they are caught (see Spitzer, Weiner, Ensign, et al.) or it comes back to haunt them when they think they deserve higher office (see Gingrich).

We are fond of thinking of ourselves as the “First World” and places like Botswana as the “Third World,” (the Soviet Union and its allies were the “Second World,” but now have presumably vacated that space), with the implication that somehow they need to catch up. After three weeks here I’m no expert, but I do see a lot of the values that existed sixty years ago reflected in these supposedly primitive people – sure there are goats and donkeys wandering around in the country and many people still live very simply in thatched huts, but I wonder if on “family values” and living out a deep religious faith we’re not the ones who need to catch up. I’m just sayin’.

Follow this blog

Bonanza Column 238 - It's All About the Brain

2011-05-27T08:14:00.001-07:00

The eminent scholar and public policy advisor Jeremy Rifkin makes a compelling case that the history of the history of the human race is characterized by the development of wider and wider circles of empathy – starting in the hunter-gatherer days with the tribe, then affiliated groups (e.g. religions) and progressing toward the nation-state. Hence today, Americans feel closer to Americans than to, say Germans or Saudis, and this feeling extends to some very real material results such as the outpouring of aid to the areas struck by Hurricane Katrina and the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We’ve even seen what Rifkin calls natural empathy transcend national borders after the earthquake in Haiti, the tsunami in Southeast Asia, and the more recent earthquake in Japan. For Rifkin, greater levels of civilization are marked by expanding circles of empathy and compassion, and he cites both biological and social data to back up his contention.

On the other hand, we have House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) saying he will block aid money for Missouri tornado victims unless Democrats agree to an equal amount of spending cuts. As Steve Benen points out in the Washington Monthly, “When part of the country is devastated by a deadly natural disaster, federal lawmakers "are expected to put aside politics and ideology" and help, not hold the victims "ransom" to their pet causes,” and I would add particularly in the case of a disaster such as happened in Missouri where the timeliness of aid will make a difference that could save families, properties, and lives.

Cantor and the GOP leadership have interpreted the results of the mid-term elections last year as a wholesale mandate to cut spending and damn the consequences. Republicans gave up "compassionate conservatism" as a Bush-era failure, and their renewed passion for small government essentially means "you're on your own," even in the face of disaster.

So how do we explain this seeming contradiction – as a human race we seem to be evolving in the direction of, as Einstein put it, “widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” On the other hand we have Mr. Cantor and the GOP taking this regressive position, putting a political bargaining ploy ahead of the real need of people, many of whom are presumably in their political base.

Just as Rifkin’s research on empathy and compassion began with neuroscience, and particularly with the discovery of so-called “mirror neurons” in the 1990s, we can begin to look for an answer in the brain. A study was published last month by researchers at University College London that, the researchers say, links personality traits of liberals and conservatives to differences in brain structure and, presumably, function. The study was based on 90 young adults who reported their political views on a five-point scale from very liberal to very conservative, and then submitted themselves to brain scans using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a well-established method for studying both brain structure and activity.

The study found that self-described conservatives had a greater development in an area of the brain called the Amygdala, while liberals had greater development in an area called the Anterior Cingulate Cortex. The functions of both these brain areas have been well-established. The Amygdala is a brain stem structure that is, essentially, a threat-detection sensor. When the Amygdala is activated, the result is the familiar “fight or flight” response. So people with a highly developed Amygdala will be more sensitive to threat and more likely to respond to threat aggressively.

The Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) is a region that responds to uncertainty and conflicts. The researchers said “it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.” They go on to say “Our findings are consistent with the proposal that political orientation is associated with psychological processes for managing fear and uncertainty.”

It is also well-established that a big part of the fight or flight response is to see the world, temporarily at least, in binary terms – good and bad, black and white, and to avoid uncertainty or shades of grey. Now none of this is my opinion – the London study was published in Current Biology, a peer-reviewed journal, and 90 is a good-size sample; Cantor’s remarks and the support of (and non-repudiation of) his position by other Republicans is a matter of record. I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions, but I’m just sayin’…

Bonanza Column 237 - The End is Here (or It Isn't)

2011-05-20T20:22:00.001-07:00

Have you heard? The end of the world began last Saturday. So by the time you are reading this, presumably there are signs of the end – maybe people have started disappearing, or worse yet appearing, maybe the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (not to be confused with the Four Horsemen of Notre Dame) are riding down Tahoe Boulevard right now.

As you probably know Harold Camping, a civil engineer who is a self-taught biblical scholar has been trumpeting this doomsday scenario on his Family Radio network, predicting Judgment Day on May 21^st,a date he arrived at through a series of calculations that assume the world will end exactly 7,000 years after Noah’s flood. Believers (in what I’m not sure – Camping, I guess) are to be transported up to heaven as a worldwide earthquake strikes. Nonbelievers will endure five months of plagues, quakes, wars, famine and general torment before the planet’s total destruction in October. According to the New York Times, Mr. Camping said in 1992 that the rapture would probably be in 1994, but he now says newer evidence makes the prophecy for this year certain.

I don’t expect Camping to be right (it’s Friday night as I write this, so who knows?), and if he is it’s really going to annoy the folks who believe that the supposed Mayan calendar predicts the end in 2012. What is curious to me is how willing some people are to believe something like this. Friday’s New York Times carried a story about a family where the parents are Camping followers (Campingites? Campers?) but the teen-age children are not, and the kids keep trying to make summer plans while the parents say “why bother?” More poignantly, the mother has decided that some of the children will not be saved, and has told them so – not to get them to change their ways, just to let them know what’s coming.

I’m not going to argue the religious or philosophical merits of eschatology. If you believe in an end to the world and a last judgment, that’s your prerogative – religious thinkers are divided on this one right down the middle both within and between various religions. If the thought or fear of judgment keeps you on the straight and narrow, more power to you. But in my understanding, the judgment is supposed to be heavenly in origin, and most of these folks like Camping and his ilk seem to be very interested in judging those around them, particularly those who don’t think as they do. It boggles my mind that a parent could be so caught up in how right someone like Camping is that they will, in effect, reject their own child, but this happens in these doomsday cults, and it happens a lot.

So for me, Camping is in the same camp with Jim Jones, Osama Bin Laden, those crazies that picket servicemen’s funerals because they hate gays, that so-called preacher that finally got to burn his Quran, and all the other religious fanatics who seem to be multiplying these days, and I just don’t see that they’re adding anything useful to the social dialogue.

So I hope this column finds you, on Tuesday or Wednesday, or Thursday happy and healthy and unplagued by plagues, demons, or hellfire. If it doesn’t, well, then I bet on the wrong horse. My bad.

Bonanza Column 236 - Dissent in a Civil Society

2011-05-13T16:51:00.000-07:00

All over the world governments that have been entrenched for many years are being challenged. In almost every case, those mounting the challenge have lived under the regime for most or all of their lives and have only recently awakened to possibilities that they had not imagined.

Here in the US the unrest is less dramatic, and yet our government seems to be clear that to ignore all but the fringes of, for example, the Tea Party movement would be a risky business. And the pressure is not one-sided – the protests in Wisconsin were very much in that state’s progressive tradition. All told, these seem to be times of great change, and as Bob Dylan said, it’s probably best not to “speak too soon, for the wheel’s still in spin.”

And of course here in Incline Village/Crystal Bay we have our own small-scale unrest, though the agenda behind the unrest seems unclear, at least to me. We had the long-running resistance to the Boulder Bay project which hopefully will subside now. We have Mr. Katz and his “organization” The Village People mounting challenge after challenge to the IVGID Board of Trustees, claiming to speak for many people, most of whom have not identified themselves. If such support exists, they seem content to remain in the shadows and let The Village People and a couple of others speak for them. Or, of course, the support doesn’t exist. You can’t prove a negative, so as long as this supposed group remains silent, the issue will remain in doubt.

For about twenty years a lot of (publicly identified) people have advocated a change in IVGID’s structure and governance. There have been attempts to form a county and a town, and other options have been researched, publicly discussed, and deemed unlikely to be better than the GID formed under NRS 318. In all these efforts local residents have made it clear that a majority prefer the GID system, so that’s what we have.

There is a widespread view that NRS 318 restricts GIDs to managing water, sewer, trash, and recreation, and it’s true that these four areas are called out specifically, NRS 318.116 lists 21 separate areas that are available for GIDs to manage, and 318.015 mandates that GIDs “serve a public use and will promote the health, safety, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants thereof,” which seems to include a great deal of latitude. The IVGID Board, like all GID boards, operates under the Nevada Open Meeting Law, which among other things means meetings are open to the public, include public comment, and agendas are published in advance.

Somehow, for The Village People, this amounts to a “lack of transparency,” which I understand according to the following definition: “Transparency is a general quality. It is implemented by a set of policies, practices and procedures that allow citizens to have accessibility, usability, utility, understandability and auditability of information and process held by centers of authority. Feedback mechanisms are necessary to fulfill the goal of transparency.” It seems to me that both the Nevada Open Meeting Law and the practices of the IVGID Board meet this standard, so I wonder what the so-called Village People want.

More disturbing is the constant imputation of dark, and by implication criminal, motives to the IVGID Trustees and the IVGID Staff. I don’t always agree with the Trustees – as is the case in most areas of politics, I agree with some of them most of the time, some of them some of the time, and some of them never. However, having gone through the process of running for the Board some years ago and knowing many current and former Trustees, I cannot imagine what nefarious motives anyone would have or what they would stand to gain by serving in this largely thankless job. Similarly over the past 15 years I have gotten to know many IVGID staff members and to a person have found them to be hard-working, dedicated, and honest, from the Executive Director to those staff who work “on the line” at facilities, etc.

Every citizen has the right to question their government and to hold officials to account. In a civil society, though, it behooves each of us to do this in a civil manner, and in that the recent activities of The Village People have fallen short.

Two Contrasting Political Cases

2011-05-08T15:41:00.001-07:00

As was widely predicted, Governor Sandoval has appointed Dean Heller to the Senate seat vacated by the disgraced John Ensign. While the Nevada law on how to fill Heller’s House seat is notoriously vague in some ways, it clearly mandates a special election. Secretary of State Ross Miller has thrown that election open to all comers rather than having candidates selected by party caucuses, and as noted in an earlier column, we can expect a lively campaign between now and the special election in September, during which time the state’s Congressional delegation of two will be down to one, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas), who has already announced her intention to run against Heller for election to the Senate seat in 2012.

While Sandoval’s appointment of Heller was expected, it was not the only possible way to go. The Governor could, for example, have appointed a respected Nevadan to fill Ensign’s seat until the 2012 election – Bill Raggio comes to mind as someone who would have been an excellent choice. This would have left our Congressional representation intact, but would not have given Heller a leg up in the election, which I suspect was at least a part of the Republican Governor’s motivation for the appointment.

Appointing what is sometimes referred to as a “placeholder” would also have saved the State an estimated one million dollars that could be used, (and is desperately needed) for other purposes in these difficult economic times. At the same time Sandoval is cutting jobs and programs, he seems blithely oblivious to the possibilities of using this money more wisely. To bring it closer to home, the special election will cost Washoe County about $350,000, and we will pay for that one way or another.

Sandoval has not said much about his thinking in appointing Heller, and of course under state law he can do pretty much what he wants in filling the seat. Still, in the absence of anything from him to counter the widespread view that the purpose of his appointing Heller was political, I’m inclined to take that view – that the Governor who was elected on promises of fiscal accountability has put politics ahead of good financial judgment, and that it’s worth a million dollars of our money to him to have his pal and his party get an edge in an election they probably would have won anyhow.

On a more bi-partisan note, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has put ideology second and is making common cause with the Right, including and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn have joined forces with Tea Party activists in an attempt to kill six billion dollars a year in ethanol subsidies, taking on the corn lobby. Ethanol is made from corn and has been promoted by corn growers as an alternative to dependence on oil. It has also been blamed by environmentalists for contributing to algae blooms in the Gulf of Mexico. Most importantly, corn used for ethanol production is corn that is not available to feed cattle, pigs, chickens, and other food sources which then have to be fed more expensively, raising food prices.

Feinstein and Coburn are garnering support from both sides of the political spectrum including the Tea Party Patriots group which noted on its Facebook page “When the Left and the Right agree…amazing things can happen.” Ethanol production accounts for 40 percent of the US corn crop and its value as a fuel is questionable given that fossil fuels are used both to grow corn and to refine it into ethanol and because ethanol yields less energy per gallon than gasoline. To add insult to injury, ethanol not only doesn’t save much energy overall, but may increase greenhouse gas emissions.

So we have two cases in point – a Governor who, for all his piety about cutting spending, is willing to spend much-needed money for political purposes, and two Senators who are willing to put partisan differences aside for the greater good. We can only hope that the latter is a harbinger of a more rational and intelligent political future.

Bonanza Column 234 - Leon Festinger, Obama's Birth Certificate, and Boulder Bay

2011-04-29T11:23:00.000-07:00

In the 1950’s, Stanford psychologist Leon Festinger studied a doomsday cult that believed that the world was going to end (and that they would be rescued from the cataclysm by aliens) on a certain date. They sold their possessions, quit their jobs, etc. and gathered on a mountain top to be picked up by UFOs. When the world didn’t end and you would expect them to have changed their beliefs, they were unfazed – the world didn’t end not in spite of their beliefs, but because they believed and therefore the world was spared. Festinger coined the term cognitive dissonance to describe this phenomenon of people becoming more committed to their beliefs in the face of evidence to refute them, and it has since been validated many times.

The past week has given us two great examples of the cognitive dissonance mechanism at work. First, President Obama released the long form of his Hawai’i birth certificate with all the requisite signatures and seals, which should have put the whole “birther” nonsense to rest, right? Not so much. Some birthers questioned the authenticity of the certificate (where does that one end?), some accepted it, but said he must be hiding something, and others just changed “birth certificate” to “diploma” and suggested that this Summa cum Laude graduate of Harvard was faking his educational credentials.

Closer to home, we saw the long approval process for the Boulder Bay project culminate in a twelve-hour meeting of the TRPA Governing Board, at the end of which the project was overwhelmingly (12-2) approved along with the EIS and an amendment to the height restrictions. The public comment at that meeting took four hours, during which some 80 people spoke, with about 80% of the comments solidly in favor of the project. A couple of things struck me about the 10 or 15 comments that questioned or opposed the project. One was the theme of “I don’t really oppose it, but I want it to be smaller.” Given how much the Boulder Bay team has reduced the size over the past four years, one wonders if it could be small enough to satisfy them.

But the other thing that struck me and brought Festinger to mind was some of the opponents’ responses to the traffic studies. There were three studies and a fourth memo clarifying the studies. These studies were done by experts, engineering consultants whose reputation and livelihood rests on the scientific validity of their work. Granted, no forecast can be said to be “the truth” – all forecasting is, in the end, a guess, but these people’s job is to make guesses that are grounded in and can be defended by data, and so it would be reasonable to expect that if someone were to disagree with their conclusions, that disagreement would be based on data as well. Not here – the predominant theme of the objections to the traffic studies could be summarized as “it doesn’t make sense to me that this project won’t increase traffic, so the studies must be wrong.” A couple of the objectors had the credentials to make them worth listening to and challenged the baselines used in the studies, but again failed to give any coherent, data-based objection to the baselines – they just didn’t think they were right.

It would be nice to think we have heard the last of the controversy and that the Boulder Bay project could proceed on schedule – design work this summer and break ground next May – but given the cognitive dissonance mechanism I'm not holding out much hope. As Festinger said: “A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” As a result, the general expectation in the community as reflected in the online poll conducted during the Bonanza’s live coverage of the hearings, is that there will be lawsuits from one or more of the groups who have been intransigent in their opposition to the project. I'm referring here to the local version of the Sierra Club, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, and the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.

Now this is America, where anyone can sue anyone over everything and we let the courts sort it out. Given the exhaustive work and hearings by TRPA over the past four years, I suggest that any suit brought at this point will be groundless and simply a tactic to delay and harass the Boulder Bay group and will be held as such by the courts. These groups, as Wednesday’s hearing showed, represent a very small minority of the community, if that. The NTPA has consistently inflated its membership figures - many people who spoke Wednesday objected to being listed on NTPA’s rolls of those opposed when all they had done was ask for information – and the rest of us should not stand for their throwing sands into the gears of progress.

Bonanza Column 233 – Tearing the Tattered Ensign Down

2011-04-22T14:09:00.000-07:00

With apologies to Oliver Wendell Holmes:

Ay, tear tattered Ensign down!
Long has he waved on high,
And many an eye has danced to see
That banner in the sky;

After several years of agony, denials, and disingenuous statements, Senator John Ensign has announced he will resign from the Senate on May 3. According to Jon Ralston, who follows Nevada politics for the Las Vegas Sun, the Senate Ethics Committee was about to launch a full-scale investigation into Ensign’s activities, which investigation will be forestalled by Ensign’s resignation.

As we’ve said before in this column, Ensign’s resignation is long overdue. He can insist that he’s violated no ethical standards until he’s blue in the face, but the facts speak for themselves – the married Senator had an affair with a staffer who was married to another staffer. When the affair came to light, he dismissed both of them and his parents gave the couple $96,000 dollars as a “gift,” after which the husband took a lobbying job that Ensign got him, ignoring the requirement that Congressional staffers cannot take a lobbying position for a year after leaving their post and cannot in any case lobby the person they worked for, both of which he did.

Ensign may be right that he broke no laws, but he did violate the trust of the Nevadans who voted him into office and all of Nevada which he was supposed to be representing. He is also arguably a hypocrite given his public statements on family values and his membership in the Family, an ostensibly Christian organization.

Oh, better that his shattered bulk
Should sink beneath the wave;
His thunders shook the mighty deep,
And there should be his grave;

Now the fun begins. In a game of Nevada GOP dominoes, Governor Sandoval will almost certainly appoint his friend and ally Rep. Dean Heller to Ensign’s seat. Heller has already announced for election to the seat in 2012, and being a sitting (albeit appointed) senator should give him a leg up on his only announced opponent, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas. A number of people including the perennial Sharron Angle have already announced they will run for Heller’s district (which includes Incline), and it will be up to the Governor to call a special election once he appoints Heller; naturally, whoever wins this special election will have an advantage in the race for that seat in 2012.

How far the dominoes will fall beyond that is hard to predict and depends on how many people who already hold office decide to enter the fray, but what is predictable is that there will be a circus to rival the 2010 Senate race and that we will see the national media struggling with the Nev-a-da/Nev-ah-da quandary. It will be interesting to see how much damage Angle did to herself in the 2010 race and how much of her supposed support in that race was really anti-Reid efforts that will not necessarily stick to her when she runs against other (rational) Republicans. For me as a Democrat, I’d love to see Angle run against almost anyone.

A lot depends on Secretary of State Ross Miller. The procedure for filling Heller’s seat is unclear and it will be up to Miller to decide how it will go. The most likely possibilities include either appointment of candidates by party caucuses or open primaries. If Heller is appointed and Miller decides that the primary is open, the large number of Republican candidates who have already announced bids to replace Heller could divide the party vote. Angle and former Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold have already launched campaigns. State Sen. Greg Brower told Jon Ralston Friday that he would enter a special election . State GOP Chairman Mark Amodei and Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki are also mulling bids. It’s hard to imagine that a party caucus would nominate Angle – they would probably favor party insiders Amodei and Krolicki – but an open primary sounds like a lot of fun.

At any rate, this off-year just got considerably more interesting in Nevada.

Bonanza Column 232 - Who's Carrying Whom?

2011-04-17T19:12:00.001-07:00

As I’ve mentioned, my recent columns taking issue with economic policies advocated particularly by the right wing of the GOP have garnered a great deal of criticism from those on the other side of the political spectrum, which is to be expected. This criticism divides into two not particularly equal parts – the greater portion of the responses takes me to task, sometimes with great heat, for employing tactics that the Right has used for years – characterization, insults, and, according to them, presenting only one side of the picture. It may be that characterizing my detractors as troglodytes and favoring the rich is inelegant, but no more so than their characterizations of the Left as bleeding hearts, and profligate spenders – I'm not saying either is right, just that for them to take such umbrage when their own tactics are turned against them is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical would not, in my view, be too strong a term.

The minority of the responses, and the more thoughtful of them, take the case that, since those at the top of the economic ladder pay the most taxes and are, in effect, carrying those at the bottom, they (and most of the writers include themselves in this group) deserve extra breaks. I'm not sure of the merits of that argument, but I am sure the facts behind it are flawed.

A recent post on the New York Times Economix blog cites statistics from two reputable sources – a book published by Oxford University Press studying income and wage inequality in the US from 1913 to 2002 and an analysis of the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances and the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds that was prepared for the Economic Policy Institute.

The first study shows that as of 2008, about 21% of income in the US was received by just 1% of earners. The second looks at disparities in wealth (how much people have rather than how much they make) and shows that wealth distribution is even more skewed than income distribution. The top 1% of earners receive about a fifth of all US income, but the top 1% of Americans by net worth hold about a third of US wealth. Wealth-related inequality, the studies show, has been stable for decades, while income-related inequality has been growing since the 1970’s.

As income grows, however, so does wealth – the highest earners can save more of what they make, accumulating more wealth over time, and have more opportunities to pay less taxes, both because they can afford better tax advice and because the more money you have, the more you can put into vehicles that are taxed as capital gains rather than income. This means that while those in the working and middle classes pay more in taxes ass their income grows, those in the highest income bracket pay less, calling my correspondents’ argument into question. It’s possible that the very wealthy pay more in absolute amounts, but it’s been documented over and over that they pay a smaller proportion of their net worth toward taxes than do the lower 67%.

The Census Bureau reported in September that the poverty rate for 2009 was 14.3%, the highest since 1994, with the number of uninsured reaching a record high. So, as Charles Blow said in another Times blog, who “should be expected to sacrifice a bit for the benefit of the other and the overall health and prosperity of the nation…? The poor, of course. At least that seems to be the Republican answer.”

The GOP are proposing to make the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and to reduce their taxes even more, ostensibly to promote growth and job creation, despite the incontrovertible evidence that cutting taxes for the wealthy does not create economic growth. For example, the average tax rate for the top 1% of households dropped by 20% from 1979 to 2007 (the overall average dropped by only 8%) and the GDP has shown no correlation with the level of top tax rates. Currently the average tax rate ofr those with an average annual income of about $350 million is lower than the tax rate for average Americans.

And that’s just individuals – while many of the very wealthy manage to minimize their tax exposure, the richest Americans are corporations, which the Supreme Court in the Citizens United ruling says are, in effect, people –some of the richest corporations in America including GE last year pay no taxes at all.

So who’s carrying whom?

Bonanza Column 231 – Pots and Kettles

2011-04-09T12:25:00.001-07:00

I just bought a t-shirt that says “Annoy a Conservative: Use Facts and Logic,” and I seem to have been doing a pretty good job of that even without the shirt. There is a strong trend in Conservative responses to these columns and Conservative discourse in general to (a) accuse Progressives of ignoring or not having the facts of a given situation, (b) stating at most one fact and then (c) going on to state opinions and interpretations of the facts as if they were the truth and anyone who does not see it that way must be crazy, agenda-driven, or both. I.e., the pot calling the kettle black.

Case in point: Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) keeps pointing to a graph he made charting US debt as a percentage of GDP from 1940 to the present and extrapolated to 2080. The first 70 years of this chart are fact – they show that debt was as high as 100% of GDP during World War II, has hovered around 50% since 1990 or so and is now about 70% (you can find Ryan’s plan at http://paulryan.house.gov/). Ryan then goes on to extrapolate a “current path” leading to debt being 900% of GDP in 2080 – a classic “hockey stick” curve, and a “path to prosperity leading to zero in 2050. Both are pure guesswork, and neither can be said to be right or wrong, though extrapolating a very weak trend into a straight, high-slope curve is a statistical stretch.

Here’s the problem, though – in pushing his “path to prosperity, Ryan is only telling part of the facts. Under his plan (which is unlikely to be enacted), the cost of Medicare does follow a hockey stick curve while Social Security income continues at an almost flat rate of growth. Under the current system, that slow growth roughly matches the cost of living (or lags behind it), and includes Medicare; under Ryan’s plan, a greater and greater portion of retiree’s income would go to pay for health care, or they would go without. By 2030 or so, most older Americans will face a Hobson’s Choice of bankruptcy or no medical care.

Now I don’t know about you, but I was taught that there are three ways to lie: falsify the truth, omit relevant facts, or only tell part of the truth as if it were the whole. Ryan’s argument and that of the right wing of the GOP fits the last two criteria at least. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), under the GOP plan, people entering the program in 2030 can expect to pay $20,000 out of their own pockets for health care. At the current rate of adjustment, the average person on Social Security will receive about $21,000 that year. Those are facts. Good luck living on that other thousand, and heaven help you if you enter the program after 2030.

There’s more to the Ryan/GOP proposal than this, but none of it is any better. Conservatives seem to be banking on scare slogans like “Road to Ruin” to panic people into supporting proposals that benefit large corporations that have given millions to the GOP and to the Tea Party while leaving ordinary people in the dust. Call me naïve, but I don’t believe the average American is quite that stupid. Notwithstanding that, in the post-Citizens United world, the influence of the average American on his or her government is quickly diminishing and that of the likes of the Koch Brothers, the NRA, and lobbies for industries like health insurance is on the rise.

Both here in the Tahoe Basin and nationally, those who have amassed enough wealth that they don’t need to worry about Social Security and health care are all to ready to dismantle these and other programs in service of keeping their own coffers intact. It’s an “I’ve got mine, too bad about you” mentality reminiscent of the 19^th Century robber barons, and even those rapacious individuals were socially conscious (or guilty) enough to endow various public institutions – what have the Koch Brothers done for you lately?

So our local version of the Tea Party (hmm… Tea Party=TP, We the People = WTP…I'm just sayin’) will come screaming back with name-calling and slogans and precious few facts while accusing those who oppose them of doing exactly what they themselves are doing – substituting opinion and agenda for facts and distorting the evidence. Don’t be fooled.

Bonanza Column 230 - We Can't Afford to Lose TRPA

2011-04-02T15:03:00.000-07:00

There are certain things that, if they’re not examined too closely, seem to make people look smart. Go up to a stranger and say something like “I don’t know what it is, but I have a sense you are troubled about money” and you’ll be right better than 4 times out of 5. Around here, bashing TRPA will have the same result – everyone will have a good laugh, and you’ll be considered pretty smart, if no one thinks about it too much.

In better than 15 years that I’ve lived here, TRPA has been a consistent whipping boy. People who willingly sign agreements with their HOA that restrict everything from where they put their trash to what kind of fence they can have bristle when TRPA has the temerity to suggest that a bright red roof or a bright blue house might detract from the scenic quality of the area.

Don’t get me wrong – TRPA has, historically, done some really dumb things. I really don’t think the color of the guard rails on Route 267 over Brockway Summit have much impact on scenic quality, and there have been other bonehead moves. From time to time any agency can get a bit intoxicated with its own authority and have to be reined in, but the “I don’t want any government except where I say they should be” types – the ones who say they want the government to stay out of their Medicare (sic) pick up on the occasional gaffe and use those to try to discredit all the work the agency does.

During the tenure of John Singlaub and particularly under the tenure of the current Executive Director Joanne Marchetta, the TRPA staff and Governing Board have worked very hard to keep the agency focused on its primary mission of protecting the environment and the scenic quality of the Basin. Reasonable minds can differ on the interpretation of the scope of this mission, but most of the foolishness of past administrations has been stopped. The Agency has been particularly effective in holding the line against Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), to the point where they have been able, through aggressive boat inspection and anti-AIS programs in the water, to keep Tahoe from being overrun by these the way, for example, Lake Mead has been. A study by the Army Corps of Engineers put the potential economic impact of AIS in the region at $22 million a year in lost recreation, tourism, property values, and increased maintenance costs.

Now a group of these knee-jerk anti-regulation types are trying to get the Nevada Senate to pass a bill, SB 271, that would pull the state out of the TRPA compact, leaving the environment of the lake and the basin at the mercy of California and the Federal Government. Their rationale for this is that the agency has gone beyond its mandate and interferes with decisions people make on their property.

As I said, TRPA has, from time to time, gone overboard in its interpretation of its mission. Director Marchetta has been forthcoming in taking responsibility for past errors and has been clear about her intention to prevent what could be seen as abuses. At the same time, what about all the good the Agency does – who will inspect boats this summer if SB 271 passes? Predictably Tahoe will go the way of Lake Mead and we will all be hurt.

To the best of its ability, TRPA makes decisions and choices based on what will benefit the whole region. Inevitably these decisions will, from time to time, tread on the toes of what some individual wants to do. It looks to me like there are a couple of things the people advocating SB 271 don’t seem to get. First, no one’s home, property, or business is isolated from the rest of us – in any community, in any environmental system, decisions the good of the many may need to outweigh the wishes of a few. If you don’t like that, you should find someplace where you are can live apart from everyone else – and good luck with that. Secondly, there is such a thing as genuine scientific expertise that my conflict with what you think you know and with what you want. I'm told that, counter-intuitive as it might be, leaving a certain amount of pine needles on the ground, because they absorb and hold water, is a better fire preventive than getting rid of all of them. OK, assuming that there is some scientific authority behind that, that’s a better thing than what I would do.

We can’t afford to let a group of people who think their political ideology and short-sighted opinions and interests are more important than the good of the rest of us and the health of a lake that belongs to us all. Let your State Senator know.

Bonanza Column 229 - Time to Take a Stand

2011-03-26T12:03:00.001-07:00

A couple of weeks ago the Bonanza reported on the results of the 2010 U.S. Census as it applies to Incline Village – Crystal Bay and the Tahoe Basin as a whole. In case you missed it, the population of IV/CB has declined some 12% since the 2000 Census, and there are currently more vacant housing units than occupied. The Census does not measure second home ownership versus primary residences, but IVGID figures indicate that the former has increased at the expense of the latter, and the schools have shown a decrease of some 400 kids from ten years ago.

These figures will no doubt be very good news for the vocal minority who want to see Incline decline. The ones who would strip IVGID of all be the most basic powers and those whose misguided form of environmentalism boils down to having as few people in the environment as possible. For those of us who are concerned with the quality of life here and with a future for this community (and that group includes both full-timers and second home owners), it is bad news indeed.

In the same article, Kathy Carter, Washoe County Community Relations Director is quoted as saying that the decline in building due to the economy, along with the population decline, the community planning that was done several years ago is “not as urgent as it was.” I disagree and I suggest that Ms Carter’s view is both short-sighted and wrong.

In my view the economic situation of the past couple of years, while in many ways devastating, is a correction to an overheated economy that began in the ‘90’s and was based on a combination of greed and self-delusion – the first created a series of bubbles and the second allowed most of us to believe they would never burst. When they did, sanity returned with painful consequences to a great many people. I believe these consequences, while difficult in the short run, will return us to a more rational economy that, if we can remember the lessons learned, will give us much greater stability and sanity in the long haul.

If that view is correct, it means that planning for a community that is sustainable – economically, socially, environmentally – the “triple bottom line” – is more, not less important. If those of us who care about the future of the community as more than a retirement community allow a nebulous group of malcontents led by an outsider who has a very troublesome history of disrupting communities for reasons that are unclear to take advantage of the population decline and current economic situation to hijack that future, then we will have done a great disservice to a community we love and that they will leave. Similarly, if we allow eco-fundamentalists to block business efforts that are valuable and sustainable while environmental damage from current structures continue, then we are naïve indeed.

Since I began this series of columns on the subject of “vocal minorities” I have received the usual attacks – no matter how many facts I cite, I am accused of not having any facts by people who then cite none in rebuttal. I am told that I and those who agree with my views are the real minority, and the troglodytes are the majority, yet these accusations come from the same people over and over again, and they have yet to reveal who they count in their supposed majority. Typical demagogic tactics when you have no arguments that hold water and no people to pose them.

More importantly,, I have heard from many people who agree and who want to know what to do . My answer is simple: speak up – often and loudly. Make it clear that the so-called Village People and the eco-fundamentalists (and I'm distinguishing them from those of us who have a real concern for the environment, one that includes that people and businesses are part of it) are NOT the majority. Research and reveal their real agendas, and let the entities involved – the IVGID Board, the TRPA Governing Board, the Washoe County Board of Commissioners – that they have allies in holding the line against the forces of regression. There have started to be letters and guest columns in the Bonanza along these lines – we need more. It’s time to end the foolishness and take our community back from those who would throw sand in the gears of progress just for their own amusement or their own agendas.

Bonanza Column 228: Boulder Bay - Will Reason Prevail?

2011-03-18T14:47:00.000-07:00

Continuing our theme of the past couple of weeks, we have another example of a vocal minority trying to advance its agenda regardless of anyone else’s view.

This week the TRPA Governing Board will take what should be the final action to allow the Boulder Bay Project to proceed and actually start building. Since it was first proposed in 2007, the Boulder Bay plan has made change after change in response to concerns from “interested public parties.” In the end, the plan that will go before TRPA on Wednesday will be a huge improvement over the current sight which is both an esthetic and environmental blight, will reduce energy use on the site by 38%, provide alternative-fuel transportation and walkable spaces for guests, transportation and housing for employees, and create an additional 225 jobs. Four traffic studies, each taking a more conservative look than the last, concluded that traffic would decrease.

So everybody wins, right? The objectors got a lot of what they asked for, the project will be built, and all’s well. Not so much. According to last week’s paper, the League to Save Lake continues its vocal opposition as does the so-called North Tahoe Preservation Alliance. It seems that no matter what Boulder Bay does, no matter what study after study says, these groups or at least their putative leaderships will continue to insist that it be done their way or not at all. They’ve blocked progress for four years and one would hope that the TRPA’s passage of the final approval on Wednesday would put the issue to bed and these worthies will move on to other matters.

It’s worth noting that, as usual, it’s the opposition that has been most vocal and has received the most attention in the media. From that you might think that public opinion on the pro side has been weak or non-existent. On the contrary most of the public comment at TRPA hearings has been unabashedly positive as have written comments submitted by people who could not attend the hearings.

There has been a cost to the delays – every day that the current structure exists has environmentally negative effects. For example, a UC Davis study indicated that in a wet year (like this year) some 30,000 pounds of sediment runoff from the site goes into the lake, including fine sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus. This will be reduced by about 90% when Boulder Bay is built.

You understood correctly. These groups, in the name of the environment and their view of what the scenery should be, have been willing to tolerate this kind of environmental damage. If they refuse to accept defeat as seems likely on Wednesday, (there’s a reason detractors call it “The League to Sue Lake Tahoe”), this damage will be prolonged. In what environmental universe does this make sense?

But that’s the problem with our local vocal minorities – whether they’re suing IVGID over the beaches, accusing hard-working IVGID staff of being corrupt, blocking intelligent community planning, or demanding that their view of what’s good for the environment prevail, they always insist that their take on things is so right that it should prevail even in the face of widespread disagreement. Even if they have the best of intentions, and I believe that some (though not all) of them do, their insistence on imposing their will on the community regardless of the public will or of evidence that they are, if not entirely wrong, certainly not entirely right invalidates those intentions.

One respondent to my column last week said “TVP [The Village People] live here TOO!” True, but they’re not the only ones and not the majority by far. It’s interesting to me that while a number of people respond negatively to these columns, none of them seem to have anything to offer except ad hominem attacks and name-calling, but no rational argument except that they’re right and I'm not. Maybe so, but it seems a whole lot more people agree with me than with them. If you do, get out to the TRPA Governing Board meeting at the Chateau on Wednesday afternoon and make yourself heard; if you can’t make it, send them a written comment and let rational heads prevail.

Follow this blog

Bonanza Column 227 – Will We Change or Will Change Change Us?

2011-03-13T16:30:00.001-07:00

In a recent article Daniel Burrus, one of the world’s leading technology forecasters and business strategists, made a strong case for what he calls a “hard trend.” A trend is something that may happen; a hard trend is something that WILL happen – it’s a prediction, not a probability. The trend Burrus was positing was that the accelerating rate at which things are changing will continue indefinitely.

In the past, Burrus points out, stability and change were two contrasting states: when you achieved stability, you did so despite change. Today you can achieve stability only by embracing change as a continuous and permanent state. It used to be, you could find something you do well, learn how to do it, and just keep on doing it. Not anymore.

There are two kinds of change: change from the outside in, and change from the inside out. The first happens to you. The second is an initiative that you take through conscious intention. Burrus asserts that today there is an urgent need to anticipate and take the initiative to change from the inside out, even as all these transformations are coming at us from the outside in. The highway is littered with the corpses of companies that failed to see this, and governments, from nations to municipalities, are not immune from the impact of this trend.

As a consultant to companies ranging from Fortune 100 to middle-size businesses, the truth of Burrus’ analysis has been apparent to me for some years now, but I find that when I work with governments and non-profits, their resistance to this truth is at the level of the resistance of businesses like IBM and Kodak twenty years ago (both these companies famously lagged behind revolutions in their industries; IBM recovered, Kodak did not).

The current tempest in a teapot that the organization called the Village People is trying to stir up regarding IVGID is a close-to-home case in point. A vocal minority of residents in Incline Village and Crystal Bay has been trying for years to stem the tide of change like Horatius at the bridge. It seems they would strip IVGID of all but the most necessary powers, roll back taxes (good luck with that one), and shut down most of what makes IV/CB unique, and based on the response by IVGID to the VP’s advertisement in the Bonanza a few weeks ago, it would seem they are not above the very crimes they accuse IVGID of – distorting the facts, lying, and obfuscating. I guess they think their “cause” is so just that they can use any means necessary.

In past years this vocal minority has tied IVGID up in lawsuits, claiming to represent a constituency they don’t identify, they have managed to get out enough votes to defeat the perhaps less passionate voices that favored becoming a town or a county, and have managed to block any substantive results from some very good conversations in Incline Vision and TRPA Place-Based Planning – conversations that had the potential to initiate the kind of change from within that would get us as a community out ahead of economic and social changes that could overwhelm us.

The sad thing is that the Indian Chief, the biker, the cop, the cowboy, the construction worker, and the GI – oh, sorry, wrong Village People – could get their way. It’s hard to gin up the passion for embracing change than for trying to keep anything from changing, and in the not too distant future we may find ourselves ill-equipped to meet the change that will, inevitably, be forced on us. If the imperative is “change or die,” this community as it’s developed over 40 years or so could die. We could become one more Sun City – a community of retirees and second home owners who are here part of the time – no young people, no children, no life.

One last thing – a couple of people pointed out to me that something I said in last week’s column lent itself to misinterpretation. I did not mean to imply that all part-time residents didn’t care about the community. On the contrary, a great many do care a great deal – Chuck Otto and others in the golf community, Jim Peterson and the Veterans Club come to mind and there are a lot more. Still it is undeniable that there are part-timers and absentee owners who don’t really care much about the quality of life here for those who are here year-round, and there are a few who make noise out of proportion to their numbers, who just want to stir up controversy. I wish they would do it somewhere else. Absent that, it’s time for those of us who give a damn to start making our voices heard.

The IVGID Cutbacks – Once Again it’s Whose Ox is Being Gored

2011-03-06T17:03:00.000-08:00

Governments all over the country, at every level from Federal to local are struggling with financial issues. Like almost everyone else, during the boom years of the ‘90’s and part of the first decade of this century, governments took in record revenues and spent in record amounts. Like almost everyone else, governments naively acted like the boom would never end, and like almost everyone else, they are now paying the price for that naivete in the form of shortfalls, debts coming due, and cutbacks.

Naturally, IVGID is no exception to this overdue adjustment. I don’t think that blaming is particularly useful, but if we are to apportion responsibility for the current situation, then the Boards of Trustees from, say, 1995 – 2005 certainly come in for some serious consideration. The IVGID staff and the District Manager don’t make major decisions on their own – everything comes to the Board in the form of recommendations, and it is the Board that makes the call and that sets the budget.

Yet some IV/CB residents seem to be taking the opportunity of the current situation to call (once again) for Bill Horn’s head on a platter and to vilify the honest efforts of the IVGID staff, particularly department heads, to carry out the Board’s mandates. This is both ridiculous and wrong.

IVGID, like any municipal entity, has a large and complex budget. I took a course some years ago called “Finance for Non-Financial Managers” and was astonished to discover that the whole business of finance and accounting was not nearly as difficult as I thought it would be. Oh sure, it can be complex, and like any discipline you have to learn the basic rules (called GAAP – Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), some of which seem arbitrary or made up, but once you accept those rules it’s relatively easy to follow the game – not at an expert level, but enough to know if something doesn’t make sense. On that level anyone can sit down with the IVGID budget and see what’s going on.

Then there are experts – in this case called Auditors – whose job it is to look at financial matters on a much deeper level and whose expertise allows them to see disconnects or discrepancies that we lay people would miss. The IVGID budget is audited every year and with the exception of one minor mistake has received full marks for its integrity every time.

Given all that, it makes no sense for people to suggest (and not show any evidence to back it up) that Mr. Horn, Ms Cruz, or anyone else whose job it is to properly manage the budget the Board gives them are mismanaging or mishandling the District’s finances.

The Board spends months each year formulating the District Budget. In this process they hold workshops and public hearings and hear both staff recommendations and the views of those of the public who have the commitment and what my mother used to call the sitzfleisch (not really translatable, but sitz is “seat” and fleisch is “meat”) to sit through the hours of mind-numbing number crunching, and they then adopt the budget they come up with in an open meeting with plenty of public comment, so while you may not agree with their decisions or their priorities, it’s disingenuous of critics to accuse the Board of not being transparent.

In all likelihood this year’s budget brouhaha will come down to whose ox is being gored. It’s possible that a coalition of second-home owners and others who are interested only in reducing their expenses will succeed in intimidating the IVGID Board into cutting programs and cutting back overall until all IVGID does is water, sewer, garbage, and minimal recreation. It’s even possible that, now that we’ve lost an excellent golf manager, they will succeed in driving away the General Manager and his senior staff. If they do, those of us who care about this village being more than a retirement community of second-home owners will be the poorer for it. It’s up to us to make sure that doesn’t happen.

And a note to my loyal detractors – telling me I don’t know what I'm talking about without offering anything to factually contradict what I say is really not an argument that’s likely to gain traction.

Bonanza Column 225 – Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-02-27T16:26:00.001-08:00

As the controversy and demonstrations in Wisconsin continue, it occurs to me that the Tea Party and the Right in this country might be well advised to be careful what they wish for.

It's hard for me to believe that anyone would be naïve enough to think that if we could get rid of the unions, give tax breaks to the rich and to big business, allow corporations and lobbying groups to contribute to political campaigns without limit and without any public accountability, and restrict health care to those the insurance companies could profit by, we would find ourselves in some Eden of free enterprise, good (i.e. severely limited) government, and general national well-being, but that is what those behind the Tea Party, the NRA, and the rest of the vast right-wing conspiracy would have us believe.

Don't get me wrong – I believe conservatism is a legitimate economic and social philosophy that can genuinely be held by people of good will. I don't agree with it for a minute, but I also don't think that liberalism has all the answers. I'm a firm believer that when there is the opportunity for constructive conflict and respectful debate over differences, we all get smarter and we come out with better ideas than either side of the debate would have come out with on their own.

And so I have two problems with the current political debate. First of all, as I've said before, it's not respectful of honest, sincerely held differences. And let me be clear here, I'm not talking only about the Right. I have no more use for posters showing the Governor of Wisconsin in crosshairs or calling him a Nazi or a dictator than I have for the comparable rhetoric about the President. And unlike some of those who reflexively respond "the Left does it too" when I criticize these excesses on the Right, I don't think much of "an eye for an eye" as a tactic. As someone said, all it will lead to is both of us being blind.

But the bigger problem I have is with honest, sincere people on the Right seeming oblivious to the unquestionable fact that they are being led by a small number of interests in directions that seem to have much more to do with benefitting the interests of the leaders than of those being led. The Koch brothers are not humanitarians – they are clearly out to advance the interests of their own business and those of their business allies. The NRA is out to make sure that arms manufacturers are profitable and they don't care who gets killed, just as the tobacco companies before their excesses cost them all their credibility, were out to sell cigarettes and were willing to lie and fabricate claims about the health effects of smoking.

And in Wisconsin, these same forces see the opportunity to kill the labor movement, particularly in the public sector once and for all. Why? Not because unions are so bad or are corrupt, or whatever else they say, but because the public employees' unions are the only force big enough to compete with them on their own turf. If you look at the figures on campaign contributions since the Supreme Court's disastrous decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, you will see that of the top 20 contributors to campaigns, all but two were private corporations and lobbying groups, and those two were public employees' unions. If the misguided governor of Wisconsin succeeds in crippling the public unions in that state, other states will follow and the one force that can provide some counterbalance to the private interests, however small and outnumbered, will be eliminated.

So, to my friends on the Right I have to ask: do you really think a government of big business and the rich, by big business and the rich, and particularly FOR big business and the rich is in your interests? And even if it is in your individual interests, do you think it's in the interests of the country? What should the working class, the poor, and the steadily disappearing middle class do? Move? And do you think this is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote a Constitution that, to a degree unsurpassed by any document before or since, protected the rights of all against the tyranny of a few? Think about it, and be careful what you wish for – you just might get it.

Bonanza Column 224 – The People United

2011-02-18T10:12:00.001-08:00

"Something's happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear"

Recent events make those old Buffalo Springfield lyrics from the '70's seem to spring to mind. It's probably too soon to make any solid conclusions, but events in North Africa and the Middle East suggest that something very real may be afoot. Beginning in Tunisia, then spreading to Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, and Bahrain, ordinary people in "the Arab Street" seem to be saying they've had enough of dictatorship, and they aren't going to take it anymore. And, encouragingly, freedom and self-determination seem to be the core of their agenda – not Islamism, not Sharia law, not Socialism, but simply democracy.

As I said, it's too soon to tell how this is going to turn out – maybe the militaries will impose a new dictatorship, maybe militant Islamists will hijack the revolutions, but so far none of that seems to be happening, so maybe, in the words of the old protest chant, "the people united cannot be defeated," and maybe, just maybe, there's a valuable lesson in this for the US – maybe democracy and freedom really are "inalienable rights" and maybe oppression is its own worst enemy in the long run. Maybe the same spirit that impelled the American colonists to rise up in 1776 is inherent in all people and will eventually lead to the demise of dictators, and maybe we can count on that rather than try to impose democracy in countries where there is not yet sufficient pent-up demand for it, resulting in our becoming occupiers instead of liberators.

I'm not saying that we should never intervene – when a dictatorial government becomes aggressive and attempts to spread its rule beyond its own borders, we should defend those who cannot effectively defend themselves – both World Wars, the Korean Conflict, and the first Gulf War come to mind as examples – but there's a big difference between being defenders of freedom where it's endangered and being the self-appointed distributors of democracy where we think it should go, whether those peoples are ready for it or not.

I, for one, am very encouraged by the events in the Arab world. They suggest to me that the drive toward freedom and self-determination is, in fact, something that lives in all people and will eventually win out. Thirty years of Mubarak is a long run, but it ended at a time of the Egyptian people's choosing, and Mubarak's plan to pass on his rule to his son in a dynastic fashion was thwarted. I'm sad that it had to take thirty years, but as is noted in the US Declaration of Independence, "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Still, as the Declaration goes on, "when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." I guess how long people are "disposed to suffer" will vary from culture to culture, but it's worth bearing in mind that the American Colonies were under British rule for the better part of 200 years before they rose up.

What's really interesting to me in light of the events overseas is the current struggle in Wisconsin between the Governor and many people there. At this writing an Egypt-style demonstration (minus the violence) has been going on for days in Madison, teachers are calling in sick and are being supported by parents and students in their resistance to cuts by a governor who took a state with a substantial budget surplus and, through tax cuts to businesses, created a deficit which he now proposes to meet by cutting services such as education and by breaking the state's unions. The people of Wisconsin seem to be uniting, and something is happening there – what it is isn't exactly clear – but maybe, just maybe, the people united won't be defeated – after all, the sixth-seed Packers won the Super Bowl, so anything's possible.

Bonanza Column 223 – TOCCATA Wins Hearts

2011-02-11T11:00:00.001-08:00

Each time I've gone to a TOCCATA concert I write about it and each time I promise myself that it will be the last time I do. After all, how many times can readers stand to hear me wax poetic about the incredible contribution that this ensemble of local musical talent provides? And each time I break my promise because the experience just demands the expression of appreciation and acknowledgement.

As I've said before, that TOCCATA brings together so much talent, many if not most of whom have "day jobs" and still give huge amounts of time to rehearsing and learning to play together is in itself a remarkable accomplishment. That James and Nancy Rawie have made the commitment to share their time and efforts and (considerable) talents between Puerto Rico and Tahoe and bring with them world-class talent makes the difference between what could be just one more community orchestra and chorus and what TOCCATA is – a world-class ensemble that breeds talent and performances that go way beyond what you would expect here in the hinterlands of the Sierra Nevada, and that they give so much back to the community makes this a truly great organization in the best tradition of the fine arts.

Last week's TOCCATA offering included the incomparable Elizabeth Pitcairn returning to Tahoe for the third time with her "Red Stradivarius" violin. Through the efforts of the Rawies, Donna Axton, Joy Strotz, Paul Guttman, and others, Ms Pitcairn has formed a bond with the Tahoe community that goes way beyond "one more gig" for her and for us. In addition to five performances with the TOCCATA Symphony Orchestra and Chorus (about which more in a bit), she did two intimate "soirées musicales" in local homes to raise funds for TOCCATA, did two performances/classes in local schools, and gave a master class at UNR. Understand, this is a top young musician who plays all over the world with the best orchestras and who plays a legendary instrument worth millions of dollars, giving her time to school children and university students and, unless she is one heckuvan actress, having a great time doing it.

And the performances – OMG!!! If you have any taste for classical music at all and you haven't been to a TOCCATA performance you are cheating yourself. To be present for this level of performance in venues that are at once intimate and acoustically superb is not an opportunity one gets almost anywhere else. There is a world of difference between hearing the music in, say, Davies Symphony Hall or Lincoln Center in an audience of thousands and being in St. Francis Church or St. Thomas Aquinas Cathedral with hundreds can't be described.

Last week's performances were all Vivaldi pieces – for orchestra, for Chorus, and the familiar "Four Seasons." The Concerto for Two Trumpets complete with baroque trumpets by Paul Lenz, Mark Hoke, and Josh Dunlap was outstanding, the Chorus, with soloists including Anna Helwing, Joy Strotz, Katherine DeBoer, and the redoubtable Stuart Duke brought the Gloria to new heights and then, after the intermission, the centerpiece of the evening – the beautiful and incredibly talented Ms Pitcairn playing the Four Seasons, each "season" preceded by poetry in Italian and English and highlighted by four different gowns each representative of the season in the music. And what music! Playing completely without a score in front of her, her playing was flawless as was that of a chamber orchestra drawn from the TOCCATA strings (and an oboe) along with continuo by David Brock.

And as if all that weren't enough, for an encore Ms Pitcairn performed a piece rarely performed in a concert venue, the Moto Perpetuo (Perpetual Motion) by Nicolo Paganini. This piece, played in about four minutes, includes some 3150 notes – that's an incredible 13 notes per second – is not just an exercise in speed, but also includes melody, phrasing, and everything else that makes great music. Ms Pitcairn shared that she has spent three years learning to play it, in part to overcome a fear of fast pieces. I think she can safely say she's over that fear.

The point of all this adulation is to point out again how incredibly fortunate we in the IV/CB community are to have the kind of talent and opportunities we have here. As much as I love the intimate venues in churches and chapels, it's time we took seriously the possibility of creating a performing arts venue that matches the talent that comes here. In the meantime, if you aren't taking advantage of the opportunities, you should. TOCCATA needs and deserves all our support both in terms of donation and attendance.

Bonanza Column 222 – Olympics in Tahoe? Hmm…

2011-02-05T10:30:00.001-08:00

Last Friday there was a presentation at SNC regarding the efforts of the Reno Tahoe Winter Games Coalition (RTWGC) to bring the 2022 Winter Olympics to our area. I won't say I went into the meeting with an open mind – more like slightly ajar – it seemed to me that this was likely to be yet another instance of Reno interests foisting something on the Lake without regard to what Basin residents want or what is important to us. While not 100% sold, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

Jon Killoran is the CEO of RTWGC and he gives a heckuva presentation. He anticipated most of the concerns of his audience and was open to listening and learning – while clearly committed to his cause, he didn't seem to me to be there to convince, so much as to converse – to have a give and take in which he came across as genuinely eager to learn and to include the concerns of everyone who will be affected by the Games if RTWGC's bid is successful.

The process is a long and complicated one – unlike other countries where bids are government-sponsored and funded, in the US bids are generated by non-profits like RTWGC and these groups compete before the USOC to be the one venue offered by the USOC to the IOC, who make the final decision. Killoran makes a compelling case for having the games here and for the potential long-lasting benefits to our area.

Reno-Tahoe was the runner-up to Salt Lake City in 1998 and in 2002 when Salt Lake made the winning bid. Unlike the Summer Games, there are relatively few areas that can host the Winter competition – basically North America, Europe, and parts of Asia. 2022 seems a long way off, but it is the first bid that is available now, and the process takes quite a while – the USOC will make its selection in 2013 and the IOC will make the final choice in the Summer of 2015, so RTWGC is not starting any too early.

Here's the part that didn't quite sell me: Killoran made extensive use of the results of the games in Salt Lake City in 2002 and Vancouver in 2010 as being most comparable to RTWGC's plans. Both these games had effects on the areas where they were held that were clearly beneficial – the Salt Lake City Airport, for example, is one of the best in the country and was extensively renovated for the games. Other improvements include light rail, highways and other infrastructure, and, of course, increased business before, during, and after the games. I don't question these results – what does bother me, and what I think the Coalition needs to pay close attention to is the differences between the three areas. The Vancouver Metropolitan Area has a population of about 2.25 million people. Salt Lake City Metro is about 1.1 million. Reno is about 420,000 – that's a big difference, so let's take the Vancouver comparison with a grain of salt. Salt Lake is still over twice our size and closer to its mountain venues. I'm not saying this invalidates the comparison, just that it's something we need to take into account.

The big issue, of course, is impact. Killoran showed me impressive awareness and concern for the potential environmental effects of the Games at the Lake. Unlike the Squaw Valley Games in 1960, when all 17 events were held at Squaw, only about 20% of the 87 events in 2022 would be held around the Basin – the rest presumably in and around Reno. Killoran stated an unequivocal commitment that there will be "no white elephants left behind" in the form of overbuilt and unusable venues – whether he and RTWGC can keep that commitment remains to be seen, but at least the commitment is there.

There are those here in the Basin whose first response to any potential large impact, whether it's the Olympics or Boulder Bay, to start from "no" and to demand to be convinced. I'd suggest they reconsider this stance where RTWGC is concerned. If the Coalition's intentions come to fruition, much of what environmentalists around the lake have been advocating will come to pass more quickly and less expensively than they might otherwise – improved infrastructure, better public transportation, lake ferries, all figure in the plans, and would all happen in the next 11 years. New "green" public buildings are almost a certainty, and based on current figures we already have more accommodations than Salt Lake had by a factor of two, so no new tourist venues would be needed. For those concerned about jobs, while not all of the projected 50,000 or so jobs would remain after the games, many would and the run-up to the games would provide extensive employment during a period of economic recovery.

As I said, I'm not 100% sold, but I'm way more positive than I was going into the meeting. I recommend you begin to look into this effort for yourself – start at www.renotahoewintergames.org and go from there; it's worth serious consideration.

Bonanza Column 221 – Let’s Put the Civility Back

2011-01-28T12:55:00.001-08:00

I'll start with a clean-up. In my column two weeks ago on the Tucson shootings I had a number of my facts wrong and several readers pointed this out including in a letter to the editor last week. The weapon used was not an automatic, it was a standard hand gun, and the ammunition was not special ammo – it was a normal load. The only thing unusual about the weapon was that it had a clip that held 30 rounds rather than 8 or 9. In my reaction to the shooting I relied on early reports which are hardly ever accurate and I did not further check the facts. I appreciate the readers pointing this out, and apologize – as I've said, I try to keep as close to the facts in these columns as I can, and in this case fell far short.

What did bother me about some of the responses was that the writers seemed to think that the incorrect facts somehow negated or nullified my argument. A 30-round clip is only necessary for self-defense if you are holding off numbers of attackers – it's as aberrant in my opinion as an automatic weapon or special loads. Loughner in Tucson was able to do far more damage with 30 rounds than if he had to stop after 8 or 9 and reload, and a 9-year old girl is dead.

I have no problem with advocacy for any position. The beauty of a free society is that anyone is free to advocate for any cause no matter how outlandish. In the heat of argument it's likely that things will be taken as fact that turn out not to be so – in that case, I believe it is incumbent on the advocate to clear up the discrepancy and to say how the actual facts affect the validity of his or her argument. In this case I think they don't, but I've given you the facts and you can judge for yourself.

I do have a problem when facts are willfully distorted with no accountability on the speaker's part – when Michelle Bachman says that the Founding Fathers abolished slavery and it's not in the Constitution or when Sarah Palin says that the USSR's space program led to the demise of their economic system decades later, that's an attempt to rewrite history and it's both disingenuous and wrong.

I have an even bigger problem when NO facts are presented and demeaning, insulting rhetoric is used to advocate a position. I think most Americans have issues with the government of China and its economic and social policies. Nevertheless, China is a major actor on the world stage. They have one fourth of the world's population, a fast-growing economy, and they hold a great deal of America's debt. For these reasons it makes sense to try to keep the relationship and the lines of communication between our two countries open. That noted liberal Richard Nixon knew that and opened the relationship during his administration and through thick and thin US Presidents since Nixon have done the same. It was in that spirit that President Obama hosted Chinese President Hu Jintao as he would any visiting head of state.

Rush Limbaugh who, whatever you think of him, has a large listening audience, derided the meeting and Hu Jintao personally and then launched into a long string of fake Chinese. Making fun of how another language sounds and using that to imply that the speaker is spouting gibberish is about as boorish and racist as it gets, and a California State Senator of Chinese descent, Leland Yee, demanded an apology. Limbaugh was unrepentant and truculent in his response and within hours Senator Yee's office began receiving death threats.

Responsible advocacy is the right, some would say the duty, of citizens of a free country. Responsible advocacy includes having one's facts straight, cleaning it up when one gets facts wrong, and respecting the dignity and humanity of others, even those with whom we disagree strongly. Ad hominem attacks, racial slurs, demeaning humor have no place in civilized discourse. We can manage the national polity without the input of Limbaugh, Beck, and their ilk, and the American public is smarter than Bachman and Palin seem to think. It's time to put civility back into the debate; if the merits of your argument aren't sufficient to sway your listeners it demeans you, your argument, and your cause to resort to willful distortion, demeaning attacks, and appeals to racism.

Bonanza Column 220 – No One Hears

2011-01-24T10:47:00.001-08:00

It's been exactly 50 years since John F. Kennedy gave his first State of the Union address, the speech in which he announced an American commitment to putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely by the end of the decade of the '60's. It was not an announcement anyone expected – the Soviet Union had recently launched Sputnik, shocking America out of a complacent haze where no one questioned that we were the world leader in science and technology.

It was also not a commitment that anyone thought was reasonable or prudent. There was no real American technology that could be predicted to get us to the moon. There is a story (probably apocryphal, but instructive nonetheless) that Kennedy told that when he got back to his office after the speech there was a line of scientists outside his door. The first one to come in said "it can't be done;" the President asked him why not and was told "we don't have the fuel." So, JFK said, he put that guy in charge of finding the right fuel. The second scientist in said "we don't have the right metals," so he was put in charge of the metals and so on down the line until the last scientist in line who just said "it can't be done."
"So," said Kennedy, "I put him in charge of the whole thing."

That spirit of possibility that sees objections and obstacles as simply means to revealing what is needed to get the job done seems to have waned in the past 50 years. In the '60's it was a direct outgrowth of the technological creativity it took to win World War II. In the early 1940s a group of brilliant physicists and other scientists were brought together to form the Manhattan Project, the object of which was to design a nuclear weapon. Almost all of the scientists had already been working for several years on the problem, with very little progress. In 1941 they were united under the co-direction of General Leslie Groves and Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, and placed under extreme time pressure lest Germany develop the weapon first. These were, for the most part, senior scientists of considerable reputation and in some cases with egos to match. To further complicate matters they were not all in the same place; there were 14 project sites. Groves and Oppenheimer had the task of coordinating this widespread and disparate group, and how they did this remains a case study in managing a diverse group to accomplish an impossible task..

A parallel project was underway at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Germany under Werner Heisenberg. The German project had personnel who were arguably as brilliant as those in the Manhattan Project, a leader in Heisenberg who was at least Oppenheimer's equal, and the same time pressure, and it took place largely under one roof, yet the Manhattan Project succeeded and the German effort did not. The reason lies in large part in a fundamental difference in how the projects were managed. The German project was run along classical scientific lines—scientists worked alone or in small groups, shared their work in colloquia, and went back to work in their separate labs. In the American project free exchange of information, thinking, and speaking across disciplinary boundaries, brainstorming, and creativity were encouraged, particularly by Oppenheimer who sponsored an environment where ideas could come together and interact. Failure was not only tolerated but encouraged as creative approaches were tried. Learning and rate of adjustment were key values as those failures were turned into discoveries and accelerated execution.

This spirit of free collaboration was carried forward into the Moon project that began under Kennedy and culminated in 1967 when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon's surface. It was only possible because all those involved – civilians, military, Congressional committees, universities – did more than put aside their differences – they used their differences as fuel for creativity, innovation, and high performance.

Today, it seems, it's the differences that matter, not any common values, goals, or objectives we can find. It's not "we're both out for the same goals in service of the same purposes, so let's see how we can find common ground on methods," it's "my methods are the only ones that will work – if we don't do it MY way, even if we reach the objectives, I won't support it. As W.H. Auden said, "each ear is listening to its own hearing, so no one hears.

Bonanza Column 219 – A Little Girl, a Federal Judge, and a Congresswoman

2011-01-14T08:13:00.001-08:00

Let's start with full disclosure: I own guns, a rifle, several shotguns, and a hand gun. I am not anti-gun, and I am pro-gun control. By that I mean that I favor restricting gun ownership to weapons and ammunition that can legitimately be used for sport, hunting, or self-defense. I see no reason why anyone would need an automatic weapon or ammunition that can punch a fist-sized hole in an armored glass window.

That's what the Tucson shooter was using – what I would consider a legitimate weapon to have (a Glock 9mm) and ammunition way beyond anything anyone would need for self-protection. I try not to picture the effect of that ammunition on a 9-year old girl or a Congresswoman's head. I try not to, but I'm not succeeding.

I know, I know – he could have done damage with a .22 loaded with target rounds, but not as much damage and not as easily. That's not the point. By caving in consistently to the NRA's loony obsession with having absolutely no restrictions on ownership of guns and ammo, Congress has sent a message that anything goes. Not that murder is OK per se, but that even if you're certifiably nuts, you can freely own enough firepower to do as much damage as your twisted mind desires. That's just wrong.

In case you think that I'm exaggerating the influence of the NRA on our weak-kneed legislators, there has not been a full-time Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and (wait for it) Firearms since George W. Bush was in office. The NRA blocked his attempt at appointing one and has successfully kept the Bureau disempowered ever since. Nobody wants the job because of the unrelenting opposition they will experience from the NRA. Democrat, Republican, it doesn't matter – for the NRA, unrestricted freedom to own weapons of mass destruction (OK, not mass – just 9-year old girl and Federal Judge destruction) supersedes politics, party and, apparently, any rationality at all. Why?

Don't cite the sacred (to the NRA) Second Amendment to me – the Second Amendment is not about gun ownership. It says ""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't know about you, but I was taught in school that taking a part of a sentence out of the context of the sentence as a whole was dirty pool. The sentence in question says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in the context of the necessity of "a well regulated militia," not that the right to keep and bear arms is sacred, whatever the NRA says.

Now as I said, I'm not quite that strict a constructionist – I believe that people should be allowed to keep and bear arms for reasonable purposes like hunting and protection of their home and family. I believe that the armed forces, including the National Guard (read "militia") should keep and bear whatever arms are deemed necessary for protecting the "security of a free state" including automatic weapons, hand grenades, and flame throwers, but let's not mix up the two. I say again: there is no reason other than a confusion between (as they say in the army) "my rifle and my gun" to keep an AK-47 or armor-piercing ammunition at home. My .38 police special with standard rounds will dispatch any human threat just fine, and my rifle and shotguns are sufficient to deal with any animal threats, rare as they are. If not, the weapon I should be using is 911, not .38 or 30.06.

Get it: A little girl is dead. Her only mistake was wanting to see a Congresswoman who might be a role model for her to enter a career of public service. A distinguished Federal Judge is dead – his only mistake was being in the wrong place at a horribly wrong time. An elected representative of the majority of the people in her district lies in the hospital with brain injuries the extent and effect of which are unknown as yet. Her only mistake was wanting to give her constituents an opportunity to talk with her face to face. And a crazy SOB will plead insanity, and maybe rightly so, but speaking of insanity, how does the NRA plead?

Bonanza Column 218 – The Real Controversy about IB

2011-01-07T11:26:00.001-08:00

Taken at face value, the controversy over the International Baccalaureate Program (IB) in Incline schools makes no sense. A group of citizens, some with kids in the schools and some not but all of whom are concerned enough about our kids' education, took it upon themselves to research the merits of the program and work out an arrangement with the Washoe County School District to bring the program into Incline schools and fund the first three years of it. Based on that pledge, the WCSD added teachers and programs in our schools. IBIV, the group spearheading the initiative promised $150,000 to the District by the end of 2010. For a variety of reasons, they raised only $85,000 of this by the deadline, and remain committed to raising the full amount and reimbursing the District. WCSD, for its part, having hired the teachers etc., remains committed to the program and presumably will accept IBIV's IOU for the balance.

Another group of residents is vehemently opposed to IB. The reasons for their opposition don't seem to have much of a basis in the facts – AP will continue to exist alongside IB, some teachers favor IB, some don't, and the program has a clearly positive academic track record and support. This group has been vocal in its view that the WCSD is not listening to the people of the community, but has presented no clear evidence that they represent more than a small minority opinion – the support garnered by IBIV is at the very least a counterweight to the opposition, and seems to represent a larger group, though numbers are hard to come by in both cases. At any rate, the people backing IB have been willing to put up a significant amount of money in the face of a hard economy, and there is no reason to think they won't collect more. The anti-IB group keeps accusing IBIV and the District of "polarizing the community," but it seems to me that polarization takes a minimum of two views, so that responsibility has to fall as much on them as on IBIV.

Ultimately, it's the WCSD's and the Superintendent's responsibility to decide educational policy for our schools. It's appropriate and just good sense for them to take into account various views in the community, but in the end it's the professionals who should make the decisions. I want my doctor to listen to me, answer my questions, and take my thoughts and feelings into account, but in the end, I count on his medical expertise to make the final call. That's the deal with professionals – we pay them to make judgment calls based on their expertise, and they really do know more than we do – not because we're stupid or ignorant, just because they have made a career of studying their field at a higher level than we have. Presumably when the facilities experts tell the Superintendent that the plumbing in a given school needs to be replaced, he doesn't convene a committee of educators to decide if that's so – he listens to the professionals.

All the above is based on taking the controversy at face value. But when people put their personal opinion ahead of the facts and ahead of the opinions of experts, what they are saying is rarely what they are really concerned about. In a "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up" argument, there is always something that is being concealed. In this case a little research on the "say no to IB" position makes it clear that their objections are not based on "what's good for the kids" but on a political agenda. Worse yet, that political agenda is as spurious as can be imagined – it's based on some nebulous fear of the UN, world government, communists, and a non-existent connection between IB and all this. They will tell you that IB is a UNESCO non-governmental organization (NGO) and that that proves it's all a plot, but they will ignore the fact that there are some 900 NGO's including the Boy Scouts, the YMCA, Rotary International, and other such organizations.

IB has shown its value in many schools in the US, none of which, as far as I know, have been taken over by the UN or by International Communism (is there still international communism?). IBIV will raise the funds or they won't, and the WCSD will act as best it can in the interests of our children's education, as they have been trained to do and as they have dedicated their lives to doing. It's time for the bickering to end.

Bonanza Column 217 - As You Sow, So Shall You Reap - Here Comes Reno

2010-12-31T13:24:00.001-08:00

In the November election Washoe County voters approved an advisory question authorizing the County to explore the possibility of consolidating the governments of Reno and the County. Despite Sparks making it clear that they wanted no part of consolidation and widespread opposition among the unincorporated parts of the County, the measure passed and Reno lost no time moving toward consolidation, which is all upside for the city and all downside for the rest of us, particularly the area governed by IVGID.

Jim Clark has done a good job of laying out the case against consolidation in his columns, both before the election and since, and I won't rehash the arguments here – go back and read Jim's columns if you're not familiar with them – I think you'll agree it's a bad idea, but that's not the point of this column.

As I write this, it's the last day of 2010, and traditionally columnists take the opportunity to look back at the past year, or in this case the past decade, but I've been looking forward as best I can, and I'm not happy about what I see. Normally optimism comes with the Progressive package, so I'm not altogether comfortable when I see a gloom and doom scenario, but in this case I can't avoid it.

You see, in my fifteen-plus years in Incline I've been involved, more or less centrally, in a lot of efforts to build a future for the community: Independent Incline, Incline Vision, TRPA's Place-Based Planning, attempts to explore the possibilities of becoming more independent politically from Washoe County. All these seemed to have broad support in the community – often Jim Clark and I partnered to rally support on both sides of the political spectrum, and in every case extensive (and I would say very good) research was done on both the risks and the benefits of every option. Where the risk:benefit relationship was not in our favor, we told the truth about that and, for example, took the option of incorporating as a city off the table. Jim and I along with other long-time residents have been advocates for greater independence, whether as our own county (blocked by the legislature) or as a town (rejected by the voters), and have been met with resistance to all these ideas despite our warnings about Reno's agenda and our being seen as a cash cow by the County.

The fact seems to be that it's very hard to advance any idea here that involves (a) change and/or (b) a municipal government that has a wider scope of accountability than IVGID has now. The problem with this is that history has shown that change will happen with or without the popular will, and the only real choice is between managed change and unmanaged change, and unmanaged change is rarely for the better.

In the musical "Kismet" there is a scene where a beggar implores passersby for alms and promises blessings on them if they give, but no one gives. Then he switches tactics and threatens them with a curse "may your taxes increase" and he's showered with money. There is a small but nasty faction in our community that is uses this tactic to undermining any attempt at determining a direction of change. They act for the most part covertly and prefer their opinion over the facts. In the case of the effort to become a town rather than a GID, the numbers were clear and positive. Nonetheless there was a persistent conversation that amounted to "I don't care what the numbers say, it will raise taxes," and in the end the effort was defeated.

I've often quoted in this column de Tocqueville's maxim that in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. If Reno is successful in their takeover of Washoe County, this will apply to the know-nothings who will believe what they and their friends think and cannot be persuaded by facts, and it will apply to those too lazy or apathetic to study the facts for themselves, instead allowing those same know-nothings to tell them what to think. Unfortunately, in a democracy, the minority have to suffer under the results of the ignorance and prejudices of those who can panic the crowd like the beggar in "Kismet," and so I'm not optimistic about our ability or our will to fend off Reno at this late date.

Bonanza Column 216: To My Detractors

2010-12-24T11:23:00.001-08:00

I've been writing this column for over six years now with a short break when I ran for the IVGID Board in 2006. I undertook this labor of love in the first place to bring some balance to the columns and letter to the editor in the Bonanza which, like the community, tended to reflect a Conservative view. Knowing that that view was not held by 100% of the people in town, I decided to write a column from the Progressive side. Over the years that polarity has been reflected in columns on national and state issue and elections, though on local issues Jim Clark and I have rarely disagreed.

A column like this (or Jim's for that matter) will attract responses, mostly from those who disagree. In the old days responding to a column or sending a letter to an editor took some time and effort – you had to write or type a letter, address an envelope, find a stamp, mail it. During all this the heat of the moment would be likely to dissipate and many letters would not be sent. Today, email makes it easy to dash off a response and send it, and with the columns on line, commenting on the web site is even easier, and so perhaps lends itself to less thoughtful responses. Some people seem to read this column on line for the sole purpose of getting aggravated and responding with invective. These I ignore, or if they're especially ad hominem or otherwise abusive I report them as violating the site's guidelines. Others are thoughtful and these I read and sometimes respond to.

It occurs to me in this last column of 2010, my 216^th since 2004, to respond to everyone who has and does read the column and to thank those from both sides of the political spectrum who have taken the time to think about the issues I've raised and to respond thoughtfully. I'd also like to thank those who have taken the time to correct me when I've gotten a fact or facts wrong – they gave me the opportunity to correct those errors, and for that I'm grateful.

To the small minority who hide behind the anonymity of their website user names and respond with name-calling, invective, and the like, I want to say grow up and to let you know that, unless what you're trying to accomplish is to be annoying, you're failing to do anything that makes a difference. It's one thing to point out specific facts I may have gotten wrong, but it's another to say I don't know what I'm talking about with nothing to back that up. Comments on my being a Psychologist or having a degree are about as effective as playground taunts, and as for name-calling, I consider the source.

Here's who I take seriously – anyone, whether they agree with me or not, who makes a reasonable argument. I don't have to agree with them either – I can respect a sincerely held view that is based on reason, facts, or even just plain emotional preference. We may differ on the role of government in society and we may both feel passionately about or opinion, but I can respect the fact that the Conservative, small-government view is one that has been around a long time and is held by many intelligent people – I just don't agree with it. Similarly I have friends who are staunch conservatives who recognize the legitimacy of the Progressive view of government as a provider of services and support, while they disagree with that view as strongly as I do with theirs.

So if you want to display your pettiness by anonymously calling me names or the shallowness of your position by yelling "you lie" without backing it up, go for it, but be clear that you're less useful than my electric teakettle – at least when it gets hot and screams, there is water for tea. I will continue to follow the advice of Mark Twain: ""Always tell the truth. It will gratify some and astonish the rest."

Here's wishing us all a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2011.

Bonanza Column 215 – Who Should IVGID Serve?

2010-12-17T16:41:00.001-08:00

In its final meeting last week, the 2010 IVGID Board of Trustees addressed the right question, raised by General Manager Bill Horn. The question was "who are we going to serve?"

Unfortunately, like most good questions, this one doesn't admit of an easy answer. Many would say that the choices are full-time residents, part-time residents, and visitors, but that may be painting with too broad a brush. Still, it's a place to start.

Current figures indicate that about 60% of IV/CB owners and renters would be called part-time residents. That means that, if we go by a simple majority rule, IVGID should be interested first in serving that 60%. I must say that, as one of the 40% who live here 24/7/365 (366 in leap year), I don't find that very appealing. Part-timers need fewer services and generate less revenue for IVGID and local businesses than I do, so maybe it's the full-timers who come first.

Then there are visitors – they may not pay utility or rec fees, but they bring a lot of money into the local economy – skiers, golfers, beach-goers, renters of vacation properties, all pay for those usages and spend money in the stores as well, so we can't really ignore them and IVGID probably shouldn't adopt policies that would turn them to other areas to visit.

In the 15 years I've lived here there has been an ongoing debate about what business IVGID should be in. Many golfers are sure they should not be in the ski resort business, and many skiers don't see the point of their being in the golf business. People find the Rec Center fees too high, but they're generally lower than private clubs, and everybody feels that their favorite activity is subsidizing those they don't use.

Nevada statutes define the responsibilities of a GID as water, sewer, waste, and recreation, and mostly it seems to be recreation that everyone has an argument with. In its role as a utility district, IVGID seems not to be generating much in the way of complaints. In recreation, the prevailing attitude seems to be that the answer to Mr. Horn's question depends on whose ox is being gored. I wonder if that's the best way to approach the question.

In my work with corporations, I see three approaches – companies that deal primarily in "stuff" – auto manufacturers, agribusinesses, oil companies – take the approach of simple accounting – keep costs as low as you can, keep prices as high as is consistent with moving product, and that's about it. The only "soft" consideration is quality – with differences in quality, sales will be a function of price and quality; in a commodities business it's just price, so cost control becomes essential – WalMart has shown that you can do very well with razor-thin margins if you keep costs as low as possible.

The third approach applies to service businesses. These companies have to be intelligent about price, cost, and quality, but depend on service to give them a competitive edge. Nordstrom was one of the pioneers of this approach, and Costco has shown that even in the low-margin, bare-bones approach of a "big box" store, customer service provides a significant advantage.

IVGID, of course, is not a business in the sense I've been discussing – they are a municipal government, albeit one limited by statute. Many of us feel IVGID could do a better job of serving the community if its scope were expanded and it took over many of the functions now under the County's aegis, but the voters rejected that idea in 2008, so we have what we have. Still, if IVGID were to be examined as a business, I submit it is closer to Costco or Les Schwab than to Walmart or Shell Oil or Ford Motor Company. By this I mean that while the quality of IVGID's "products" is important as is its revenues and expenditures, IVGID exists for the purpose of serving the community, diverse as it is in its opinion of what constitutes service.

So Bill Horn's question is exactly the right one and is one that does not lend itself to quick or facile answers. I also would suggest that it cannot be answered, by the new Board of Trustees or by any of us based on narrow self-interest (or the interest of groups we feel are important because they're the ones we belong to). Rather, I would hope that the 2011-2012 Board will take the matter up very seriously and from the perspective of the greatest good for the greatest number. Let's hope they will.

Bonanza Column 213 – NDOW: Neither Civil nor Servants

2010-12-10T11:40:00.001-08:00

Somehow over the years since the Teddy Roosevelt presidency, the environment has increasingly become a political issue. This makes no sense to me unless I take a very dark, conspiratorial view that, in the case of the human role in global warming or the BP spill for example, what is really at issue is not so much the environment as big corporations' making money at the cost of people's welfare. Whatever the reason, and however little sense it makes, somehow the pro-conservation stand of TR and John Muir has become identified as a "liberal cause" and the anti-conservation position as conservative, though many of my most conservative friends will tell you that they are environmentalists, while disavowing the work of any of the environmental groups or movements. As I said, this makes no sense to me, but so little does these days.

Notwithstanding that, sometimes there arises an issue that can be legitimately viewed in political terms, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) has succeeded in making the issue of living with bears political. NDOW has approved plans for a very limited bear season as a way of controlling the burgeoning bear population. There are numerous restrictions on this – it's far from open season on bears – as detailed in a Bonanza article on November 24, and Carl Lackey, almost universally respected as THE local authority on bears in the Sierra, has stated that from a biologists' perspective the hunt makes sense.

Naturally, there are a lot of people opposed to the idea and they have been vocal in their opposition since the hunt was proposed. My purpose here is not to comment on the merits of either side's arguments, but on the NDOW's handling of the matter.

I think it's fair to say that the job of government, particularly those areas of government that deal with complex matters where there is both science and public opinion to deal with, is to listen carefully to all views and then to make a decision based on the public good. As Cato put it "the welfare of the people is the highest law," and often government may feel that one view or the other has right on its side, respect for all views is a core principle in a agencies are called upon to make a judgment call on what best serves the public welfare. Even where the agency democracy. When there is a difference of opinion and a decision must be made, one side will inevitably be overruled, and civil discourse and the opportunity for continued respectful dialogue requires that the side that "loses" go away feeling that their view was heard, respected, and taken into consideration. Where people cannot disagree with dignity, they become rebellious.

In this NDOW failed miserably at its hearing on December 4^th in Reno. Far from feeling heard and respected, a significant number of those who spoke against the hunt left the hearing feeling ignored, patronized, and, in the words of one letter-writer in last week's Bonanza like it was "an exercise in futility."

I don't care which side of the issue you are on, no one should ever leave a public hearing feeling this way. In a time when so many of us feel alienated from the political process, to have one more piece of evidence that those who have political power are ignoring us is not a good thing. NDOW are supposed to be civil servants – in this instance they were neither.

Bonanza Column 213: Dirty Pool

2010-12-06T12:50:00.001-08:00

For all the niceties of form that are observed once candidates are elected to office, electoral politics is and always has been a nasty business, and neither party or end of the political spectrum has clean hands in that regard. Maybe it's an inevitable side effect of the political system, I don't know, but you can go back as far as you want in the US, the UK, or elsewhere and you'll find name-calling, lying, and mud-slinging.

Notwithstanding that, it seems to me that we may be hitting a new low. It used to be that once someone was in office, issues would be debated on the merits and the dirty politics kept to a minimum and outside of the formal processes of government. Opposition from the rich to FDR's New Deal policies was virulent – Roosevelt was called a Communist and worse – but all that went on outside of the formal debates in Congress, regardless of the views of individual legislators.

Now, however, it seems that Republicans in the Congress have abandoned any pretense of legislative decorum or of having the country's interests at heart and is out to torpedo President Obama's chances for a successful term and possible re-election, no matter the cost to the people they were elected to serve. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated after the November elections that making Obama a one-term president was the most important priority for the GOP. Really? In the face of 14% unemployment, an economy in the tank, two wars, escalating tensions in the Middle East and North Korea, this is what the Republicans should spend their next two years on?

Well, it seems so. Right now the smart money says that extended unemployment benefits will end this week, leaving some six or seven million people without any source of income in an economy that remains depressed and a job market that is showing very slow growth, if any. That's millions of dollars that would have gone directly for food, rent, loan payments, etc. – that is, directly into the economy that will not go there and millions of people left without the means to take care of themselves or their families. In what world does that make sense?

Additionally, the GOP is insisting on extending the Bush tax cuts to everyone. The Obama Administration is advocating extending these rates to those with taxable income under $250,000 and reinstating the taxes on those above that – about 1% of the population. This would put about $70 billion to the government's top line and is supported by the likes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, who stand to be among those most heavily taxed. The only world in which that makes sense is one where the GOP are far more beholden to the rich than to the people who elected them.

Politics is one thing, and operating against the interests of the people you are elected to serve is another. The GOP has every right to oppose Obama and his policies and to do everything they can to convince the electorate to vote them in and him out in 2012, but I think we have to draw the line at this level of playing dirty – to block anything that might improve conditions for Americans in economic distress because there's a chance it might make Obama look good is worse than bad form, it's dereliction of duty, and hopefully it will come back to hurt those who are doing it in the long run. Meantime, if you're out of work or losing your home or business, the GOP's message to you is "tough luck."

Bonanza Column 212 – Thanksgiving 2010

2010-11-18T11:31:00.001-08:00

Living at Lake Tahoe ensures that with each Thanksgiving holiday we have plenty to be thankful for. While many of us grouse about the winter weather, most of us wouldn't trade it for the cold, wet weather back East or the foggy damp of the Bay Area (though if it would snow on the mountains and not on my driveway that would be OK with me).

Every year at this time I'm reminded of how fortunate we are to be able to give to the less fortunate among us, and how glad I am that we have organizations like Project Mana, Tahoe Family Services, Children's Cabinet, Tahoe Women's Foundation, and our religious institutions to ensure that the giving and the receiving are done with dignity and compassion.

We have a lot to be thankful for on the health and well-being front as well – we have a great little gem of a community hospital, thanks to whose efforts the IV Health Center will continue to operate, we have the efforts of Relay for Life, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, and other groups of residents donating their time and their money for research and treatment.

While local businesses have been hit hard by the economic downturn, they are starting to bounce back, aided by the Local Business Association and the Chamber of Commerce, and we've even seen a few new businesses open up in the past year as well as a few locating to new spaces. The most important support we can give local business is to shop and buy locally as much as we can – in the end, it's going to be businesses that keep the community growing and vital.

Government at all levels has gotten a pretty bad rap for the past couple of years. Politics aside, we can be grateful that the government that affects our lives most directly is the government that is closest to those it governs. Whoever you supported in the recent election, our IVGID Trustees and the staff that runs IVGID operations are people we see every day and to whom we have direct access, and that's something to appreciate. And speaking of the elections, it would be easy to be flip and say I'm thankful they're over (which is true), but more importantly, despite the rancor and divisiveness, it's worth being grateful that we live in a society where we can have a difficult and rancorous election and afterward have government at all levels continue to function and move on with a faith that the values and the virtues we prize as Americans will survive even the worst election and the worst jobs of governing.

Relative to those virtues and values, there are those who said, when the draft was ended, that we would never find enough volunteers to defend them, but Thank God they were wrong. Our thanks this holiday and always should go all those who are serving and all those who have served, as well as those who serve those who have served – from IVGID to the VA to the USO. It's unfortunate, but one of the crucial tests of any set of values is the willingness of people to go in harm's way to protect them.

Finally, I'm grateful to live in a country where even a local weekly is willing to provide a forum for all political views and a forum for people who care about the community to come together regardless of their politics to tackle issues that affect us all.

So have a happy Thanksgiving holiday – enjoy the food, the football, and the launch of the December holiday season. I hope this column has been a reminder of what the holiday is really about; my list isn't exhaustive – I know I've left out people and organizations that deserve our thanks – so when you think "hey, what about ______?" give them a call or send them a note and thank them – for all of us.

Bonanza Column 211 – The Clinic Will Not Close

2010-11-11T12:11:00.001-08:00

It's nice to have some good, positive news for a change. My column a couple of weeks ago on the possible closing of the Incline Village Health Center was the first in a long time that didn't draw any flak from my many "admirers." Now I'm glad to be able to report that, in part because of widespread community support, the Tahoe Forest Hospital District has stepped up to save the IVHC.

At a meeting of concerned community members last week, Fred Pritchard, former administrator of the Incline hospital and incoming president of the Tahoe Forest Hospital Foundation, along with others from the Hospital District and the Foundation, announced that the Tahoe Forest Hospital District intends to operate the clinic and keep it open at its location in the Centrepointe Building. The TFHD has made an initial 90-day commitment, but Pritchard and the others were clear that the District's intent is to keep it open and running, evolving it to provide broader services to uninsured residents as well as uninsured seasonal workers. Costs to patients will remain low, and the District will seek grant funding along with the current grants that they will "inherit" from Nevada Health Services, including funds from the County and from the Parasol Community Foundation. Nevada Health Services will be leaving the lion's share of the centers assets (furniture, equipment) behind, taking only their computers and telephone system, thus keeping transition costs down.

I asked Pritchard what they Hospital District needs from the community – he and the others present were unanimous that the key needs were community awareness, community support, and of course donations, particularly from local people who may have family or other foundations that could consider grants to the IV Health Center – something to keep in mind as the tax year winds down.

The bottom line is that, while all transitions are hard, and there may be a short period when the Center will not be open while certifications and records are transferred, people will have care, and the Hospital will pick up the slack. The Center is currently open nine days a month – the first Thursday of the month and every Tuesday and Wednesday – initially the hours will remain the same and may change depending on needs and funding.

It's important to emphasize that Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance are not sufficient to cover all of the community's needs. For those of us who are insured, it's easy to forget that there are some 600 families – estimated at more than 15% of the community – who are uninsured, and as we know, medical care is not like owning a car or insuring your home – when you need medical attention, it's not optional.

The outpouring of support for the Center has been real – at the meeting last week there were attendees from the CAB, the County, Parasol, local churches, and concerned citizens. There will be more meetings as things progress, and it's important that we don't let the upcoming holidays distract us from the real need for this facility.

One person who read my earlier column and attended last week's meeting said he was surprised at the tone of the column – he felt the issue needed more anger and outrage to get the point across. While I understand his thinking, I'm really glad to see that it didn't actually need that. Despite real differences in our community – Left and Right, IB and anti-IB, year-rounders and part-timers, you name it, the response to this emergency shows that when the chips are down our community can agree, and with Thanksgiving a couple of weeks away, that's something to include in what we're thankful for.

Bonanza Column 210 – When All is Said and Done…

2010-11-08T08:12:00.001-08:00

The adage "When all is said and done, more is said than is done" has been attributed to Aesop. Whoever first said it, that old saw is particularly apt with reference to last week's election results. It's been less than a week and rivers of ink (or electrons) have already flowed, none of which I've found terribly insightful, and I've come to the conclusion that the reason for that is that not much really happened.

Before my avid critics jump on this, let me acknowledge that there were losses in Democratic races – the GOP now controls the House, and the prospective Assistant Majority Leader has already said that he, for one feels his highest priority is to make sure President Obama serves only one term. Not jobs, not Afghanistan, not the economy – politics. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail on the Republican side of the aisle.

If you examine it factually, though, there is less there than meets the eye. Compared to mid-term elections over the past 40 or 50 years, this one was pretty much business as usual – every mid-term has seen the party in the White House lose ground, usually gaining it back in the next Presidential election year, and the magnitude of the loss this time was not remarkable.

On a hopeful note, I've seen reports that indicate that less than half of the candidates endorsed by the Tea Party and Ms Palin were elected, and I think that's a sign that the whole Tea Party frenzy is nearing the end of its 15 minutes, and despite indications she plans to try for a Presidential nomination for 2012, maybe the same can be said for Ms Palin. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Connell lost handily, as did Carl Paladino in New York, so there may be hope for intelligence and sanity to prevail on the Right yet.

Despite Mr. McConnell's sense of priorities, I'm hoping that the next two years will see a diminution of the "echo chamber" effect on both sides. By that I mean the increasing tendency to listen only to points of view that we agree with and thus to keep validating what we already believe. This is especially pernicious when things are presented as "facts" that are objectively not true and can easily be checked. It's OK with me if you want to object to the President making a state visit to India; it's not OK to make up that it's costing millions of dollars a day, or that he's taking 200 people with him or that 10% of the US Navy is being deployed for his security. Those things just aren't true. Let's argue philosophy, ideology, and how we explain facts such as the unemployment rate or the economic downturn, but let's have the intellectual integrity to get our facts straight. To paraphrase Bernard Baruch, everyone has a right to their opinions, but no one has a right to be wrong in their facts.

The one thing I've heard consistently from people all over the US in the past week is that they are glad the election is over and are sick of the rancor and nastiness in the campaigns. We need all kinds of election reform – campaign finance reform, reversal of the ill-advised Citizens United decision, a shorter campaign season – but the reform we need most in my opinion is a return to civility in our political discourse. Let's see if we can't demand from our candidates that they have a bigger conversation next time around.

Bonanza Column 209: It’s Time for an End to Politics as Usual

2010-10-29T11:05:00.001-07:00

As I write this column, the mid-term election is only days away – by the time you read it it will be over, or nearly so. People I talk to, from every part of the country, are unanimous in saying they will breathe a sigh of relief when it's over, regardless of their political preferences. It seems as though each succeeding campaign gets nastier, dirtier, and more negative. Couple this with the length of our political season (which my European friends find astounding), and by now everyone has serious voter fatigue.

What's amazing to me is that office-seekers and their advisors continue to do this and believe that somehow it will be effective. The documented fact is that most voters have made up their minds long before election day, and it's the relatively small number of undecided voters who will be swayed. If a voter is undecided, then presumably they are not hard core partisans, and are interested enough in the issues to think about them and not respond along ideological lines, at least for the office or question they are thinking about. Why would anyone think that a voter like that would respond to negative attacks, lies, half-truths, shaded truths, and general stridency?

Over the past decade or so a new line of research in psychology called "positive psychology" or "positive organizational psychology" (POP) has shown convincing evidence that if you want to influence or change people's behavior, it is easier and more effective to do so by focusing on what works rather than what's wrong, enhancing and building on people's and organizations' strengths and assets rather than trying to fix their weaknesses and flaws. Lest you think this is some new age California fad, the research began at the University of Michigan, and has been extensively documented.

I've seen POP applied in my own and others' work with organizations, executives, and managers, producing really amazing results. In his new book "Drive," author Daniel Pink makes a convincing case for the idea that people are motivated more by their seeing meaning, purpose, and contribution in their work than by money or security, by carrots or sticks. It's reasonable to assume that this holds true in other parts of their lives as well – certainly in family and community life, and in politics as well.

Despite this, political campaigns seem to appeal to people's worst nature. Fear, greed, protecting myself and my own at the expense of the community, racism, sexism, homophobia – all these were themes of the campaigns this year along with lies so blatant and ridiculous that to tell them indicates a serious lack of respect for the voting public's intelligence.

Maybe it's time for a real change in our political system. First of all, let's stop pretending that party affiliation, on either side, has anything to do with certain offices. Law enforcement (the Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Attorney General) should be non-political – presumably when someone is arrested or prosecuted, neither their nor the prosecutor's (nor the judge's) political ideology should matter. Financial offices – Treasurer, Controller, etc. – should be about sound finance and personal integrity, not Republican or Democrat, right or left. Local offices, some of which are nominally non-partisan on the ballot, should be genuinely non-partisan, and those such as Constable that are currently partisan shouldn't be.

And then let's demand that our politicians run on the issues and on their actual record in and out of office. Keep religion and ideology out of it – if you're opposed to, say, abortion or gay marriage or if you're for those issues, give us real thinking, not slogans or religious (or anti-religious) cant. I don't know about you, but if either side on any issue can't come up with a reasoned, fact-based argument, then I think they should just say so – they're against it on personal, moral, religious, or ethical grounds and leave it at that, not try to back up what is a personal position with specious claims or pseudo-reasoning. And be clear I'm talking about both sides of the aisle here – I have no problem with fact-based, purpose-driven arguments, and I understand that sometimes there is purpose-driven with no basis in fact – I can respect an authentic commitment that I don't agree with – just don't try to convince me that it's right or wrong. It's your position, and I can respect that.

We have a short breather until the run-up to the next elections in 2012. Can we use it to try to remember that every one, Republican or Democrat, right or left, straight or gay, man or woman, white, yellow, brown, and black, is an American and has those rights the founders felt were inalienable. Can't we all try to get along?

Bonanza Column 208 – The Clinic Cannot Close

2010-10-23T15:04:00.001-07:00

What was your reaction to the story in last week's Bonanza regarding the impending closing of the Incline Village Family Health Center (Searching for healthy solutions: Impending health clinic closure worries low-income locals)? I suspect many people didn't even read it – after all, if you're not a "low-income local" it doesn't affect you, does it? Or does it?

In 1995 Dr. Rick Tietz started a clinic at the hospital to serve patients who needed health care but did not need the Emergency Department. Ultimately Dr. Tietz brought the clinic under the auspices of the Childrens Cabinet, providing primary care at nominal fees for those who could not otherwise afford health care. Eventually, to make a long story short, the County got involved bringing with it Title 10 funds to underwrite the clinic's operations. In 2007, after some years of the clinic moving around and often operating under battlefield conditions, Nevada Health Centers took over the operation, making it the 22^nd or 23^rd clinic under their operation.

Nevada Health Centers is a federally funded Community Health Center Program that has operated medical and dental centers in Nevada for 29 years. Since taking over the Incline clinic in 2007, NHC has expanded rapidly, at one point to 31 clinics (they now have 29), and seems to have overextended itself financially. One solution to this overexpansion is to close the Incline clinic. In the Bonanza story NHC CEO Thomas Chase cited finances as the reason for the closure, noting that the clinic ran at a deficit of $120,000 during the past fiscal year, with $160,000 in expenditures to only $40,000 in revenue.

OK, maybe I'm naïve, but it seems to me that a clinic that is set up to serve low-income folks isn't going to make much in income, charging $10 for an adult visit and $5 for a child. NHC knew this when it took on the clinic, and at that time we can reasonably assume the management of NHC was taking on getting funding for the clinic – indeed, for all its clinics. Now new management seems to expect the clinic to carry itself, which doesn't happen with this type of operation.

Now here's where it affects you and me. Low-income folks are, inevitably going to need health care services for themselves and their children. So without the clinic, where will they go? To the ER at the hospital. As you know, ER services are expensive, regardless of how minor the treatment may be. The ER will not, as a matter of policy, refuse services to anyone, without regard to ability to pay. I have no doubt that the folks who now go to the clinic would pay if they could – I'm told they pay the clinic's fees willingly and gladly – but they simply can't pay the ER's prices, so the hospital absorbs the costs and, inevitably passes the losses on in higher fees to those who can pay – you and me. In addition, these non-emergency cases in the ER impose an added burden of triage on the ER staff and can delay or interfere with services to genuine emergency cases.

Who are these clinic patrons? A few were interviewed in last week's article; they are working people – some are seasonal employees, some employed in service jobs in the community. They are mothers, fathers, school children, grand parents. I'm told almost 600 families will be affected by the clinic's closing – that's around 2000 people who will, by default, become ER patients or will suffer from a lack of health care. Here. In our town.

I, for one, say this cannot be allowed to stand. NHC should step up to its responsibility to the community, and we as a community should demand that they do so. The hospital has extended its hand to help in any way it can, and we as a community should do no less. Every religion and moral code has in its principles some version of "as you treat the least among you, so you treat Me;" We need to keep this in mind – our community is what it is not only because of the wealthy and retired among us but also because of the working folks who keep it all running. They take care of the rest of us in many ways – it's time to repay that.

Bonanza Column 207 – Election Endorsements

2010-10-16T18:09:00.001-07:00

As you'll see elsewhere in this week's website and paper, the Bonanza has made its endorsements for various offices affecting us here at the Lake as well as on Washoe County Question 2. Mostly I agree with the paper, and where we disagree it's pretty minor. Nevertheless, in response to requests I've received, I'm going to chime in with mine.

Most will come as no surprise to regular readers of this column, and I won't rehash those arguments that I've made, sometimes more than once, in previous columns. So, for the record, Reid for Senator, Reid for Governor, Whomes for DA, and No on Question 2. The Senate and DA races seem like no-brainers to me. Angle has showed herself over and over again to be incapable of governing her mouth, much less the country, and most of the serious opposition to her seems to me to be coming from out of state interests whose interests would be served by getting rid of Harry Reid, but who have no interest in what's good for Nevada. Gammick has blocked the Tax Revolt's efforts to collect the tax refunds that the courts have said are coming to us, and that alone should be enough to make the difference.

The Governor's race is a closer call for me. I've liked Brian Sandoval for a while, and admire the commitment it takes to give up a Federal judgeship for a shot at other public service. However, his performance in the campaign has been lackluster to say the least, and he has failed to divulge any specific plans to back up his platitudes. Rory Reid, on the other hand has been open and explicit about his education and fiscal proposals. Campaign rhetoric is always a case of "we shall see," but at least Rory has given us something for which we can hold him to account, and I also like his plans better, so he gets my nod.

And No on Question 2 is another no-brainer – there is no conceivable upside for us in Washoe County spending money on studying the question of consolidation, because there is no upside to consolidation for anyone but the City of Reno.

For IVGID and the Fire District, I go three-quarters of the way with the Bonanza. We have what is arguably the finest fire protection in the country. Don Epstein and Gene Murrietta have served ably on the Fire Board, and deserve another term if they want it. Don't change horses in the middle of a race you're winning. For IVGID, I enthusiastically concur with the paper's endorsement of Bruce Simonian – I supported him in the primary and he has continued to show really good ideas and good sense in his campaign. For the other seat I go with Gene Brockman. Now if I had Gene's long record of distinguished service, I think I would retire to elder statesman status. But Gene wants to continue to serve, and with his experience and his incredible network of relationships with other municipal officials statewide, we'd be crazy not to take him up on it.

Now to briefly look at some other races, Dean Heller's bid to retain his seat in the House has received relatively little notice. While there are two people on the ballot opposing Heller, only one, Nancy Price of Sparks seems like a serious candidate. I don't know much about her but I do know this – when people from Incline went to DC to speak to Heller, Ensign, and Reid about the fight against pancreatic cancer they were received graciously and taken seriously by the two Senators' offices and rudely blown off by Heller's. That and his undistinguished record in the House are enough for me to pull the lever for Price.

Finally, Ross Miller, Kate Marshall, and Kim Wallin have all done a better than good job as Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Controller respectively and have earned the opportunity to continue the work they've started. Catherine Cortez Masto, despite her unfathomable endorsement of Gammick, has been an excellent Attorney General and should be retained in office as should Sheriff Mike Haley.

That's it; don't forget to vote!

Bonanza Column Number 205 – The First Amendment

2010-10-08T10:51:00.001-07:00

I don't know anyone worth taking seriously who is not in favor of freedom of speech. "First Amendment Rights," while not absolute (see "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"), are probably the most sacred Constitutional guarantee of all to an overwhelming majority of Americans.

It gets hard, though, when that sacred right is exercised by someone you find morally repugnant. It doesn't matter if it's the KKK, the ACLU, the Right or the Left, everyone seems to have a point at which they say "yes, free speech, but not that free." Such is the case for me with the twin hate-mongerers Terry Jones and Fred Phelps. I have to swallow hard and remind myself that, in a free society, any restriction on speech or expression must be taken under very serious consideration and pass some very stringent tests regarding public safety, clear and present danger, and the like lest we become like so many countries where speech is limited to what the government or representatives of a supposed majority say is OK.

Jones, you'll remember, is the pastor of a 50-member church, most of the members his own family, in Gainesville, Florida who made news by threatening to publicly burn copies of the Holy Qu'ran a month or so ago. He garnered media attention way out of proportion to any sane estimate of his importance, and was arguably responsible for deaths of US troops in Afghanistan when Muslim elements there didn't bother to wait to see if any books got burned and took lethal umbrage at the suggestion that they might be.

Phelps, also a "pastor" travels around the country with his family (including his lawyer who, conveniently, is also his daughter) and demonstrates at the funerals of service people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with signs that say things like "God hates Gays" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (no kidding – you can look it up) because, in his twisted mind, America's war deaths are God's punishment for the US tolerating homosexuality in our midst.

Both these individuals are execrable in so many ways, starting with cloaking themselves in the mantle of Christian clergy, that it's leaves decent people speechless with outrage just to think of them. You don't have to like or approve of Islam or homosexuality – that's your business – but simple human decency and the principles on which the Constitution was written and on which this country was founded are revolted by what they say and do.

Notwithstanding that, however, we must stand for their right to say and do those things. We do not, however, have to shield them from the consequences of their actions. The City of Gainesville has presented Jones with a bill for $200,000 for added security and other expenses incurred by the City because of his stunt. I sincerely hope they will do everything in their power to collect it, and that, as reported, it will bankrupt financially his "church," which is already bankrupt morally. There are two axioms of free speech – one is the "fire in a theater" principle cited earlier and the other states that "your right to swing your arm freely ends at the other person's nose," and that is what we are dealing with here. In addition, I think that the families of those killed as a direct result of Jones' actions have grounds to sue him as well.

As for Phelps, he's already been sued - by Al Snyder, the father of a fallen soldier who was so devastated by the Phelps family's demonstration at his son's funeral that he could find no way to deal with it other than to try to stop them. It seems unlikely that Snyder will succeed – Phelps and his family are punctilious about the letter of the law as regards their odious demonstrations and they will most likely be sheltered by the First Amendment. Worse, Snyder is suing them at his own expense while Phelps, as noted, travels with his built-in lawyer.

We can't stop the likes of Jones or Phelps – to do so would be to endanger everyone's First Amendment rights – but we can do everything in our power to see that they don't profit from their actions, either financially or by gaining notoriety. And we can exercise our own right to speak by denouncing them as decent human beings must.

Bonanza Column 205 - Groupthink

2010-10-01T16:01:00.001-07:00

My column last week on the possibility of starting to listen to each other drew some interesting responses. One frequent commenter whose comments I've found to be pretty thoughtful more often than not, took the occasion to challenge me to have my column not be a "collection of talking points" but to present both sides of issues and initiate a dialogue.

Others were, to be charitable, not so thoughtful. One demonstrated severe tunnel vision by picking up on the brief mention I made of IB in a list of controversies to (yet again) voice tired old arguments against that program. Others replied that since I am a progressive and a Democrat, that disqualified everything I'd said – I belong to "the party of lies," am like Joseph Stalin, and "the Democrats are a party of vile hateful and divisive people." Really? Democrats have a corner on that market?

OK, let me try again. First of all, I'm not sure what "talking points" are, but as near as I can make out, they are anything someone you disagree with says. What you say, on the other hand, is considered discourse. So I can't promise that my reader won't hear what I say as talking points – in fact, I can guarantee that they will. One dictionary defines a "talking point" as "A specific topic raised in a conversation or argument which is intended as a basis for further discussion, especially one which represents a point of view." This is a political column and an opinion piece, so hopefully talking points are exactly what I'm raising.

I do try to get my facts right. I'm often accused of having them wrong by those who disagree with me, but they rarely give any evidence that I'm incorrect – when they do (and they have) I think I've been pretty reliable about correcting myself, in print, and in a timely manner. So to that correspondent, here's what I can promise: I will "represent a point of view" – specifically the Liberal/Progressive point of view, which often corresponds to the Democratic Party's view, though not always. I'll do that, to the best of my ability, in a way that is fact-based, and will provoke discussion. I know that that is what my counterpart Jim Clark intends as well, from the other side of the political spectrum.

To the other respondents, I can only say again "Really?" I do not deny that Democrats, particularly during the Bush administration, said some nasty things. Some Democrats also said nasty things during the Vietnam War about Lyndon Johnson. And Republicans said nasty things about Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. In both cases, some of the things were true and some were not, and some persist. The Tea Party folks are particularly prone to say some really vicious things, many of which have been proved to be patently untrue. So when you say you don't want to listen because the other side are liars and vile and hateful and divisive, presumably you feel we don't owe you the courtesy either.

More importantly, and back to the real message of the column, as long as we don't have to listen to each other, we will continue to see only our point of view. Now if you're convinced that your point of view is absolutely right and any other point of view therefore absolutely wrong, that will work out just fine. And you will be a fool. Nobody – not Republicans or Democrats, not Liberals or Conservatives, not Sarah Palin or Barack Obama – has a lock on the truth. If there is a smartest person on Earth, that person is not as smart as he or she would be if they thought together with another or others. That's not my opinion, it's scientific fact.

Groupthink, defined as a process of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially one characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a perceived majority view, has proven time and time again to result in really bad decisions, whichever side of the political aisle is engaging in it. The Bay of Pigs was a disaster due to Groupthink (that's where the term originated) and Groupthink was identified as a root cause of the Challenger disaster that cost the lives of seven Astronauts. Apparently my correspondents think this is a good thing. They will not be surprised to hear that I don't agree. Hopefully you don't either.

Bonanza Column 204 – Let’s Get Smarter, not Dumber

2010-09-26T08:16:00.001-07:00

There is an old adage that says "all of us is smarter than any of us," reflecting the view that people thinking together will come up with better solutions to a problem than individuals, however expert, thinking separately. James Surowiecki, among other things the Economics columnist for The New Yorker undertook a study to see if this adage held water, and if it did, under what conditions did it obtain? He published the results of his research in a 2003 book, The Wisdom of Crowds. Overall, his conclsions were positive – under the right conditions, a group will, indeed, come up with smarter answers to a questions or solutions to a problem than would have been yielded by its smartest member(s) thinking alone.

It's the "right conditions" that are the sticking point. First of all, the group must be of sufficient size and at the same time not unwieldy in its size. Second, the group rules of engagement must maximize free, open, and honest interchange. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the group must embody sufficient diversity of thought. In fact, the "smartest" groups include people who know little or nothing about the subject at hand as well as experts – these naïve individuals bring a fresh point of view and ask questions that would not occur to the experts. As Surowiecki details, the results of groups of experts with no diversity of thought can be disastrous as in the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the Challenger disaster, where "groupthink" let to calamitous results.

Unfortunately, the current political climate does not seem to be making anyone smarter. We are facing critical issues – the economy, jobs, terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and the advise and train mission in Iraq, Iran and its wacko leader, the Middle East conflict, the continued discrimination against Gay and Lesbian Americans, anti-Muslim prejudice, the list goes on. These issues demand the best of our thinking and seem too often to get our worst. What is missing is, first and foremost, any real commitment to thinking together. We have stopped talking to each other, and more importantly we have stopped listening to each other. Conservatives have their favorite voices to listen to – whether it's Limbaugh and Beck or Krauthammer and Kristol, and Liberals have equally narrow pass-bands, limited to Olbermann and Maddow or Moore and Daily Kos. On both ends of the political spectrum we are engaged in something dangerously close to groupthink, and that does not bode well for solving our problems.

As importantly, this refusal to listen to views other than our own leaves both sides vulnerable to cynical manipulators whose agendas may have nothing to do with our best interests. I'm not privy to what the Florida "pastor" was trying to accomplish by his threat to burn copies of the Qu'ran, but what he did accomplish was to instantly polarize a national debate that was way out of proportion to anything he could actually accomplish, and to get people killed 8.000 miles away. Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's "marches," while satirical in intent, are likely to attract non-satirical arguments, and so it goes – debate rules and the opportunity for dialogue is lost.

Here in Incline we have pro-and anti-IB, along with the Reid-Angle and Reid-Sandoval and Whomes-Gammick forces arrayed against each other, and in the words of W.H. Auden, "each ear is listening to its own hearing, so none hears," and as in the national debate, this leaves us open to outsiders with their own agenda coming in to manipulate the situation. With two weeks before early voting begins, and about a month until the election season is over, it's not too late to start listening to each other and getting smarter about what is best for our community, not for people in New York or Washington who are looking out for other interests.

Bonanza Column 203 – Washoe County’s a Circus and the DA is the Chief Clown

2010-09-17T12:34:00.001-07:00

Ya gotta love Washoe County – for sheer entertainment value it's better than a three-ring circus. We have over 400 homeless veterans in the County, a mere fraction of the homeless population, we have the Tax Revolt's Supreme Court decisions that the County simply refuses to honor, we have Reno and Sparks in a "no you won't-yes I will" battle over consolidation (while the rest of us seem to be marginalized in the argument), and if all the other laughs fail, we have DA Dick Gammick.

First the non-Gammick entertainment: According to a story in Friday's Gazette-Journal, our County Commissioner, John Breternitz, has instituted an inquiry into why, if someone wants to volunteer to keep up County parks in the face of the budget cutbacks, that person has to fill out a five-page application and submit to a police background check. Breternitz, who generally brings a lot of common sense to the matter of governing, applies that common sense here and suggests that maybe if someone wants to weed a couple of days a month, the County could make it easier for them.

According to the RG-J report, "David Watts-Vial, Washoe assistant district attorney, explained that the county application, which includes several pages of information, is extensive because volunteers may come in contact with children. The county could be sued if it doesn't weed out volunteers with criminal histories who could present a danger to children, he said."

Now I don't know Mr. Watts-Vial. He may be a perfectly good lawyer and a good guy, but he reports to the aforementioned Mr. Gammick, so we can reasonably ask if there is more here than meets the eye. If you parse his statement carefully, it doesn't hold water. If protecting children were the priority, why would we make the bar high for volunteers when any registered sex offender can come into the park, sit on a bench, and do whatever? No, like so much of the DA's office's activities, it's about covering the County's legal butt. I realize that this is a legitimate function of the DA's office, but as Breternitz put it, in this case it's bureaucracy run amok. Gammick, it seems, puts the interests of the County bureaucracy ahead of its (and his) duty to its citizens.

Speaking of the DA, in a recent debate with his opponent, Roger Whomes, Gammick refused to say that he would serve out his term if elected, and said that if he did not, he would pass the office to his first assistant. He disingenuously said his health might go bad while at the same time saying his health is great (even though he had a 7 way bypass 10 years ago and his heart stopped 7 times about a year ago, and he has a pacemaker). Gammick is known to have been grooming Assistant DA Roger Helzer to succeed him – Helzer has never tried a case in 15 years in the DA's office.

Gammick also has recently stated that he will not allow an internal audit of his office's books because the person who the County wanted to do it "is not an attorney and would not understand what they do". Mr. DA, in case you're not clear about it, audits aren't done by attorneys but by accountants, and they don't need to understand what you do – they understand accounting and its partner, accountability. Rumors are circulating about how the Victims of Crime Fund money is used (the Nye County DA was recently arrested for misuse of same) and Gammick admits he has funds within his control that he will not let anyone into. So much for being accountable to the people who elected him.

Gammick's propensity to be a loose cannon is clear and on the record. He has made armed traffic stops which the DA has no legal right to do, he has run off at the mouth repeatedly about court cases and judges, and generally has an irresponsible relationship to the law, to accountable, and to the public.

Roger Whomes, who is running as a Democrat because that's the only way he can run, is a good guy with a clean record including five years in the Police. Don't let the fact that he's running on the D side of the ballot stop you – the DA's office should be a non-partisan race to begin with, so rather than looking at the label, look at the ingredients – Gammick is just too toxic for the County to afford.

Bonanza Column 202 – Political Potpourri

2010-09-10T17:58:00.001-07:00

A roundup of political items too short to get a column of their own. Early voting starts in a month – don't forget to register and vote and to attend the Bonanza Forums.

●●●

While my column on Sharron Angle raised hackles among far-right correspondents to last week's Bonanza, it still confounds me that anyone who claims to have half an intellect can support her. Some of the criticism was, I think, over the top. For example if, as Don Kaplan says, having a strong preference for Democrats means that I would "vote for a terrorist if he ran as a Democrat," then presumably the same could be said for anyone who is a loyal Republican, and I doubt that's what my friend Don meant. Anyhow, Friday is Yom Kippur and I'll forgive him.

Mostly, though, it seems that the best argument anyone can muster for Angle is that she's not Harry Reid. I can appreciate that politically and philosophically one can be opposed to Senator Reid, but for a Nevadan to vote is an extremist nonentity just in order to defeat an arguably competent and experienced senator you don't agree with is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Most of Angle's support is from out of state, and those folks could care less what happens to Nevada.

In her latest display of non-professionalism, Angle, on Jon Ralston's TV show, challenged Reid to a debate on this show. The challenge to debate, in Reno, on October 21^st, was unambiguous – it's on video and you can watch it for yourself. Angle's Deputy Campaign Manager then confirmed the debate. All good, until Reid accepted and confirmed he would be there. Then, without explanation, Angle withdrew from the debate she requested. You figure it out – I can't.

●●●

When he ran for the Assembly in 1994, Brian Sandoval told the Reno Gazette-Journal "I would oppose a voucher system to the extent it would allow taxpayer money to be diverted to private schools." Now, in his run for Governor, he is proposing a system of vouchers that would take more than $100 million from 96% of the children of Nevada – that's the percentage who attend public schools – to support the 4% who attend private schools.

The sad thing is that Assembly Candidate Sandoval had it right – a voucher system diverts taxpayer money to private schools and, in addition, offers an incentive for the best and brightest students to leave the public school system. I actually don't have much of a problem with politicians changing their positions when they get educated and take a better position, but flip-flopping from a good position to a bad one smacks of cynicism – in this case pandering to the Tea Party crowd.

●●●

In case you missed it, NewsCorp, which owns Fox News, went public recently with its support of the Republican Party to the tune of $1 million. For years commentators on the Left have been saying that Fox was, for all intents and purposes, the publicity arm of the GOP and this confirms it. So that we're clear, Fox has advocated such back to the future moves as repeal of Medicare and Medicaid, repeal of the 16^th and 17^th Amendments (that would be the Income Tax and direct election of Senators), the ADA, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, elimination of nuclear arms control, labor unions, women's right to choose abortion, elimination of the Department of Education and unemployment insurance, the EPA, and progressive taxation. Hmm… sounds like Sharron Angle's platform.

●●●

As of this writing on September 10^th, the case of the Pastor (his congregation is 50 people – I have more followers than that on Twitter – in Florida who is threatening to burn copies of the Qu'ran for reasons that are unclear to me is unresolved. Despite appeals from Gen. Petraeus, other Christian clergy, non-Christian clergy, and others, he seems to think he can use his threat as a bargaining chip to get the non-mosque that is not at Ground Zero moved to be even more not at Ground Zero. Funny, though, when he started, he never mentioned the non-mosque. That started after Palin, Gingrich, and other wingnuts (surprised we haven't heard from Angle on this) started conflating the two issues – you gotta hand it to Pastor Jones – he has a knack for getting media attention.

Bonanza Column 201 – Labor (sic) Day 2010

2010-09-03T12:33:00.001-07:00

In addition to the usual melancholy associated with the "official end of summer," this year's Labor Day observance brings with it, for me at least, a particularly poignant reminder of the current state of the economy in the US in general and in Nevada in particular.

Labor unions, once a major positive force advocating for the working class have fallen into disrepute. Some of this is their own fault, with too many instances of corruption and greed on the part of unscrupulous union leaders, and too many instances of "protecting" their members against job insecurity by ignoring intelligent practices of workers' being accountable for producing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. In too many instances unions have failed to advocate for all workers, regardless of race or gender, and this has contributed to their loss of the standing they had a century or so ago.

But it's not all the unions' fault. Management and business ownership have, from the beginning, resisted unions' legitimate efforts on behalf of their members where those efforts might increase their expenses and thus cut into profits. In recent years big companies have been particularly ready to demonize unions when the unions used their voices to object to US jobs going overseas and to the radical disjunction between executive ( particularly CEO) pay and what was being paid to labor.

During the major economic bubbles of the last 20 years – the dotcom bubble of the '90's and the housing bubble of the 20's, ordinary Americans, who have traditionally identified themselves with the middle class began to think like the upper classes – the CEOs and financiers. Maybe the euphoria of the bubbles along with the spate of paper millionaires of the dotcom era created the illusion that we could all become part of the wealthy class, but for whatever reason, we seem to have started to think that CEOs and Wall Street types are entitled to amass wealth beyond the dreams of avarice, and if they are entitled, then maybe we are also Thinking this way, a great many of the middle class oxymoronically tried to borrow their way into wealth – a way of thinking that built Las Vegas, but not one that will build an economy, as we've seen.

The unions are attempting a comeback – advocating for health care reform, retention and return of US jobs, and for the Employee Freedom of Choice Act which will afford the opportunity for workers to choose to join unions on their own, while still allowing employers to conduct their own canvasses to determine employee sentiment about joining – in other words the employers lose nothing while the workers gain a bit more freedom to initiate the process on their own, with the results binding on the employers if a majority choose to unionize. Under current law, employers are not required to take as determinative their workers' signed authorization forms designating a union as their representative and may insist that the workers use a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board to establish their union "even if 100% of the employees provide the NLRB with signed authorizations designating the union as their bargaining agent." The EFCA would allow workers to have their union certified as their bargaining agent by the NLRB if a majority of them have signed valid authorizations."

Naturally employers, particularly large companies that have made it their business to keep unions out, oppose this. Former Home Depot CEO Bernie Marcus went so far as to predict the "demise of civilization" if this basically democratic process were to be instituted. More likely it would lead to a re-empowerment of labor in the face of corporate greed and the possibility of restoring sanity and balance to a system that stacks the deck in favor of the wealthy and powerful and leaves the majority of us (whatever our champagne wishes and caviar dreams) in the dust. The average Nevadan, and there are quite a lot of us, even here in Income Village, needs to realize that the Carly Fiorinas and Meg Whitmans and Bernie Marcuses of the world really don't have out best interests in mind, and that maybe "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" isn't a viable option for 95+% of us. The working class and the middle class are the backs on which the plutocrats stand, and maybe it's time we stood up.

Bonanza Column 200 – Nevada Can’t Afford Sharron Angle

2010-08-28T14:23:00.001-07:00

There's an old expression – "yellow dog Democrat" - to describe a voter who is such a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat that he or she would sooner vote for a yellow dog than for a Republican. I'm not sure what the equivalent expression is on the GOP side, but whatever it is it seems to me you would have to be one to be supporting Sharron Angle at this point.

I understand that, particularly for Republicans outside Nevada, unseating Harry Reid is a priority, although given its highly unlikely that the GOP will gain a majority in the Senate, all that would mean is that Reid would be replaced as Majority Leader by another Democrat. Still, Reid has been very effective as ML and I can see that the GOP would want to get him out of there. That's why the national GOP has taken over Angle's campaign and is trying to tone down her crazy rhetoric, though they haven't been very successful.

For us in Nevada, however, there are overriding considerations. Republican talking points to the contrary, Reid has done a lot for Nevada – his national leadership has not detracted from his representation of the state. Pick your issue – jobs (see 22,000 jobs at City Center in Las Vegas), Yucca Mountain, veterans' issues, energy policy – Reid's influence has benefited the state, and while statistics can be bent to argue any way you want them to, the facts are the facts. To lose Reid, as I've said repeatedly, would be a big loss for Nevada. To trade him for Angle would be a tragedy.

In Angle's seven years in the 42-member state assembly, she voted "no" so frequently on matters of wide consensus that votes were often called as "41-to-Angle". Given that she will fit right in with the far right of the GOP whose stated strategy for the next two years is to oppose everything the government tries to do. While she has backtracked on some of her earlier positions, it is a documented fact that Angle has favored preventing women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest from having abortions. elimination of publicly-funded Social Security and Medicare, elimination of the Department of Education, the institution of programs in schools and prisons that seem to be Scientology-based, and has said quite recently that the US Constitution violates the first of the Ten Commandments, since it seeks have government act in place of God.

Angle says in one of her TV ads that government is the problem, not the solution. Given that statement, I have to wonder why she and her ilk want so badly to be part of the problem. When I was politically active in the 60's we talked about "working within the system to destroy it" as opposed to opposing the system from outside it. Many of my colleagues at that time tried that and were invariably unsuccessful, usually becoming part of the system they intended to undermine. If I combine Angle's extreme positions, her record of "just say no" voting, and her repeated attempts to become part of the government she is so opposed to, I'm left with the conclusion that she wants to go to Washington to try to bring down the government from within. In this I doubt she'll be any more effective than my friends were.

Right now Nevada is represented by one of the most politically astute and powerful people in America and by a junior senator who has shown himself to be ineffective and ethically challenged, and who may soon be under criminal indictment. If Angle and her politically myopic supporters succeed, we will be represented by a senior who has shown himself to be ineffective and ethically challenged, and who may soon be under criminal indictment and a junior senator whose stated position is that government is the problem. I don't care how loyal a Republican you are, Nevada cannot afford Sharon Angle in so many ways.

Huffington Post Column 24 - Are We Moving Toward a Clan Society?

2010-08-21T17:08:00.001-07:00

The controversy over the Park51 Islamic cultural and religious center in New York has generated controversy that is way out of proportion to any rational assessment of its importance. The so-called "Mosque at Ground Zero" is neither – it is a community center with a prayer space located three blocks from Ground Zero. If you're not familiar with New York, three blocks is much farther than it sounds – the density of buildings and population means that there is an awful lot between the two sites, including churches, businesses, strip clubs, and all the accoutrements of life in the big city.

Try as I might, I can't attribute this flap to anything but religious prejudice, whatever fancy rhetoric it's cloaked in. It's been nine years but we aren't building a memorial at Ground Zero – we're building new buildings – offices, restaurants, apartments will once more occupy the site, so how is it hallowed ground? And even if I buy the "hallowed" argument as anything other than a shibboleth for anti-Muslim bias, to whom is it sacred? There were American Muslims who died in the towers, there were American Muslim first responders who risked their lives and were injured or killed, so doesn't any "memorial" include them? And why isn't the site of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City "hallowed ground," or the IRS office in Austin?

I'm not sure how important this issue is taken on its own, but in a larger picture I think it's very important. First of all, some 56% of Americans according to the polls seem prepared to sacrifice the First Amendment to bias. Yes, all Americans have the freedom to worship when, where, and how they choose unless they are the designated enemy du jour. Secondly, that same proportion of Americans seem to be willing to tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush despite all the evidence that, as with every faith, Christianity and Judaism included, the extremists who would wipe out those of other faiths or forcibly convert them are a small majority

Most disturbing to me, however, is that we seem to be moving in the direction of a clan-based culture. The "culture wars" touted by O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Coulter, and others on the Right seem eerily similar to what Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes as the clan culture of her native Somalia.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in case you don't recall who she is, was born a Somali and went on to become a Dutch citizen and a member of the Dutch Parliament. She co-produced with Theo van Gogh the film "Submission" that cost van Gogh his life at the hands of an assassin and led to threats against her as well.

Ali's book, "Infidel" is a memoir of her growing up in Somalia and Kenya and her gradual distancing herself from Islam to the point of becoming one of its leading critics. Her criticism of the religion of her birth is couched in terms of her personal struggle with what began as a deep and unquestioning faith and became apostasy. Witnessing that struggle, we are privy to her thought processes as well as her emotional conflict, and it's not always pretty or easy reading.

One of the themes running through Ali's book and life is the rigidly hierarchical clan system in Somalia, which while not based in Islamic law, is closely intertwined with the religion, its practices, and its traditions. Ali's family belongs to a high-caste clan that has traditionally led and governed in Somalia. At the time of her growing up the country is ruled by the brutal dictator Siad Barré, and Ali's father was a leader of the resistance that was ultimately successful in overthrowing the government. Sadly, the result of this revolution was not freedom but vicious civil war among the clans, a war based in old rivalries and prejudices, that is still dominating Somali life today.

When Ali came to the Netherlands and got involved in politics there, she found similarities between the system of political parties there and the clans in Somalia – much the same stereotyping, rivalry, and refusal to cooperate, under a more civilized and peaceful facade. Reading her account of life in both systems, I became increasingly uncomfortable with what I perceived as similarities to life in the US today as we seem to be moving toward increasing polarization and enmity between Right and Left, non-Muslims and Muslims, "native" and immigrants.

It is axiomatic that the United States was founded on principles of individual freedoms (speech, assembly, even the right to bear arms), group freedoms (religion, freedom from discrimination), and protection of minorities under the rule of the majority. More importantly, another critical principle is that these freedoms are based on rights that are "inalienable," that is impossible to take away.

In 1947, the then Department of War made a short film that was rarely if ever shown. The film, called "Don't Be a Sucker" showed how easily the Right in Germany hoodwinked the German people into supporting murderous racism, a process that was echoed in Pastor Martin Niemoller's famous statement ("First they came for the Communists…"). We would do well to remember our Virgil – "the descent to Hell is easy," and to keep in mind that while it may be the Muslims now, sooner or later "they [will come] for me and there [will be] no one to speak up."

Bonanza Column 199 – Tourist Season

2010-08-20T16:08:00.001-07:00

Over the past couple of weeks the Bonanza has run a number of pieces – articles, letters to the editor, person in the street questions – about life here in a tourist destination and its ups and downs. Mostly these have been light-hearted notes, with some serious undertones, the theme of which has pointed to the tendency of some (though by no means all) tourists to behave in ways that are objectionable to those of us who live here.

I've lived in a number of tourist destinations, and the complaints are the same wherever you go. It seems that a significant number of people, when they go on vacation, leave their manners and consideration for others at home. I've spoken to rentors who have horrific stories of vacation properties being trashed in ways that would make a heavy metal band proud, and we all have stories of crazy drivers, rudeness in the super market, on the beaches, and in restaurants. And don't get me started about hairy, sweaty, beer-bellied individuals of both genders who seem to feel that tank tops and no tops are appropriate attire for public places – I object to them on both esthetic and hygienic grounds.

But the one that I think is over the top is the boater who, when told that he would need to decontaminate his boat before putting it into the Lake, went to another inspection station, lied, and launched his boat. In case you missed this story, this person came to Cave Rock wanting to launch on June 28^th – his boat had last been in Sand Hollow Reservoir in Utah — a mussel-infested body of water, according to the Tahoe Resource Conservation District. In addition to having been in this water, the boat had water in it, and so was very likely to be carrying mussels. The inspectors deemed that decontamination was required and told him to return on July 1. This worthy then went to the Meyers station on June 29^th, told the inspectors there that the boat had been in Lake Powell, which is not infested, that it had been out of the water for six months, and, interestingly, the Meyers inspectors found no water in the boat, so they issued a permit and allowed him to put the boat in the lake.

The TRPA Governing Board will most likely fine the man at its meeting on Wednesday, but if there is damage, it is done. I don't know how this individual justifies his actions, but you can be sure he does - people who place themselves above the law and above the common good always do. I have no doubt he thinks he had a "right" to launch – after all, it's a public lake, he pays taxes that support TRPA, he made sure he got rid of the water, etc., etc. Friday's article about this on the Bonanza website said that the paper is trying to contact him, and I hope they do – as a Psychologist it would be very interesting to me to hear how he rationalizes what is, at its heart, an anti-social and anti-nature action.

We've all heard the old joke – why do they call it tourist "season" if we can't shoot them? In my experience the vast majority of tourists who come here Winter and Summer are nice people, act civilly, and follow the rules. Of those who don't, mostly they seem unconscious about their actions and don't seem to intentionally be trying to give offense. This guy, though, can't claim that – to be given a lawful instruction, disregard it, and lie to get around the rules requires thought, premeditation, and intent. I guess a fine is all TRPA can do, but I'd like to see his name and picture in the paper – this is a case where public shaming might actually be effective, and it would surely be appropriate. Too bad we did away with the stocks.

Bonanza Column 198 – Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows

2010-08-14T15:28:00.003-07:00

The origin of the phrase "politics makes strange bedfellows" is obscure – most likely it is a 19^th Century paraphrase of Shakespeare's line in "The Tempest," "Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows." Whatever its origins, the phrase has never been more true than this year, in Nevada.

First, a couple of weeks ago I was approached by the Nevada chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition, a national group, with a request to help them broker a debate between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, candidates for the US Senate in November. Angle has been offering to debate Reid, being careful to make her offers only for times when Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, will have to be in Washington. Based on her campaign so far, I assume that she will then make much of her offers and of the Reid camp's refusal, given that the Senator rightly considers his duty to lead the Senate to have priority over the debates.

The NRJC happened to have Angle booked for a certain date in Reno, and wondered if Reid might be willing to debate under joint sponsorship with a group of Democrats. It was, I believe, an offer made in good faith and I don't know if Angle's people even knew about what was, after all, a preliminary inquiry. When I spoke to Reid's Campaign Manager he explained the situation to me and said that, until the debates already under negotiation are set, they were not going to discuss any others. Too bad, but that's politics. Still, in the "strange bedfellows" category, here we had grassroots groups of Republicans and Democrats trying to get the candidates to debate, which the candidates themselves seem unable to do.

Then, last Wednesday, the other Reid, Rory, and Brian Sandoval, the two candidates for Governor, were scheduled to deliver separate keynote speeches to the Nevada Subcontractors Association. Instead, Reid stepped up to the stage and challenged what the Las Vegas Sun described as "a stunned Sandoval" to an impromptu, unscheduled debate. The debate, using questions submitted by audience members, lasted only about 15 minutes when after two questions each, the candidates reverted to their prepared speeches.

Finally I learned late last week that the same GOP-affiliated group that had tried to stage a Reid-Angle debate had proposed to Washoe County District Attorney candidates Dick Gammick (the incumbent Republican) and Roger Whomes (running as a Democrat) that the group sponsor a debate between them. The group, had set up a debate between Whomes and Gammick.for August 18, 2010, at 7:00 pm, at the Atlantis Casino. The media had been informed of the event and then, on Thursday morning, Gammick informed the group he was pulling out.

Gammick had initially agreed to debate on the condition that he be allowed to pick the moderator. He wanted Sam Shad, of Nevada Newsmakers, who is considered to be friendly to Gammick and on whose show Gammick has appeared, according to one report over 100 times. Shad was not acceptable to Whomes, and with the RJC's brokering a compromise, it had been agreed that Joe Hart of Channel 4 and/or Anjeanette Damon of the Las Vegas Sun (formerly of the Reno Gazette-Journal would be acceptable moderators.

According to my sources, Gammick objected to one of the people who was going to help
formulate questions for the debate for the Coalition and pulled out of the debate, despite the fact that Gammick was to be allowed to have
his own people help to frame the questions as well.

Again in the "strange bedfellows" category, many IV/CB residents, both Democrat and Republican, are uniting behind Whomes and against Gammick – the latter's performance regarding the tax issues here as well as his very odd behavior in his office in general seems to be causing opposition that transcends party affiliation, and in my opinion that's a good thing. Gammick seems afraid to meet Whomes unless the deck is stacked in his favor, and this seems consistent with his heavy-handed application of power everywhere in his tenure in office. Let's hope this spirit of putting issues above party spreads – maybe even to Washington.

Bonanza Column 197 – IB: The Facts DO Matter

2010-08-14T15:28:00.001-07:00

The local fight over IB has been an interesting one. I've written before urging that the argument he on a factual, rational basis, but it does not seem that that's going to happen. A column in last week's paper purported to give the "facts" about IB, but was so egregious in its slant on those facts (and in its use of some things that were not facts at all) that it needs a response.

It's one thing to disagree – reasonable people disagree all the time. It's quite something else, in my view, to distort or misrepresent the truth to sway public opinion in a disagreement. Writing an opinion column, I have no responsibility to be objective and make no claim to be. When I state facts, though, I do my best to check them and once in a while readers will challenge me, publicly or privately, on my facts and if it turns out I had something objectively wrong, I do my best to correct it. Often readers who mean to challenge my facts turn out to disagree with my interpretation of those facts – fine; that's why there's chocolate and vanilla.

I don't have the space to go through the entire 732 word column – I'll leave that to the IB Task Force to refute. But when a column takes the school district and IB supporters to task for "ignoring the facts," it seems to me it's incumbent on the columnist to have present the facts clearly and without omission or spin.

Possibly the most extreme example is in the oft-repeated statement from the anti-IB folks is the one near the end of the list that says "IB is a UN sponsored program that will be FORCED on all our students." I'm going to start by picking on this one because I believe it is the one behind all the rest – the real agenda of the "Truth About IB" website and much of the opposition. Here are the facts:

IB is one of 337 (at last count) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) maintaining official relations with UNESCO, the UN Economic and Social Council (UNESCO). UNESCO's mission is "to contribute to the building of peace, the eradication of poverty, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue through education, the sciences, culture, communication and information." According to the UNESCO Encyclopaedia, NGOs came about in 1945 when a variety of groups from the US and abroad succeeded in having included in the UN Charter a provision for strengthening and formalizing what had previously been an informal relationship between various groups and what had been the League of Nations. The 337 NGOs are a varied group that are, first of all, independent of any government, are not constituted as political parties, are non-profit, and non-violent. In sum, "an NGO is defined as an independent voluntary association of people acting together on a continuous basis, for some common purpose, other than achieving government office, making money or illegal activities."

IB is in good company in its affiliation with UNESCO. In 2003, Former First Lady Laura W. Bush, was an Honorary Travelling Fellow for UNESCO. Others among the 337 include World Scouting (the Boy Scouts), the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, the International Association of Lions Clubs, Rotary International, the International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies, the YMCA and YWCA, police organizations, eight or ten Catholic organizations, four Jewish, and about six organizations that identify themselves as Christian. Scary, huh?

IB is headed by Jeff Beard, Director General, a US Naval Academy graduate and Former Naval Officer. Beard led a campaign to raise over $800,000 for the USNA to fund a new academic position, the Distinguished Military Professor Chair for Character Development. Because of his strong belief in ethics and character development in young people, he has agreed to continue in this role for the school, and is currently leading a campaign to raise another $1 Million for the same purposes..

It seems highly unlikely to me that a program headed by a former US Naval Officer who is still heavily involved with the US Naval Academy is a UN plot to be foisted on our children. From everything I've been able to learn, IB is highly regarded by the US military academies which exemplify patriotism and embrace the IB curriculum. This example of spinning the facts should be enough to have you look closely at the "facts" in last week's column.

Bonanza Column 196 – My Sit-Down with Rory Reid

2010-07-30T15:25:00.001-07:00

I promised last week that I would report on my meeting with Gubernatorial Candidate Rory Reid, so here goes.

I spent about 30 minutes one-on-one with Reid, and came away impressed both with him personally and with what it became clear were substantive distinctions between him and his opponent Brian Sandoval. Going into the meeting, as a Democrat, I was inclined to support Reid, but I like what I've seen of Sandoval and was impressed with his commitment in resigning a lifetime appointment to the Federal Bench to run for Governor, and felt I wouldn't have been too unhappy if he got elected. Having had a chance to talk with Rory and look more deeply into the issues, I now find myself squarely in Reid's corner.

Before the meeting with Reid I asked the folks at the Tuesday morning open forum at the Bonanza what I should talk with him about. Their response, not surprisingly was "the state's economic situation, taxes, and education, particularly IB," so that's what I focused on.

Like Sandoval, Reid is very aware that Nevada will lose $10 million in stimulus money next year and will face a difficult financial situation. Like Sandoval, Reid has promised no new taxes. Asked how he will deal with this Reid said he has short-term and long-term solutions in mind – the short-term he was about to publish and understandably declined to give me a preview – the plan may be public by the time this column comes out. Long-term it will be no surprise that Reid sees the solution to the state's economic difficulties as expanding business in the state. In his words, "we need to be exporting more" – more products, more services, more energy, more of everything. Historically, Nevada has relied on importing – tourists, vacationers, and gamblers – and that source of revenue has been falling off for some time.

To export, we need a stronger, wider, and more varied business base – new businesses in every area and particularly high-tech and clean energy, Reid said, but this won't happen as long as we are perceived as having a poor educational system and an uneducated work force, as exemplified by our 42% high school graduation rate, and so dramatically improving education in the state is the foundation of Reid's plans and campaign, and is also where he most dramatically differs from Sandoval.

Sandoval's published plan for education involves dramatic cuts in funding for schools. In Washoe County, for example, we currently have 3,620 teachers – Sandoval would cut 550 of these, or 15%. Statewide he would cut 5,080 of a current 22,852 for 22%. I just can't see how losing 1 out of 5 of our teachers from schools that have already undergone cuts under Gibbons is anything but a short-term (and short-sighted) solution to the projected budget deficit. How will we improve class sizes, increase graduation rates, or build the economy of the future? What is the message Sandoval's cuts would send to businesses and industries deciding between Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico?

Under the Republican administration, Nevada failed to make the cut for "Race to the Top" funds and Sandoval and Gibbons are attempting to pin that on Harry Reid. Actually this failure is on Gibbons who cut $300 million from education – now Sandoval proposes further cuts and more of the same. Sandoval is proposing a band-aid for the schools; Reid is promising a genuine overhaul, eliminating bureaucracy and affording principals and teachers the freedom to innovate and to lead.

As for IB, Reid feels that it's a good program – in fact two of his kids are in an IB program in Henderson. Nevertheless, he feels that it should be up to the community to decide what it wants.

Overall, as one who places the highest value on education as the key to meeting the challenges of the future, I came away from this conversation convinced that Rory Reid is on the right track and he has my support – I'd invite you to look seriously at his EDGE plan for education, which is published in a 22 page booklet and his vision for the future of Nevada, published as "The Virtual Crossroads" and available from the Reid campaign, then make up you mind based not on party but on what's best for the future of our state and our community.

Bonanza Column 195 – Consolidation - the Wolf Behind the Door

2010-07-23T18:25:00.001-07:00

Last week was pretty interesting politically – for me at least. I had the opportunity to meet with County Commissioner John Breternitz to discuss the advisory ballot question on consolidation of Washoe County and Reno. Then later in the week I was able to sit down for a private half-hour interview with Gubernatorial Candidate Rory Reid. Both very interesting conversations.

I've been a supporter of Commissioner Breternitz since he ran for the office two years ago. He has an impressive background as a business executive (in the construction industry) and is my kind of public servant – he's retired, does not plan to make a career of elective office, and is genuinely interested in representing the people in his district, including the 25% or so of the district who live up here at the lake.

As Jim Clark mentioned in his column last week, Commissioner Breternitz was a "champion" for the advisory ballot measure. It's not that he's in favor of consolidation, but this question keeps coming up and he and other Commissioners want to get the sense of their constituents' view on it so that they can either drop it once and for all or move toward spending money to investigate the pros and cons. After talking with John at length, I'm convinced he's sincere in this – he just wants to know what people want.

All in all, it's hard to fault information-gathering – there will be pro and con statements on the ballot, and with any luck they will be well-written and clear so that people can make an informed vote. I'm concerned about it, though, because it's rare in my experience that these well-intended attempts by elected officials to sound out their constituents' views come through as they were conceived.

First of all, there are vested interests on one side of the issue. As Clark points out in his article, the appropriate way to do this would be for Reno to declare bankruptcy so as not to saddle the County with its debt. Anybody want to call the early line on Bob Cashell and the Reno City Council saying "we have failed completely in the fiscal management of the City and now, as our last official act, we're declaring bankruptcy?" Then, the rest of the County minus the City of Sparks – that is all the unincorporated parts of the County will be inundated by Reno's side (after all, it's all upside for Reno) and who will speak for the other side? Sparks is the only organized local government in the County other than Reno – the rest is communities, GID's, and scattered homes and farms. Who will speak for the con side? Who will speak to the effect of a pro vote on those areas?

Jim Clark and I rarely agree on political matters on the State and National level. More often than not, though, the more local the effect, the more likely we are to agree, and here we are on exactly the same page. For the past 20 years Jim and I and other concerned residents have tried to get across to the community the need for some form of independence for IV/CB – ideally as a county, then last year we tried as a town, which would have afforded us a local government not restricted by NRS 318 as a GID is. These efforts have failed – at the state level because of pressures from outside the area, and at the local level for reasons that continue to boggle my mind. All the facts argued that the town proposal had no downside, and it failed. Go figure.

To quote Elmer Fudd, we need to be vewwwy vewwwy careful. We need to do more than watch developments – we need to be active in communicating the facts of the impact this would have and, if it's as bad as I think it will be, in defeating the advisory question and leaving Reno to sort out its own mess.

Next week I'll report on my sit-down with Rory Reid. Between now and then, start to educate yourself about this consolidation issue. Former Commissioner Jim Galloway, as Jim reported, thinks this will make the issues of the Tax Revolt look like small change.

Huffington Post Column 23: Why Single Out Muslim Women?

2010-07-22T11:55:00.001-07:00

The controversy over Muslim women's dress is taking on global proportions. France, some time ago, banned the wearing of hijab, the head scarf in public, and now Syria, that most secular of Arab nations, has banned the niqab or full-face veil in schools. In a report on NPR the head of the Syrian Women's Observatory (sic), whatever that is, a man, made the dubious claim that the niqab constitutes "violence against women."

Let me be clear – I don't support anyone being required to wear or not wear anything against their will. I agree that if a woman is forced to wear a head scarf or veil by her government or her husband or her father, that is wrong and should not be allowed. But I've heard and read interviews with women who wear the hijab and even the niqab voluntarily, who want to wear it, and who feel religiously bound to wear it by their own beliefs. On what grounds can a government or institution require that they not wear it, and isn't such a requirement the equivalent of requiring someone who does not want to wear it to do so?

I suppose the argument will be made that women in the latter group have been brainwashed or some such thing and need to be protected, but even if we grant that (and I don't), isn't that the selfsame paternalistic and patronizing attitude that the women's movement has always been against?

More broadly, why is this group being singled out? Other religious groups – maybe every religious group – have groups that adopt a particular garment or style of dress. Some Hasidic Jews dress in clothes that were common in 14th Century Poland. Mormons wear "temple garments," albeit under their clothes, Buddhist monks and nuns wear robes, Hare Krishna adherents wear a queue with the rest of their head shaved, Orthodox Jewish men wear skullcaps, and the women dress modestly in long sleeved blouses and long skirts, and often wear a head scarf over their ritually required wigs. Then there are priests' collars, nun's habits, monk's robes, and on and on. Why is no one proposing banning all those as well as that most visible of symbols, the Hindu bindi or dot on the forehead?

Sadly, I think the answer is that we are all too ready to conflate religious fundamentalism, or even orthodoxy or conservatism with terrorism where Muslims are concerned, though we don't do so nearly as much when it comes to other faiths. Every religion has its fundamentalists, and terrorists have perverted every world religion except maybe Quakerism to justify their crimes. Terrorists who act in the name of Islam are only the most recent and currently active example.

But to tar all Muslims (or in this case Muslim women) with the brush of terrorism is racist, anti-Muslim and, dare I say, sexist on the part of those who claim to be acting in these "oppressed" women's interests.

Again, I am not advocating that one person in the world be required to wear or refrain from wearing anything against their will. I'm not even crazy about school uniforms or dress codes for the same reason. I am saying that I'm equally opposed to anyone being required to wear something they don't want to or to refrain from wearing something that, as an adult, they choose for whatever reason to wear.

Bonanza Column 194 – A Time for Unity

2010-07-17T11:46:00.001-07:00

I don't know anyone who is not, by their own lights at least, an environmentalist. I have never met anyone who advocates destroying the environment, though some, like BP, may put other priorities such as profit ahead of it, they will find some rationale for doing so. That said, in many cases those who take on "The Environment" as with most people who take on a cause, have a tendency to see things in black and white terms and, as this week's editorial in papers around the Lake puts it, to "judge a book by its cover."

That editorial went on line at the end of the week and has already as of this writing on Saturday begun to draw fire from people and organizations whose identity (and in some cases salary) depends on their position on the environment. When the papers come out in print it's likely that it will draw more. As an unpaid columnist I have no obligation to agree with the paper's position on anything and sometimes I don't. In this case, though, I think the editorial staff hit the nail on the head and if you haven't read the editorial, I recommend you stop here and do so (then come back to this column).

Economists are currently debating two dangers inherent in economic recovery – inflation and deflation. I would submit that in the environment "debates" in our community we have another danger – conflation. Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost.

As an example, I attended the presentation last week by the Lake Tahoe Basin Prosperity Plan that is reported on elsewhere this week. That presentation was not without its flaws – not enough time for public input, for example, but it was mostly very well done. The stated vision of the LTBPP in the draft plan is:

"The Lake Tahoe Basin is a world class center of innovation around green tourism, green building and sustainable design, scientific research and applications for environmental resource renewal and management, renewable energies, and health and wellness. "It is the sustainability powerhouse of the nation."

In two slides out of sixty-two in the presentation, workforce housing was mentioned as one of a number of bullet points – one mentioned as a basin-wide issue "Lack of financing for businesses and community development/infrastructure/workforce housing" and the other reported that the "cluster group" on tourism and visitor issues included as one bullet point in one of four proposed strategic initiatives "Create a basin-wide workforce housing strategy."

Despite the tiny percentage of the draft plan that even mentioned workforce housing at all, one of the first people to comment objected to this and focused on it as if it were the core of the plan. In other words, the speaker conflated workforce housing with the whole plan and treated them as one issue (see my earlier column on "Trotsky was killed with an ice axe"). I mention this not so much to criticize this individual as to illustrate how common it is. Housing (and workforce, affordable, low-income, moderate-income are not the same thing, but subject to conflation), tourism, the canard of "becoming like South Shore," building height, and other issues are argued about as global matters without regard to individual cases.

I propose that it's time for a more intelligent and rational debate about the future of the Basin and Incline Village/Crystal Bay in particular. If we don't get serious about determining our future and putting our communities' destinies into the hands of the people who are affected by it, those futures will be determined for us, and not in a good way. For example, the Washoe County Board of Supervisors has, by a vote of 4-1, authorized an advisory ballot question for the November election to give the Legislature guidance on whether to approve a merger of Reno & Unincorporated Washoe County. In case you're not clear about this, IV/CB are "unincorporated Washoe County."

I wonder how much a Reno-dominated Washoe County will care about the Lake and IV/CB as anything but a cash cow to finance underfunded areas. It's time for obstruction in the name of the environment or anything else to stop. As Ben Franklin said, we must hang together or we will surely hang separately.

Bonanza Column 193 – The GOP Won’t “Spoil” Americans

2010-07-12T11:41:00.001-07:00

Summertime, even in an election year, is not the best time to write a column at Tahoe. In the winter, when it's cold and dark, or even when it's sunny but there's snow on the ground, it seems easier to find things to write about, but when it's 80 degrees and the sun is shining, the breezes blowing and the lake is there in all its azure splendor, somehow it's harder.

Even more so after a successful Independence Day celebration – record crowds, great events and fireworks, beautiful weather. I keep wondering, as I did in my Independence Day column two weeks ago about what the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would make of America today. What would those Easterners make of Lake Tahoe in the summer, or of San Francisco or Seattle or San Diego? All these places would, I suspect, seem very strange and foreign to them. What would they make of a society that, even though racist and sexist attitudes persist, has de-institutionalized discrimination to the point where we have an African-American President, a woman Secretary of State (who was a close second for the Presidency), a population growing to the point where Hispanics are headed for the majority, and an economy that, even when it's in trouble, dwarfs anything that would have been in their reality.

What, also would they make of double-digit unemployment? I listened to a story on NPR on Sunday about a woman in a small town in Georgia – she was an Assistant Manager at a bank and was let go when the bank was bought by a larger bank. She has a 17-year old son and an older daughter who has two small children, all of whom she supports, and her unemployment benefits have run out. She has been looking for a job for over six months in an economy where there are, on average, 6 applicants for every available job, she is behind in her rent and facing eviction, and in disconnect territory with her utilities (which I guess won't matter if she's evicted). She is qualified, willing – no, eager – to find any kind of job and so far has not found one. And her unemployment, which she figures paid her about $8.40 an hour or $17,470 a year (she was making $41,000 plus benefits in her job) is about to expire.

In time of high unemployment, Congress has traditionally extended the 26-week limit on unemployment benefits to as much as a year. Now, however, the GOP minority in the Senate is using the filibuster to block any such extension – I guess they agree with candidate Sharron Angle that the woman in Georgia is "spoiled" by her "benefits," which are 42% of what she was making in her modest job. I wonder if they think her children and grandchildren are spoiled also.

Republican Senatorial leadership are piously avowing that they are not opposed to extending unemployment but simply want to see cuts elsewhere so that they don't add to the deficit the estimated $3 trillion it would cost . (They had no such reservations about the deficit when they voted a similar amount for war funding, despite there being nothing in the budget to cover it.)

Economists are as close to unanimous as economists get that extending unemployment would provide a stimulus to the economy. It's simple: if you give tax cuts to the well-off, they are likely as not to save or invest their gains. Those who have been unemployed for six months or so do not have the luxury of saving – they will spend the money on food and rent and utilities and maybe consumer goods, and that money will instantly come right back into the economy, creating jobs which will, in the long run, obviate the need for further unemployment benefits.

But the Party of No doesn't seem to care. They will do anything they can to prevent the government's helping anyone other than the wealthy and the big corporations in whose pockets they live. I wonder what the writers of the Declaration of Independence, who said that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are self-evidently inalienable and who said that the proper function of government is to secure these rights for its people, would think of all this. I fancy that, like the Native American in the old "don't litter" ad, they would weep to see how their ideals have been perverted by people who claim to speak in their name.

Bonanza Column 192 - A Great Small-Town Fourth

2010-07-05T11:56:00.001-07:00

Basking in the afterglow of Independence Day Weekend this will be a column of kudos. Full disclosure: I am a founding member and current member of the Red, White, and Tahoe Blue Board, and make no claim to be unbiased. I will, however, for reasons of good taste, refrain from commenting on any of the events I was accountable for.

This fourth RWTB was, arguably, the best yet. The weather and the calendar conspired to give us record crowds, and all the events were terrific – the wine and cheese tasting, under April Marriner's able management had more wineries and more attending than ever before – the biggest problem was getting people to go home afterward. The well-attended Beer and Brats (that's bratwurst, not nasty kids) tasting was also April's idea and production – congrats to her and to Amy and Will from Incline Wine & Spirits for two great events. Joanne Devine and her committee produced a spectacular (and huge) parade, the Duck races sold out (thanks, Rotary), and the fireworks thanks to Jim Smith, Greg McKay, and others were appropriately spectacular. Thanks also to Chris Talbot for arranging great entertainment including the wonderful Sigtuna Brass Sextet (I guess they don't count the drummer – only the brass – or it would be a septet). Also our dedicated Americorps volunteers led by Katy Washington who put on an outstanding Village Fair on the Green. And finally thanks to Bill Horn, Hal Paris, Shelia Leijon, and all of the IVGID staff who must be breathing a sigh of relief today and who did their usual outstanding job along with the Sheriff's Department in managing the whole event.

But in all this there is one group that often goes unnoticed and that deserves a shout-out. Every year, Boy Scout Troop 37 under the dedicated leadership of Kim and Jim Schmidt and their able Assistant Scoutmasters raises and lowers the flag each day, carries the colors in the veterans salute, and this year did something that didn't get enough notice. Title Four of the US Code, called the "Flag Code" was adopted in 1923 and governs almost everything about the flag including display, but also including how to properly dispose of a flag that has become so worn or tattered that it should no longer be displayed. On Friday evening on the Village Green, Troop 37 conducted the little-known Flag Retirement Ceremony. They began with a very respectful retirement of a large flag that had flown in front to the Rec Center – a large wood fire was lit, a color guard marched the flag in, Gen. Hal Strack (USA ret.) played "Taps" on the bugle, and the flag was burned while all saluted until it was gone. A similar ceremony gave those present who had brought flags an opportunity to retire them as well. A great, moving ceremony that should be an annual event – thanks to all concerned for reminding us of what Independence Day is really about.

Lastly, the regular reader of this column will know that I am one of TOCCATA's biggest fans. By the time this comes out, you will have missed the opportunity, but I have to tell you that in this year's celebration concert they outdid themselves. Maestro James Rawie and his very capable partner Nancy have an uncanny gift for attracting world-class talent. In this show, in addition to a somewhat smaller Tahoe Symphony (they were competing with the Reno Phil for musicians this weekend) and the TOCCATA Chorus, local soprano Joy Strotz and her sister, a Broadway performer Melody Moore (with their mother on harp with the orchestra) performed songs from Wicked, nationally-known (but Tahoe-based) musician Donna Axton did a performance of Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue that was as good as or better than any I have ever heard, and the whole program was up to that standard. If you are not a fan and supporter of TOCCATA you are missing the opportunity to participate in something that makes living here truly special.

Next week it's back to politics, but for this week, it's just great to live in a small town that knows how to celebrate.

Bonanza Column 191 – Not just Independence – Human Rights

2010-06-26T09:59:00.001-07:00

The Auto-Summarize tool on Microsoft Word is pretty good at getting the gist of a document and distilling it down. Just for fun, I asked it to summarize the Declaration of Independence in 100 words or less, and this is what it gave back:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Pretty interesting – asked for 100 words, it came back with 20. Asked for 500 words or less, it included the above and the rest was related to declaring "that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES: that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."

When we think of the Declaration we tend to think of the declaration of human equality – "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These are the rights referred to in the first summary, and given that the writers of the Declaration held "these truths to be self-evident" they didn't devote a great deal of discussion to the rights themselves, but to the role of government in securing these rights and the failures of the British Crown to have done so.

It was to that model of government that the signers pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, and for which many of them did indeed pay with their lives and their fortunes – their honor remained intact.

We forget that while the American Revolution was basically about the rights, it was really about the duty of government to secure these rights. The signers recognized that, while the rights might be a self-evident endowment, people living in society needed assistance in securing them. Today we recognize that the reasons for this need are rooted in both our physical and social evolution over hundreds of thousands of years – the signers knew from their study of history and human nature that while the rights may be inalienable, the strong, the rich, and the privileged could and would use force to alienate others from those rights unless there were agencies to hold them in check. Hence government.

There are those today who, while claiming the mantle of the Founding Fathers would have us believe that the best government is no government at all. Not only does this go counter to the exact reasons the country was founded, it goes against the wisdom of the Founders whose legacy they are trying to usurp.

It's crucial that we remember that Independence Day is more than a celebration of an historic event, the signing of the Declaration of Independence. That document was an unprecedented historical event. Prior to its publication, conventional wisdom held that kings had rights, nobles had rights (though fewer than kings), popes had rights, priests had rights (ditto for popes) but "all men are created equal?" Unheard of! Serfs and vassals had no rights. Commoners had few if any, and merchants' rights were in proportion to their wealth, but universal rights were unknown. It is that statement that is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence – the Independence part followed naturally from the connection between inalienable rights and the proper function of government – these made a break with England necessary and set the stage for the formation of the world's first democratic republic with the adoption of the Constitution in 1789.

From a 2010 perspective, it may be that the event of independence, the Revolutionary War, Continental Congress, etc. are secondary to the creation of a new possibility – the possibility of human rights. The United States more than any other country in the world has spent the past 234 years making that possibility into a reality – in 1776 the ideal of universal rights did not include non-whites such as Native Americans and African-Americans, it did not include women, and did not include even white males who did not own property. Over the next two-plus centuries we have kept living into the ideal and running up against those who would redefine "all [people] are created equal] as "but some are more equal than others. The good news is we keep defeating them. So it has been, so may it ever be. Have a great Independence Day.

Bonanza Column 190 – TRPA and the Gulf

2010-06-21T11:56:00.001-07:00

What does the Gulf oil disaster mean to us here at Lake Tahoe? In a sense that may seem somewhat abstract, it affects everyone in the world – the destruction of human, animal, and plant life and the prospect of a long recovery with concomitant economic effects will reach to everyone in the US, and really in the world. It also once again brings home the disastrous consequences of our national addiction to oil and fossil fuels, and that will affect us here as well.

But I want to consider it in a less abstract sense. On the one hand, we don't drill for oil in the lake, so the likelihood of a sudden destruction of the lake and the shoreline is negligible. On the other hand, there may be lessons to be learned from the Gulf that are very relevant to the Tahoe Basin.

We know that the Lake is losing clarity. Contributors to this include runoff of various materials from the land as well as non-native vegetable and animal species that have found their way into the Lake by various means. It is extremely unlikely that, once these species are in the water, we will ever get them out – the best we can do is manage them so that they don't get worse. We can do and are doing something about runoff, and there is evidence that the rate of decline of the Lake's clarity is decreasing.

Still, it is not outside the realm of possibility that we will fail – that the Lake will lose its clarity and the non-native species will spread and take over and the character of the Lake will change dramatically if not in our lifetime, then in our children's lifetimes, and that the impact of such a decline would not be much less impactful than the disaster in the Gulf.

The one thing we have that the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico don't have is an interstate compact that established an agency to be accountable for the clarity of the Lake and the scenic beauty of the Basin. That agency is, of course, TRPA.

In the famous old saw, a camel is what you would get if a horse were designed by a committee, and for much of its 40-year history, TRPA has functioned like that metaphorical camel. Overseen by a Board of Governors many of whom do not live anywhere near the Basin, and many of whom have seemed to see their job as to protect the interest of their state against the other state, sometimes at the expense of their mission, the Agency has seemed at times (to use another old metaphor) like a librarian who thinks his job is to keep books on the shelves.

Others, including commercial interests, environmental organizations, and self-styled protectors of the Lake, have opposed TRPA, some saying the Agency doesn't do enough, some that it does too much, and all informed by agendas that have less to do with balancing nature's needs with human interests than with what would benefit them. A combination of PR from these narrow interests and the Agency's history of often ensnarling projects in red tape has given residents of the Basin a view of TRPA that is jaundiced at best.

Beginning with John Singlaub's appointment as Executive Director in 2004, and continuing or even accelerating with Joanne Marchetta's succeeding John last year, TRPA has been working hard not just to change its image, but to be more effective in its mission of balancing the "triple bottom line" – people, environment, and business. It's said that a reputation takes years to be established and can be destroyed in a minute. I think it's equally true that a bad reputation can be established in a minute and can take years to be changed. Because of this it's too easy for those individuals and groups who are reflexively opposed to TRPA in pursuit of their own agenda to rally public support for their views, even when those views are wrong or are supported by inaccurate data. TRPA is too often "guilty until proven innocent."

If Florida, Louisiana, et al., had had an agency like TRPA it's possible that the current disaster could have been averted. Maybe it's time we appreciated what we have in TRPA and gave the Agency's new direction a chance.

Bonanza Column 189 – The November Elections

2010-06-13T18:03:00.001-07:00

Well, the primaries are over and the threat of no seaplane landings on the lake has been repelled, so now we can get down to the serious business of summer, which may have, however tentatively, arrived. Schools are out, the tourists are arriving, and Independence Day is on the horizon.

Still, though, it is an election year, one that is shaping up in an interesting way. The media wisdom about anti-incumbent rage mostly did not pan out in the primaries, though we won't have Jim Gibbons to kick around anymore. Who we will have is, of course, still up for grabs between Brian. Sandoval, and Rory Reid who is, at least for us in Northern Nevada, not exactly a household name. While I am constitutionally inclined to support Reid, I've been impressed with Sandoval when he was Attorney General and that he gave up a lifetime appointment to the Federal Bench to run for Governor is a strong statement, though what that statement is remains to be seen.

More interesting to me is the race for the U.S. Senate. I've said it before and I will continue to say it, Nevada would have to be crazy to trade the most senior position in the Senate for electing what will be one of the most junior Senators in that body. Wherever you stand on Harry Reid's national leadership, there is not denying the facts that he has brought jobs to the state, been proactive on behalf of our senior population, and held Yucca Mountain at bay. If you don't like Reid, put your dislike on hold for as long as it takes to review his actual accomplishments, then see if you want to give up that level of influence for our state.

Then look who you'd be giving it up to get. I can't imagine the Reid campaign would have been unhappy had Sue (chickens for doctors) Lowden had won the primary, but they've got to be ecstatic about Sharron Angle. While she is the darling of the tea party crowd, even if you are a tea partier again set that aside for a few minutes and look at what (besides cutting taxes, which she'll hardly be in a position to do) Ms Angle has publicly advocated – from making alcohol illegal to cutting Social Security, to less (yes, less!) regulation for the banks and oil companies that have been running rampant over the economy and the environment.

Finally, I agree with Jim Clark that it's time for a change in the Washoe County District Attorney's office, though at the end of the day we will probably disagree about who to replace him with, DA Gammick seems to think his job is to stall and obfuscate rather than to execute on the court's decisions in the matter if Incline's tax overpayments. It strikes me as very strange that the chief legal officer of the County seems to think it is his job to use legal chicanery to subvert what the courts, through due process, have found to be the appropriate legal action.

Lord Acton famously said "power corrupts," and for the most part we think of this as moral corruption. Officials of the Minerals Management Service cavorting with oil company executives comes to mind as an example. But there is another, more pernicious form of corruption that occurs when highly placed officials forget who they work for. When corporate executives put profits ahead of the public good (think BP) or when an elected official like Gammick thinks it is his job to protect the county's coffers rather than execute the office to which he was elected, it seems to me that that is as corrupt as any of the other actions.

The question to be asked of the candidates for DA in November election is "do you intend to execute the courts' orders with regard to refunding tax overpayments from IV/CB?"If you are not satisfied with Gammick's response, I recommend to your attention Roger Whomes – he has stated that he is on our side, so let's give him a chance to prove it;

Bonanza Column 188 – Trotsky Was Killed with an Ice Axe

2010-06-07T13:33:00.001-07:00

I knew a guy who, back in the '60's used to sell encyclopedias door to door (remember door to door salespeople?). All the salesmen would get together about once a week to play poker, and among them was a guy named Fred, who was a Communist, and not just a Communist, but a Trotskyite, and Trotskyite Communism was about all Fred talked about. Consequently, particularly during poker games, Fred was pretty quiet, because while he knew a lot about his favorite subject, it's pretty hard to work into the conversation at a poker game.

Well, at one of these poker games, the talk turned to people's upcoming vacations, and one of the fellows mentioned he was going camping. As will happen in idle conversation, there ensued a kind of free association, that brought the talk around to winter camping, and from there to the equipment you need for winter camping, and one of the guys mentioned that the most important thing to bring for winter camping was an ice axe. At which point, Fred joined in the conversation, saying "and Trotsky was killed with an ice axe!"
My point is that when you have a particular point of view, you can find a way to use almost anything to bring it up. For example, on the Bonanza's web site this week, the crime log is headlined "Latest Incline crime log includes man cited for stealing a salad." Now anyone who's read this newspaper for any amount of time knows that the Crime Log includes a heavy dose of whimsy – for years now, rather than just listing the crime report, the paper has included some humor – not at the expense of reporting serious crimes, but as a way of lightening it up a bit with what I would call some small-town flavor.

So in this week's report, at the very bottom, after some straightforward reports of some serious incidents, there was the eponymous story of a fellow who had stolen a salad from a convenience store. This is where some of our local "Freds" come in. One commenter on the Bonanza's site cited this headline as proof that the Bonanza doesn't know what journalism is about. Another, in a stretch worthy of Plastic Man (remember Plastic Man?) tied this to the Bonanza's supposed endorsement of IB (though there has been no such endorsement).

Well, it just goes to show you that no attempt at a good deed goes unpunished. The Bonanza tries to retain a "local" flavor and to represent all sides of living here in what Joe Tahoe used to call Tilted Village. Jean Eick does a yeoman's (yeoperson's? yeowoman's?) job of reporting on the community-minded activities and social life of the village, Mac Avoy Layne, the ghost of Mark Twain contributes his unique take on events, Jim Clark and I try to present some aspects of political life here, and the news reporters focus on local events of moment. The Crime Log is kind of like the listing of births at the local hospital that my home-town paper ran every day – just a way of keeping people up on what's happening.

C'mon, Fred(s), lighten up. Serious crime and incidents get covered in the news – arrests, indictments, convictions, ranging from assault to murder, from embezzlement to fraud. You don't have to like it, and I don't know anyone who likes 100% of it, and lest you consider this self-serving, I write a volunteer column here – I have nothing to do with the rest of the paper except to read it as you do, but I think that overall, given the economic and political realities in which they have to work, the folks at the Bonanza do a pretty fair job, including giving the "Freds" among us ample opportunity to swing their particular hammer at anything vaguely resembling what they consider a nail.

Bonanza Column 187 (rev.) – The Technicality Generation

2010-06-01T11:26:00.001-07:00

Dear Readers: It turns out that my original Bonanza column posted 5/31, violated the Paper's policy of not publishing direct attacks on candidates within a couple weeks of the election, so I've had to write a new one. I'll re-post my column on Dick Gammick after the primary, assuming he is voted the GOP candidate for Washoe County DA. So you get a bonus column this week. Thanks for reading.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator from South Dakota, made a convincing case for the idea that people around his and my age, who were draft-eligible during the Vietnam War, created what he called "The Technicality Generation." In the article, he explained that, for many of us, we avoided being called up using technicalities in the law (student deferments, faked physical or psychiatric disabilities, etc.) while cloaking our aversion to serving in a pretense of idealism – being morally against that war or all wars. He contrasts this with people who (like himself) opposed the war but served when called and others who opposed the war and either left the country or maintained Conscientious Objector status.

Pressler's point is not really about what anyone did or didn't do then – it's actually more important than that. Psychologists have long been aware of the phenomenon called cognitive dissonance – the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas. Studies of this phenomenon since the 1950's have concluded that people are driven to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, so that the two ideas come into harmony with each other (think Aesop's fable of the fox and the "sour grapes"). In the Vietnam Draft case, if a person holds himself to be a moral human being and at the same time knows he used the law to avoid serving (and as a result someone who was less equipped to use the law served in his stead), he will have to find a way to justify or rationalize his behavior. Pressler says, and I agree, that many people used the "letter of the law" as this justification. Technically
they did nothing wrong, so their view of themselves as moral is undisturbed.

As Pressler points out, many of these people, who evaded service while falsely claiming idealism are now leaders in government and elite institutions, and, he goes on, "the concept of using legal technicalities to evade responsibility has been carried over to playing with derivatives, or to short-changing shareholders. Once my generation got in the habit of saying one thing and believing another, it couldn't stop."

As an aside, I want to be clear that neither Pressler nor I are painting all those who did not serve as hypocrites, but in his experience as in mine, there were plenty of our classmates who espoused idealism in public but who, in private, would unself-consciously admit that they did not want to take the time from their academic or career development or just plain did not want to go in harm's way. Eventually they began to believe their own hypocrisy and many came to believe that their "idealism" made them superior to those who did serve, and it is that resolution that is what Pressler refers to as "a deeply insidious thing" that too many in our generation did and got away with.

So we have the current spectacle of BP, Halliburton, et al. hiding behind the letter of the law and evading responsibility, and locally we have Washoe County manipulating the legal system to avoid refunding what court after court have ruled were over-collections of taxes here in Incline, environmental groups trying to block legitimate improvement projects, and on and on.

It's time to put a stop to the antics of "the technicality generation." The Western tradition of the rule of law has always made clear the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law, going back to King Solomon's demonstration ("cut the baby in half") of the difference and before. Laws and regulations are a means to an end, not an end in themselves – they are there to ensure equality and "liberty and justice for all." Einstein said that "all means are but a blunt instrument unless they are infused with a living spirit." The letter of the law taken by itself is indeed blunt and, one might add, cold. When the law is infused with the living spirit of compassion, justice, and equality –t he values we will celebrate on Independence Day when we celebrate the founding of this great experiment in democracy, it can prevent the kind of disasters we have seen over the past ten years of so. If we continue to be "technically correct" without being morally centered as well, I can't help but recall with dread the old proverb: If we don't change our direction, we're liable to get where we're headed.

Bonanza Column 187 – The Washoe County DA

2010-05-31T12:27:00.001-07:00

This column began some years ago as a point-counterpoint between Jim Clark and me, representing the right and left, respectively. We quickly discovered, however, that while Jim and I may disagree on political issues on the State and National level, more often than not we are pretty close on local matters.
In his column last week, Jim asserted that it's time for a change in the Washoe County District Attorney's office, and on this one I couldn't agree with him more, though at the end of the day we will probably disagree about who to replace him with, Jim and I are of one mind that Dick Gammick should go. (Though by the way, Jim, it's the Black Knight in Monty Python who keeps getting limbs hacked off and keeps on coming, proclaiming "I'm alright!" The French Knight stays in the castle and hurls first imprecations ("Your parents were silly people" and then a cow.)
Despite Jim's weak knowledge of the Monty Python canon, he's quite right about DA Gammick, who seems to think his job is to stall and obfuscate rather than to execute on the court's decision, no matter how many times the various courts tell him he must. It strikes me as very strange that the chief legal officer of the County seems to think it is his job to use legal chicanery to subvert what the courts, through due process, have found to be the appropriate legal action.
Lord Acton famously said "power corrupts," and for the most part we think of this as moral corruption. Officials of the Minerals Management Service cavorting with oil company executives comes to mind as an example. But there is another, more pernicious form of corruption that occurs when highly placed officials forget who they work for. When corporate executives put profits ahead of the public good (think BP) or when an elected official like Gammick thinks it is his job to protect the county's coffers rather than execute the office to which he was elected, it seems to me that that is as corrupt as any of the other actions.
It's time for the courts to put an end to this foolishness and dismiss these transparent attempts to stall the process. I know the County will take a financial hit from having to provide the refunds, but we in Incline, to whom the refunds are due, have absorbed our own financial hit for years as the County Assessor systematically milked the supposed Incline cash cow for the County's benefit. It's also time for the County to recognize that, like the explorer who was captured by cannibals and bled for their ceremonies, we are tired of getting stuck for the drinks. If you look at the rate of short sales and foreclosures in IV/CB, at the number of properties for sale, at the growing vacancies of commercial space, we are at least as hard-hit by the economic turmoil as the rest of the County, and while I for one don't mind paying my fair share, if I'm going to do more than that, I'd like it to be by my choice.
I sincerely hope that DA Gammick will be defeated in the primary next week. Either way, the question to be asked of candidates for the November election is "do you intend to execute the courts' orders with regard to refunding tax overpayments from IV/CB?" Hopefully we will have two good candidates to whom we can direct this question. If, however, one of the candidates is Dick Gammick, I recommend to your attention Roger Whomes – he has stated that he is on our side, so let's give him a chance to prove it;

Huffington Post Column 19 – What Will We Learn from the Gulf Oil Spill?

2010-05-28T11:55:00.001-07:00

The tragedy of the Gulf oil spill has, predictably, raised cries from environmentalists to end offshore drilling once and for all, with corresponding escalation of "drill, baby, drill" from those who would oppose motherhood if environmentalists came out for it.

I'm no fan of offshore drilling – or of oil as our primary energy source. Experiences prior to the Gulf such as Santa Barbara, the Exxon Valdez, etc., make it clear to me that as long as we are dependent on oil, foreign or domestic, there will inevitably be environmental damage.

Most endeavors entail an element of risk, no matter how well they are managed. Despite that, after the Challenger disaster in 1986, NASA instituted a "Zero Defect" program and maintained a flawless safety record until relaxed vigilance led to the Columbia's destruction in 2003. Still, 17 years is an impressive run, by and large. By contrast, the Mariner Group documented a history of some 120 oil spills worldwide between 1967 and 2004 and about a billion gallons spilled since 2000. It's hard to assess these data without comparing it to the total amount of offshore drilling, but the raw amount spilled and number of spills seems undeniably consequential. That combined with the geopolitical results of our dependency on foreign oil is sufficient to persuade me that we need to accelerate our research into alternative energy sources.

But evidence is mounting that the BP Deepwater Horizon spill may have been the result of negligence and corner-cutting both by BP and by some government agencies, and if that is the case, it takes it out of the realm of accidents and into that of criminal liability. While it will take some time for a full investigation, and current priority is rightly on stopping the undersea gusher, the presumptive evidence is mounting. Whistle blowers are coming forward who suggest that BP knew of potential problems and ignored them, up to just before the blowout. BP's estimate of the damage have been consistently well below those of government and independent assessors, and a pattern of buck-passing is already well under way.

If, as seems likely, it is the case that BP was negligent and/or attempted to cover up or dodge their accountability, it seems to me that several actions are called for: First, Congress should immediately rescind the cap on liability judgments – if BP turns out not to have been negligent or is not liable, this will do no harm, but if they are, it is a necessary protection for families in the Gulf who have lost income, property, and even lives to the spill and its aftermath . Second, the Federal Government should vigorously pursue criminal charges against all concerned, and should demonstrate once and for all that it is no longer in thrall to Halliburton, big oil, or anyone else. Finally, the administration should vigorously clean its own house, particularly in the Department of the Interior, particularly the corruption in the Minerals Management Service.

Most importantly, though, we must derive from this colossal failure lessons learned and put into action that are commensurate with the loss of life, property, and environmental security. We have available numerous alternative sources of energy that, while none of them is perfect, are cleaner and safer than fossil fuels. Wind, solar, and even nuclear (to the horror of my environmentalist friends) seem preferable to me and would free us of the political and environmental difficulties inherent in what the former President termed our "addiction to oil," an addiction that is fueled by big oil and its ability to corrupt elected officials and government agencies.

Bonanza Column 186 – Memorial Day 2010

2010-05-22T16:18:00.001-07:00

When I was a kid, growing up in the Adirondacks, it was called Decoration Day and in addition to a parade and a day with no school, it was observed by decorating the graves of war dead with flowers. In our town, the war dead went back to the Revolution, and included a number of graves of Civil War veterans, World War One soldiers, and most poignantly in those days when we could still remember it and we knew people who fought and some who died in World War Two, that recent war as well.

In 1967 it was officially renamed Memorial Day and moved from the traditional May 30 to the last Monday in May, but it remains what it was – a time for a nation that has not fought a war on its home soil since 1865 – and so could easily distance itself from the wars it has and does fight – to pause and remember those who fought and died to give us that luxury.

Patriotism, support for the military, and honoring the dead and missing has, sadly, become a partisan issue in recent years. One side stakes a proprietary claim to these virtues and the other has become accustomed to being on the defensive about it. That's both a shame and a sham. No ideology, neither end of the avian spectrum from hawks to doves has the rights to love of country or to appreciation of the sacrifices our military people, past, present, and future make. A person can hate war in general or any given war in particular, but that's about war and conflict as a means of resolving differences, not about love of country and certainly not in any way related to how they feel about the people who, voluntarily or by conscription, fight the wars that are waged.

In our community we have a very active group of veterans that spans the eras from WW 2 to Afghanistan – men and women who served in peace and in war and who continue to serve by looking after each other and veterans who are less fortunate than they are. We also have a local firm that makes it their business each Memorial Day to see to it that there is a community observance to honor veterans and remember the fallen and missing. This year that community observance will be combined with a celebration of the anniversary of our community's founding, making an entire day of activity on Saturday, followed by the veteran's association holding a dinner.

In front of the high school in my home town there was a statue of a World War One doughboy, weary, exhausted. Engraved on the base of the statue were the words "Lest We Forget," and at the cemetery each Memorial Day someone would read the most famous of the Poems that came out of that war, John MacRae's "In Flanders Fields." I always recall the closing lines of that poem: "If ye break faith with us who die/We shall not sleep, though poppies grow/In Flanders fields."

I for one would like to see a return to Memorial Day being more than simply the "official beginning of Summer" – to its being the holiday when we remember MacRae's admonition and Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, "that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Huffington Post Column 18 - To the Tea Party - It's Not Your Country

2010-05-20T17:32:00.001-07:00

In the late 1950's I attended and then worked at a Jewish camp in the Delaware Water Gap area where New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey come together. Near the camp was a town that, we were told, was the headquarters (national or local I'm not sure) of the German-American Bund, a pro-Nazi organization, during the war. In that town was a hotel that explicitly refused to serve Jews and with which we made great sport of going to and getting thrown out of.

That was, as I said, in the late '50's. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act became law in the United States, and what was legal in 1958 became illegal. Like it or not, that hotel would serve Jews, African-Americans, and anyone else that came through its doors, and, I believe, the US became a better place for that.

All of this came up for me as I watched Rachel Maddow interview Rand Paul after his primary victory in Kentucky (see the interview here). In what may have been one of the best TV interviews ever, Rachel, for 15 minutes, without interrupting or being rude, without raising her voice or being in any way unpleasant, asked one question: "Do you believe stores and restaurants should be allowed to deny service based on race, gender, sexual preference, etc.?" She asked it in as many different ways she could, and tried to get an answer from Dr. Paul who bobbed and weaved in an equal number of ways, doing anything he could other than answering the question yes or no.

I don't know much about Rand Paul. He's a physician and is the son of Libertarian Ron Paul. He ran in the Kentucky GOP primary to run for Sen. Jim Bunning's seat, and won the primary by 23% over his closest opponent, running as a "Tea Party" candidate. He began his acceptance speech after the primary victory by saying "I have a message from the Tea Party – we've come to take our country back," leavin very little doubt as to where he stands and whom he represents. In fact, he mentioned the Tea Party nine times and Kentucky only once in his four-minute speech.

So I don't think it's a leap to go from Paul's evasiveness on the subject of discrimination in public accommodations to the Tea Party's being populated overwhelmingly by white people, to a concern for a return to the bad old days that had Rebers Hotel refuse service to me and my fellow counselors.

It would be way too ironic if the election of an African-American President is the stimulus for undoing fifty years of progress in Civil Rights, but I really can't account for the sudden and virulent resurgence of the Radical Right any other way. Granted, best estimates of the Tea Party's membership puts it at between 15 and 20% of the electorate at most, and even Mitch McConnell, no mean rightie in his own right, opposed Paul's nomination, and mainstream Republicans (whatever that means) like Michael Steele and Karl Rove (did I just say Karl Rove is mainstream?) haven't rushed to defend him. Still, I find it worrisome.

The bottom line is I don't buy that the country is theirs to take back, unless by "take back" they mean back to the days of the Bund and the KKK. That's not the country that my parents emigrated to in the 1920's, and it's not the country I grew up to believe in, even growing up in those same bad old days. We have a teacher teaching geometry using angles for assassinating the President as his case in point, we have the President being burned in effigy in Wisconsin, but I refuse to believe that this is any more powerful a lunatic fringe than was the Bund in its effort to vilify FDR ("President Rosenfeld") and to get the US to either stay out of the war in Europe or to enter it on the Nazi's side.

I have a message for Rand Paul and the Tea Party: "It's not your country, and we, the true heirs of Jefferson and Lincoln, aren't giving it up." November is the election that counts, and we need to make it a clear statement to the bullies on the Right that they are not in charge.

Bonanza Column 185 – Trustees, not Representatives

2010-05-16T16:19:00.001-07:00

Before I get to this week's subject, a personal note. Very often when I'm out and about in the community, people will tell me that they like my columns, or even that while they don't always agree with me, they appreciate the way I approach my topics. On the other hand, there are people who post on the Bonanza website and are just insulting – my favorite is the person who said "no one cares what you think, Ed" (well, you did – enough to read and comment). Sometimes people will say I don't have my facts straight – when they correct something I got wrong, I appreciate it, but mostly they just make the accusation, which suggests to me that (a) they don't like the facts I cite or (b) they don't know the difference between facts and interpretations. In any case, thanks to all of you who read thoughtfully. For the others, be assured, I'm not going anywhere. Live with it.

Now to business: With the primary and the election coming up, it seems worthwhile to me to review some things about the IVGID Board of Trustees.

First of all, there's that term "Trustees." A trustee is "a … person to whom property is legally committed to be administered for the benefit of a beneficiary." There's something important to notice there – a trustee administers on behalf of the beneficiary. They don't represent the beneficiary and they're not accountable to the beneficiary. The IVGID Board is charged with administering the assets of the District, but they're not our representatives. – we get to elect them every two years, and so if we don't feel they're operating for our benefit, we can replace them, and as public officials they are required to give us the opportunity to be heard on issues we're concerned about, but if, in the last analysis, they decide that what is going to benefit the District has them act contrary to what some or many people want, they not only have the right to do that, but they have a legal obligation to do that.

A representative, for example in Congress, on the other hand is supposed to do just that – represent the views of his or her constituents. We can't all be there to vote on the laws, so we elect someone to represent us. Since this is a democratic republic, the majority rules, and so it's not unreasonable for a congressperson to represent the majority view in his or her district, perhaps to the detriment of the minority. That's pretty much what democracy is about – the rule of the majority, with the courts there to watch to protect the rights of the minority if the representatives go against the founding principles of the republic.

So what we are electing in November is Trustees, not Representatives. Years ago, the people who then lived in the area decided that a GID was the form of government they wanted, and instituted it. Since then many people living here have tried to change that to a different form of government – a town, a county – that would expand the purview of the governing body beyond water, sewer, trash, and recreation and would provide for a governing body that would be more accountable as representatives, but so far that hasn't gone anywhere.

So when we judge an incumbent like Gene Brockman or any of the aspirant candidates, we should judge Gene's record and the statements and proposals of all of the candidates based on what the job is – to hold our community assets in trust and to be good stewards – to administer them for our benefit. One measure of stewardship is that a good steward leaves the assets entrusted to him or her more valuable than they were when the steward took office. When I hear about so-called "financial conservatism" that sounds a lot like "don't spend any money," I wonder if that will leave the community's assets more valuable. When I look at the Trustees spending money to fight lawsuits that would devalue our beaches, I see them doing their job.

Last week's Bonanza's "Word on the Street" asked "Does the IVGID Board Represent you?" With all due respect to my colleagues, I think this was the wrong question – I would have asked "Does the IVGID Board Do a Good Job of Caring for the Community's Assets?" That's the question. Now, on June 8 and in November, let's answer that question the only way that matters – at the ballot box.

Bonanza Column 184 – IVGID Candidates and a Quick Note on the Governor

2010-05-08T15:16:00.001-07:00

Last Monday's IVGID Candidate Forum sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce and the Bonanza was, overall, very informative and well done. Most of the six candidates (the June 8 primary will eliminate two) for the two open seats were thoughtful and conducted themselves well, keeping to the issues and the questions put to them and refraining from attacking each other.

Some themes emerged from the questions and answers. One obvious concern was finances – IVGID has an aging infrastructure that will cost money to repair, and this raises concerns and questions about where the money is going to come from, etc.

It was clear that most of the candidates had done their homework and they were able to answer some complex questions pretty cogently. Because questions were formulated in advance, mostly by Bonanza readers with some by Bonanza staff, many addressed candidates' previous statements and positions, and here in some cases the candidates acquitted themselves less well. Particularly this early in the game I don't expect candidates to be thoroughly versed in the minutiae of the IVGID budget etc., but if a candidate has made it a plank in their platform to improve something, I think it's reasonable to expect them to provide some specifics on how they will do that, and in this some of the candidates' answers were woefully insufficient.

There was one trend I found disturbing on a couple of levels. It's one thing, and I think it's fair game, to run against the record of the current Board of Trustees – to cite, for example, some instances where you think they have spent money unwisely and to say how you would have handled it. I don't think, however, that it's fair or wise to run against the IVGID staff. It's easy to criticize, but the staff works under the Board's direction. In my experience the IVGID staff are to a person hard-working, dedicated, and competent, and where the candidates are concerned the staff are not in a position to defend themselves. More importantly, candidates, if you are elected you will be working with this staff – are you sure you want to start off in an antagonistic relationship with them?

Some minor fuss has been made of one candidate's mention of the General Manager's salary and the budget item for IVGID to provide the GM with a vehicle every few years. Again, if you want to get people's attention, it's easy to do that by talking about money, but both items are, in my view, specious. The GM makes as much as the Governor of Nevada – so what? He also makes orders of magnitude less than officers in the private sector who manage smaller organizations and smaller budgets and who have a lot fewer resource constraints. Of what possible relevance is the comparison to the Governor. A company car is not at all unusual as a benefit for someone whose job is 24/7 and takes him all over the district. Most companies and agencies consider it more economical than trying to figure out how to reimburse such an official for use of his private vehicle.

The point, candidates, is this: tell us what you're for, not what you're against. Offer solutions, not criticism or problems. If there are areas you think you can make work better for us, the residents whose assets you propose to hold in trust, tell us how, and be specific. Don't get sucked into the temptation to just criticize and complain – we have enough of that around this community; let's hear how you'll make it better.

●●●

On another quick note, Governor Dim Gibbons seems to have stepped in it again. He took an answer that his opponent, Brian Sandoval, gave to an inane interview question some years ago, took it out of context, and is trying to use it to label Sandoval an anti-Semite. I guess the guv's getting desperate. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Gibbons as the GOP candidate – I'm a Rory Reid supporter – but really, Sandoval is very good and would be a better governor than Gibbons has been on his best day, and he doesn't deserve this level of mud-slinging.

HuffPo Column 17 – Who’s the Bigger Threat: Shahzad or McCain and Lieberman?

2010-05-05T11:31:00.001-07:00

After 9/11 we heard from a great many public figures that if we changed our way of life, if we allowed that incident to cause us to live in fear, "the terrorists will have won." Now almost ten years later, it seems that, in the minds of many on the right, the terrorists have, by that definition, won.

In the wake of the failed Times Square car bomb, we have heard from John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and many others on the right that Faisal Shahzad should not have been given his Miranda rights, that he should be tried by a military tribunal, that the FBI and NYPD should have deferred to the intelligence community in the investigation, etc. Given the apparent lag between his being put on the no-fly list and his boarding the airplane at JFK, we can expect to hear more justification for profiling, etc.

Let's assume, as seems very likely, that Faisal Shahzad did all the things he is accused of having done – and let's assume that he did so with training and some sort of support from terrorist groups in Pakistan or Afghanistan. He is an American citizen and the US Constitution guarantees to anyone accused of a crime in the United States, regardless of citizenship, the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, etc. What McCain, Lieberman, and the others are saying, in effect, is "damn the Constitution; when we are in danger, all that goes by the boards." If we buy that, then the terrorists will, indeed have won.

Bear in mind that this is not your father's war. In the World Wars, in Korea, even in Vietnam, the issue was occupation of territory. World domination would go to whichever power occupied (and therefore ruled) the largest area of the world. The goal of the so-called Islamic Fundamentalists (and any serious student of Islam will tell you they are neither) is not primarily to occupy territory, it is to destroy any way of life, any view of the world that is not in accord with theirs. They want to destroy the State of Israel not so they can occupy that sliver of land, but to strike a blow to the heart of Judaism. They have no designs on occupying the United States – they want to undermine the Western way of life – freedom, equality, democracy – and they believe that if they can fatally wound those principles in the US, the rest of the West will fall with us.

Given that, those on the Right who call for dealing with Shahzad, the underwear bomber, and others by extra-constitutional means are playing right into their hands, Guantanamo, waterboarding and other "extraordinary methods," rendition, all work perfectly for the terrorists. If I were Osama bin Laden I would not see the Times Square bomb as a failure – sure, if it went off, thousands of people would have been killed and damage would have been done; maybe Shahzad would even have got away; but none of that would do the damage to America that would be done if we listen to the chicken hawks on the Right and abrogate the Constitution.

The United States Constitution is the charter document of democracy in America and a model of what is possible for the world. Notwithstanding the places where we fall short of its ideals and principles – notwithstanding Arizona, Goldman Sachs, the Tea Parties, and the lunatic fringes on the Right and the Left, it is what makes us who we are, and we go outside the boundaries of that charter at our peril.

So who is the bigger threat to the American way of life? An inept 30-year old loser who could barely find his ass with both hands if you spotted him a cheek or two US Senators who rose to be candidates for President and Vice President of the United States who publicly call for disregarding the Constitution?

Bonanza Column 183 – STAR Follies!

2010-05-02T16:38:00.001-07:00

I go to Star Follies every year to support our schools and to enjoy it – I never intend to write about it and every year I do because I can't not. It is just about the best thing that this community has to offer.

Over the past couple of months I've spent two weeks in New York at a program for business executives that has as its purpose nothing less than a complete reinvention of who its (already very successful) participants are being in the world. The methodology used is not new to me – I've been working with it in one form or another for about 30 years. What is different is that the methodology of personal transformation is combined with that of the theater. The designer of the program has a long and successful background as an acting coach, and she has brought together some of the finest acting coaches and actors around – people you would know if you watch TV.

In that program I watched as executives who have never had a thought of being on stage took on an assigned project – a song or reading – that they were to perform, with coaching, at the level of a Broadway performance, and I saw them do it – the last evening of the program was in a theater and they performed – brilliantly and movingly. I performed myself and it was a life-changing experience.

So when I went to the Follies this year I watched the performances through the eyes of one who knows what it takes to get up on stage and get way far outside your comfort zone, and I was just knocked out. My purpose here is not to review the Follies – I'm not a critic or a reviewer, and there's no point anyhow. Unlike a Broadway performance, this one is new – new material, new cast, new everything every year. But as someone whose first love was acting and directing, I can't let something as remarkable as this go without comment.

I want to appreciate the great work by everyone involved. Sure, you could say, they lip-sync. But let me tell you from personal experience, if you're not a natural dancer, choreography is much harder than singing or acting, and these folks were step-perfect as well as great in their acting and their lip-syncing. No surprise that the biggest group behind the scenes is the Choreographers.

And the kids. My oh my, the kids – from 5^th grade through high school they were amazing. Please – don't talk to me about sullen, withdrawn teenagers. These kids were OUT THERE!!!! And the adults – teachers, principals, professionals, you name it. I won't single anyone out by name – it would be unfair to the others – but I'll make one exception. Gene Brockman was born to play Officer Krupke!

The folks who make the Follies happen – Producer Ron Stichter, Director Don Hertel, and particularly Assistant Director Kathie Goldberg who makes it all work, and the Board of Directors, the Crew, the school liaisons, and all the volunteers, thank you. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Linda Offerdahl – the costumes were funny, topical and above all professional-grade.

I don't often claim to speak for others, but in this I'm confident that I am speaking for our whole community when I say Thank You, from the bottom of our hearts not only to this year's cast and crew, but to everyone who, for the past 11 years has taken part in this great event.. You give us hope, joy, and peace in our town, at least for a couple of nights, and you contribute to our kids – our future – immeasurably.

If you haven't gone to Star Follies, mark your calendar now for next year, and if you want to have a life-changing experience of going beyond what you think you can do, sign up to perform. You'll love it.

Bonanza Column 182 – The New Crime in Arizona - WWH

2010-04-26T14:58:00.001-07:00

One of the great paradoxes of America is that the country as we know it is completely the product of immigrants and the descendents of immigrants. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, the National Anthem (and we could go on and on) were all conceived and written by immigrants or their descendents. Every single president and an overwhelming majority of legislators at the national, state, and local level were immigrants or descendents of immigrants Add to the list almost everything we can call "American Culture," whether that is regional or national, all our national treasures with the exception of the Statue of Liberty, our most treasured music and literature.

Early immigrants and their immediate descendents worked systematically to create an America that started in the 16^th Century, disconnected from anything that might have been here before European colonists arrived. Very little of Native American culture survives except for a few pockets, most notably in Alaska and Hawai'i, but unless you are 100% Native American in your family history, your people came here from somewhere – long ago or recently, but you are a descendent of immigrants.

The paradox comes when these same descendents of immigrants somehow claim for their own the mantle of "real Americans" and take it as their right and duty to be sure that this culture, which is an amalgam of all the cultural strains that have gone into it over the past 500 years, isn't contaminated by any current input. When they want to close the borders to people who, but for the grace of God and timing, could be their grandparents.

Like many Incline residents, I spend a lot of time in Arizona – working there. I don't find Arizonans, at least in Phoenix and Tucson where I hang out, to be very different from people I meet elsewhere in the country. Nonetheless, they seem to have a predilection for going out on some fairly loony limbs. They keep electing Joe Arpaio Sheriff in Maricopa County, for example, despite the fact that in any other state the only thing he'd be a candidate for is a rubber room. Now they've passed a law making it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant, requiring that immigrants carry proof of their legality at all times (I'm pretty sure these same folks would reach for their guns if anyone suggested a required national ID card), and allowing police to stop anyone at any time if they suspect they might be an illegal alien.

So now in addition to the nationwide unwritten law making DWB (driving while Black) cause for random stops and searches, we have in one state legislated WWH (working while Hispanic). We could, I suppose, write it off to one more bit of Arizona craziness – the Right has AZ, the left has CA, and leave it at that. But TV stations in Las Vegas (channel 5) and Reno (channel 4) are conducting online polls, and as of now both show majorities (very strong in LV and substantial in Reno) of those responding approving of the Arizona law.

Lots of folks aren't going to like my saying this, but just as poll taxes and "literacy tests" were ostensibly aimed at unqualified voters but were really attempts to keep any African-Americans from voting, and same-sex marriage bans are ostensibly to protect the "sanctity of marriage" but are really an expression of homophobia, the fuss over illegal immigration has at its roots anti-Hispanic racism. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's ostensibly about their not paying taxes (catch-22: they can't pay taxes because if they did we'd know they were here) and overtaxing services (which mostly they don't do for the same reason) but I don't buy it any more than I bought that the reason country clubs didn't allow Jews was because they didn't mix well and were pushy.

The Roman Empire operated on the principle that the way to world peace and order was to (a) conquer everybody else and (b) make them become Romans. It didn't turn out well for them and it's unlikely to turn out well for the US.

Bonanza Column 181 – Gibbons and the Tea Partiers

2010-04-17T15:20:00.001-07:00

While there is a lot you can say about Governor Jim Gibbons, I don't think anyone could accuse him of being: smart, low-profile, or rational.

Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto correctly refused to join an ill-advised lawsuit filed by some states' attorneys general against the anemic health care reform bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama. You don't need to agree with the bill to support Masto's logic in refusing – in the unlikely event that the other states' suit is successful, the results of that suit would apply nationwide including Nevada, so there is no reason to expend state resources. Gibbons, naturally, attacked Masto for doing her job and vowed to soldier on alone if need be. He has now started a fund to do that and named a Las Vegas attorney as special counsel to pursue the suit.

Gibbons is not, to my knowledge starting any funds to improve education, hire more teachers, prevent furloughs and outright layoffs of state employees, or for any other purpose that might actually benefit the state.

Instead, the Governor is grandstanding as part of his campaign for re-election. After all, even if the other states' suits were to win, how can he claim any credit for it or curry favor with the tea party crowd if he didn't visibly take action – never mind what's good for the state or where else he might spend his time on business that is actually needed. No, Gibbons, along with Sue Lowden, the massively unqualified candidate for Harry Reid's seat, is out there working the tea party circuit.

There is very little possibility that the Tea Party "movement" will be a major factor in any of this year's elections. A recent study by the Winston Group, a conservative-leaning polling and strategy firm run by the former director of planning for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, found that the portion of the public that identifies with the Tea Parties is around 17%. 65% of Tea Partiers self-identify as "conservative" as compared with 33% of the electorate at large. 81% of Tea Party respondents expressed very little approval of Barack Obama's job as president, which exceeded disapproval levels held even by Republicans (77%) and conservatives (79%).

All this suggests that the Tea Party crowd is comprised predominantly of ultra-conservatives, and that despite their insistence that they are the "real Americans" who will "take their country back," they are in fact a fringe movement whose views are not shared wholeheartedly even by others who are with them on the right side of center. One has to question, then, the wisdom of Gibbons' aligning himself with the movement and with Lowden, whose record in business is already being exposed as at odds with her stated positions as a candidate.

The Tea Partiers, though, are right about one thing – it's time for a change. Gibbons and his GOP crowd have failed to lead in Nevada – we remain at the bottom of the heap in education, we have record unemployment levels, and are failing to attract new business to the state. Rory Reid, the leading Democratic candidate for Governor, is young and largely untested, but if you listen to what he has to say, there is at least the possibility of something different. His father, Harry Reid, is, of course also up for re-election to the Senate, and has done more for Nevada from Washington than Gibbons (and for that matter the ethically-challenged John Ensign) have come close to doing. Reid's seat is one area where we don't need, and can't afford change.

But as for Gibbons, remember the old saying – if we don't change our direction, we're liable to get where we're headed – and on almost any measure you can hold the Governor accountable for, where we're headed ain't pretty.

Bonanza Column 180 – Public Service or Indentured Servitude?

2010-04-11T14:25:00.001-07:00

A recent letter to the Bonanza took the "spendthrifts" on the IVGID Board of Trustees to task for considering a 3 percent raise in salary for District staff, characterizing the salary and benefits of the staff as "generous."

I'm writing this from Hawai'i, where furloughs for state employees including teachers and librarians have resulted in cutbacks in services, closing of libraries, cuts in school hours for education and activities, and a general decline in public services, statewide. I suppose we could do that in IVGID – cut back on salaries and staff, have less frequent garbage pickup, close the rec center, tennis courts, and golf or skiing a couple of days a week, and generally skimp, but I'd be willing to bet almost anything that the same people that are complaining about the rec fee and staff benefits would demand that the level of services be maintained. You can't have it both ways.

Personally, I'm glad that we are able to provide what I think are adequately competitive compensation packages to IVGID staff – they provide outstanding services, are genuinely customer-centered, and are on the whole a cut above most municipal employees, and that goes from the folks who pick up the trash and keep the grounds to the executive level, in my experience without exception. IVGID has taken some steps to cut costs without diminution of services, e.g., by offering various food services to local restaurants and caterers if they want to bid for the opportunity to provide them. The General Manager and the staff have been appropriately cognizant of and conservative about needed renovations and improvements while being clear what would be lost if these are not done. I know something about management in both the public and private sectors, and I think IVGID does one of the better jobs I've seen of managing money, facilities, and people.

As I pointed out in last week's column, the facilities in the Village contribute both directly and indirectly to our property values, and to the quality of life here. The sentiment of a significant portion, maybe even a majority, of residents, against affordable housing makes it necessary to compensate District staff who cannot afford to live here for the added expense and inconvenience of having to commute. All told, I think the proposal to the Board of a 3 percent (i.e., cost of living) raise is reasonable and prudent.

Mostly, though, it's important to recognize that we can't have it both ways – we can't have world class facilities and services and at the same time cut back the way Hawai'i and California have done. We can't continue to pay those we consider "public servants" as if they were indentured servants and not lose them to the private sector – that goes for teachers, IVGID staff, police, and fire as well. After one of my columns on the future of IV/CB, one resident called and in all sincerity made the argument that we should not have anything but the most basic services, no businesses, and be a purely residential community like, for example, Sea Ranch. OK, I suppose that's one way to go, but I predict that if we go that way there will be no "here" here in twenty years or so, and then what would the bears do for food?

Huffington Post Column 13 – Political Dialogue: Too Important to be Hijacked

2010-04-01T12:01:00.001-07:00

Writing about politics from a perspective that is pretty far left of Center, I frequently hear from readers on both sides of the political spectrum that things will not work politically in the US until everyone thinks as they do – they seem to feel that those they disagree with should be done away with in some way – deported, voluntarily leave the country, die, and then all would be right with the world.

There has always been this strain at the fringes of American politics and neither side has a monopoly on it. From time to time there have been movements to send the Irish back to Ireland, the Jews back to Europe, the Blacks back to Africa and the American Indians back to … well, no one's quite sure about that one. Notwithstanding that, these have always been the ideas of ideologues and extremists. The vast majority of Americans have, historically, been proponents of the sentiment attributed (perhaps wrongly) to Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It seems to me, though, that in recent years American political dialogue has degenerated into a war that has as its object the demolition of the other side. I think it is absolutely crucial that we nip this trend in the bud. So far this war has been mostly rhetorical, but recently the rhetoric has escalated to unwarranted insults ('you lie," "baby killer"), racial slurs, and homophobic slurs directed at members of Congress. And it seems to be heating up to the point of bricks through windows and assassination plots, and lest we forget, people on both sides have been injured or killed, though so far, thankfully, this has been rare. Nonetheless, it seems to be heating up.

Readers, apparently stung by my criticism of hypocrisy on the Right often accuse me of wanting the Right to disappear. On the contrary, I think that would be a very bad thing, just as bad as if the Left disappeared. In my work with corporations one of the key principles I teach, one for which there is clear scientific evidence, is that in order for any group to come up with ideas that are smarter than its smartest members would have come up with on their own, it must have a wide range of diverse viewpoints. I am convinced that one of the reasons that the US has been a consistent world leader in innovation, quality, human rights, standard of living, and on and on is that we have had a lively and vibrant dialogue among wide-ranging points of view.

Another principle of group intelligence is that the extremes cannot be allowed to hijack the debate. During the Vietnam War era, the anti-war left took control of the debate. While the view is not popular on the left, it is my firm belief that, despite the best of intentions, our taking over that debate from Nixon et al. had them resist all the more and thus prolonged the war and cost countless lives. This is not something of which I am proud – it is something I try to make up for in my life and in my writing.

Today the anti-government Right has an influence in current political debates that is, by all indications, all out of proportion to its actual numbers or popular support. Just as the Left in the 70's attracted all kinds of ideas that were irrelevant to being against the war – Leary's "tune in, turn on, drop out" comes to mind as do Kesey's Acid Tests and others – the anti-government Right finds itself in bed with the insanity of the birthers, racists, militia extremists, and a whole clown car of idiots and nutcases.

Just as the Left had to get itself straightened out in the post-Vietnam dialogue, it's time for those on the Right who know the value of the dialogue to retake control of it from the extremists, both those in the Tea Party movement and those in Congress. We need two sides or we will become very dumb indeed at a time when we need every ounce of intelligence and wisdom we can find.

Bonanza Column 178 – Boulder Bay and IVGID

2010-03-29T11:31:00.001-07:00

I yield to no one about my credentials as an environmentalist. I have been a consultant to both the executives and Board of Directors of the Sierra Club, and consider myself to have been "green" before green was fashionable. This long-standing interest in and commitment to the environment makes the attitude of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, Tahoe Area Sierra Club, and other local groups toward the Boulder Bay project baffling to me.

In other parts of the country, environmental organizations seem to take a fairly rational view of the need to balance progress and change with environmental concerns. Unless there are clear indications that irreparable damage will be done with no compensating environmental benefit, these organizations, the Sierra Club among them, generally work with government and private interests to find acceptable solutions. The environmental organizations here at Lake Tahoe, however, seem to have as their objective to turn everything here back to a "natural" state and to oppose any change that does not simply remove people and human habitation.

TRPA has been very open to input on the Boulder Bay EIS – they have made many changes based on that input and are in the process of one more revision of the draft study. While I don't advocate making environmental or societal decisions based on public sentiment alone, it's worth noting that the input TRPA received was overwhelmingly in support of the project, particularly alternative C, and where substantive questions and objections were raised, TRPA has been responsive. Nonetheless, at what is probably the eleventh hour, a coalition of the League, the Sierra Club, the California Watershed Network and local groups of questionable provenance has come forward with objections, but no alternative solutions.

I question the provenance of the local groups because at least one of them, the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, seems to have been formed for the express purpose of opposing the Boulder Bay project and has had a problematic relationship with the facts in its arguments. The others, "Friends of the West Shore," "Friends of Tahoe Vista," and "Friends of Crystal Bay/Brockway," are unknown to us and we have no indication of who they represent, how many they represent, or whether they know what they're talking about.

The Boulder Bay project, particularly alternative C, is a huge improvement over the current dinosaur on the property, which is an environmental disaster on almost every count you can think of. While the Wittenbergs are great people, I think it's extremely unlikely that they will level the property, plant grass, trees, and flowers, and stock it with Bambi-esque forest creatures. They are business people, and it is a given that they will run a business on the property. That being the case, they have done a terrific job of designing and redesigning a property and amenities that will be eco-friendly, down to plans for bicycles, car-sharing programs, shuttle service, etc., as well as health and wellness facilities and an aesthetically pleasant and non-intrusive design. But it seems nothing will satisfy our local environmentalists. If Roger Wittenberg were a spiteful man, which I know him not to be, he would say to hell with all of them and leave the current monstrosity in place. Thank heavens he's smarter than they are.

On another note, the IVGID budgeting process has been remarkably open and transparent. Still, they have done the unthinkable and are considering an increase in the rec fee, so naturally people are up in arms, with the shopworn argument "I don't use the facilities, why should I pay?" OK, listen carefully, here's why: whether you use the facilities or not, access to them significantly increases the value of your property. If they are not kept up or in some cases renovated, they will deteriorate and so will the value of your property. When you moved here you knew that part of what you were getting was a set of community amenities. Those require maintenance and upkeep. The Board and staff of IVGID are doing everything in their power to keep the budget process rational – let's try to keep the discussion of the process the same.

Bonanza Column 177 – The 2010 Elections

2010-03-22T05:28:00.001-07:00

Along with Daylight Savings Time and March Madness, Spring brings with it (at least every other year) the beginning of election season.

While 2010 is technically an "off-year" election, this particular off year brings us some interesting and important choices. In Incline Village/Crystal Bay we will elect two IVGID Trustees, at least one of whom will be new to the Board, and statewide Nevada will elect or re-elect a Senator, a Governor, and most of the rest of the State government.

This is important because, even though we are stuck with John Ensign for another couple of years (unless the current ethics investigation results in his removal), we have the opportunity to unseat Governor Jim Gibbons and to return Harry Reid to the Senate for six more years.

Traditionally, turnout for off-year elections is low compared to Presidential years, and turnout for the primaries, which will be June 8 this year, even lower. This is a good year to make an exception to that rule given what is at stake.

It's too early to make judgments about most of the offices, but I think it's fair to say that there is the opportunity to make some important changes and also to keep some very good people in office. The field for the Governor's race is, as usual, broad and colorful. We have the hapless Mr. Gibbons running for re-election and a whole bunch of Republicans challenging him in the primary including the very well-qualified Brian Sandoval who gave up a lifetime appointment as a Federal Judge to try to unseat the Governor. On the Democratic side there is Rory Reid who, while not widely known in Northern Nevada, looks like a good choice as well.

I've written before in this space about the importance of returning Harry Reid to Washington. We have in Washington right now a junior senator who has shown so little personal integrity that he should resign, yet he refuses to. If we are foolish enough to defeat Reid, then Nevada will be represented by a brand-new junior senator and a senior senator who is under an ethical cloud. Why would we trade being represented by the most powerful member of the Senate for that? Reid has done a good job for Nevada, most recently in the areas of jobs and tourism, and we should retain him and find him a working partner who will do a better job than the feckless Mr. Ensign.

Locally we have Frank Wright of Crystal Bay running for State Senate. Apparently Mr. Wright finds no inconsistency in bringing suit against IVGID and running for public office himself. We'll see if the voters agree. And speaking of IVGID, we have Gene Brockman running for re-election and while most of the rest of the field have not distinguished themselves by local service, there is the surprising entry of Dennis Oliver into the race. Dennis will have to establish an identity for himself as an Incline resident that is separate from his job as spokesperson for TRPA, but if he can do that he could bring a fresh and important perspective to the IVGID Board.

So we'll see how it goes. The first milestone in the various races will be March 23, the last day for candidates who have filed to change their mind and remove their name from the ballot. Then for most races there is the primary election to narrow the field on June 8, after which the races will be on in earnest leading up to election day in November. Hopefully we'll see some real debate on the issues rather than partisan appeals, name-calling, and negative ads and we'll have the opportunity to do some good for our community, state, and the nation.

Bonanza Column 176 – IB Resolved

2010-03-15T13:02:00.001-07:00

When I first heard about the IB program being planned for Incline's schools I was uncertain about my view of it. On the one hand it sounded like a good program – very good, actually; on the other hand I have worked with the AP program at HIS, particularly our nationally ranked We the People program, and was unsure of what value IB would add. So I set about talking to people on both sides of the issue and reading up on the pros and cons of IB, and I made no secret of my being undecided – in fact, I devoted several columns to it. I also partnered with the Bonanza to propose a community forum the ground rules of which were designed to ensure a debate on the merits with minimal unsupported opining. The group in favor of IB responded enthusiastically to this proposal and provided a surplus of potential panelists. The group against IB was nominally enthusiastic, but failed to propose a panel despite numerous concessions. In the process they accused me of being biased in favor of IB and, in demanding someone else moderate, called into question my fairness and integrity. At the end of the day, though, despite getting everything they asked for, they failed to take the field and the forum was cancelled. Now that same group wants to know "What do we need to do to stop the madness and have the community discussion that is so badly needed?" Huh?

Well, I've made up my mind. I am for the IB program in Incline schools. I'll tell you why in a minute, but indulge me in a short digression. I haven't been able to find who first said "a person is known by the enemies he/she makes," but I've always hesitated to subscribe to that idea. Still it's an appealing idea – Joe Lieberman infamously invoked it to justify his opposition to the public option – liberals were for it, and that was enough for him to go against it. I've found myself tempted by it in this IB debate. So much of the opposition to IB ranges from ignorant (it will compromise separation of church and state because it's a religion-based program – it must be – there are Baccalaureate Services in churches at graduation time) to ridiculous (it's a liberal plot to have the UN take over our schools in service of creating a world government to rule over the US) that I have to struggle not to just favor IB because it's opponents are either plain silly or so far out in the tea party sea of the Right that they can't see land. If you don't believe me, look at this column on line on www.tahoebonanza.com and read the comments. I mean, I don't read them but I guarantee they'll be there.

Now back to our story. Why am I coming down in favor of IB? Not, as you might think, because of its benefits at the High School level. I'm still not sold that it will add value where AP doesn't already. I see its greatest value at the Elementary level where the IB curriculum, including dual-immersion language programs, seems to me to be clearly superior to any other public school curriculum I've seen. It will send our kids to Middle and High School with a really solid educational foundation on which to move into AP, IB Diploma, or for that matter Technical or Business Programs, and it will give English Language Learners real skills and power in English and English native speakers the same foundation in Spanish. I think that's a really good thing, particularly given the data on the benefits of early language education and bilingualism on learning in general.

Brian Sandoval, a Republican candidate for Governor endorsed IB in a speech to local Republicans last week. Sandoval is a member of that endangered species, moderate Republicans, but he is clearly a Republican and a Conservative. Hopefully that will put the lie to the crazies who keep trying to pull a McCarthyesque red scare in opposing IB. The school district has said that IB is a done deal – it will be here. In that case, it seems to me it behooves us as a community to (a) learn the facts about it and (b) get behind it – the people we elect and those we pay to make decisions on education for our kids have given the opinion they are accountable for. Let's move on.

Bonanza Column 174 - ARC

2010-03-01T10:49:00.001-08:00

For the past few years, I have had the privilege of working with some of the most dynamic and inspirational young people I have ever met. Year after year, participants in the ARC (Adventure, Risk, Challenge) Program amaze me with their courage, determination, and commitment to their future, their family, and their community.

ARC is a program for ELL (English Language Learner) high school students that combines summer leadership and literacy immersions in the outdoors with year-round mentoring and academic support. Working with students who lack access to enrichment of any kind, ARC has guided 80% of its graduates to pursue some form of higher education, a remarkable outcome for this population.

As part of their work, ARC participants prepare video essays on topics of concern to our community. This year's video essays will be presented by the kids at ARC's annual Food for Thought Tamale Dinner on March 13, 2010, from 6 to 10 p.m. at the North Tahoe Boys & Girls Club.

ARC participants' video essays are the result of the students' actively exploring and examining their personal lives, their families, and their neighborhoods to identify issues that directly affect them and their community. Over the course of the project, as students have explored critical concerns within our community, they have generated a rich collection of stories and have developed multiple literacy skills using digital media tools to express their voice and content through writing text and incorporating sound, images, and graphics.

ELL high school students in the Tahoe/Truckee region have a multitude of obstacles to overcome: they have identified literacy gaps, come from families living below the poverty line, and in many ways live in the margins of our community. They lack access to local resources due to language, transportation, and economic barriers. Many of their parents lack formal education, are ill-equipped to support their children's learning at home, and cannot help their children navigate the public school system. This results in academic failure, making higher education opportunities inaccessible. Students who fail high school lack incentive to further their learning through vocational or academic training, and have little chance for self-sufficiency. Essentially, there is no pathway to living wage careers that could ultimately break the cycle of poverty for the next generation.

ARC began in 2004 to address these significant barriers with a curriculum that incorporates the study of self, family, and community action, gearing participants toward meaningful civic contributions as they transition into adulthood. ARC links wilderness to academics, adventure to leadership, environmental science to literacy, and confidence to activism.

Like most programs of its type, ARC is continuously raising funds, both from foundations and from local sources. Events like the tamale dinner help, but they're not sufficient – if you or someone you know wants to support this worthwhile program, let me know and I'll see that they contact you.

The food at this dinner is great - homemade tamales, rice, and beans as well as soft drinks will be served at the dinner, with all proceeds benefiting the program.

Tamales can be ordered (by the dozen) in advance by visiting the ARC website (www.arcprogram.org) and downloading an order form. ARC participants have requested that guests bring two cans of food to support Project Mana, and in return, they will receive a free drink. The students also will be collecting spare change to send to Haiti. Immediately following dinner, they will premiere their video essays. This event is free and open to the public. I hope to see you there.

Bonanza Column 173 – Does the End Justify the Means?

2010-02-21T15:06:00.001-08:00

One of the oldest debates in moral philosophy is based in the question "does the end justify the means?" Like most questions of morals, this one does not admit of an easy answer, though there are those who have attempted to answer it categorically. Machiavelli, in The Prince, was unequivocal – the end a ruler sets his sights on is all and any means used to obtain that end are justified. Given that the eponymous prince was Cesare Borgia and the time was Renaissance Italy, the ruling class naturally found this advice very agreeable.

Most philosophers come to a conclusion along the lines of "it depends." If the end is moral, and the only way to achieve it is immoral, then the end may justify the means. For example, if I can save the life of a child (moral) by lying to a murderer about the child's whereabouts (immoral), then the end is sufficiently important to justify the means. On the other hand if I can convert an atheist to belief in God (moral) by lying to him about God (immoral), then no, the end doesn't justify the means because the means are contradictory to the end.

There are people who, like the Borgias, are firmly convinced that any means are justified to achieve their ends. These are people who are so firmly convinced that they are right that nothing can create even the slightest crack in their certainty. Fundamentalists and extremists of every stripe – on the political left and right, in virtually every religion fall into this category.

While no one in politics is immune from falling into this trap, we've recently seen what I think are some particularly egregious examples of it from members of the Republican Party. In the past couple of weeks it's been revealed that a large number of the leading Senate opponents of the economic stimulus – people who railed against it as everything from ineffective to socialist, have quietly been getting money for their states from that same stimulus and touting its effectiveness – even taking credit for it – people from the same party that excoriated John Kerry for being a flip-flopper – these same people are now reversing themselves on a wholesale basis on anything that the GOP has done or endorsed that President Obama now supports.

In fact, that is the only logic to their actions – if Obama's for it, we're against it. Try KSM in civilian courts – horrors! But under a Republican administration Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, and hundreds of others were tried (and convicted) in civilian courts . Act aggressively against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even killing key leaders – Horrors! But Obama is soft on terrorism.

I'm not saying that the left is immune to hypocrisy – but the scale of GOP lying (the shoe bomber was an American citizen, Obama hasn't used the word "war" to describe our opposition to terror) and hypocrisy (denouncing the stimulus while taking money and credit for it on the sly and praising its effectiveness, calling for Rahm Emanuel to resign for using the word "retarded" but excusing Rush Limbaugh for the exact same thing) seems to me to be unprecedented.

De Tocqueville said that in a democracy the people get the government we deserve. If we continue to tolerate the Right's "say anything, do anything, as long as it makes the President look bad and gets us elected" assault, then maybe we do deserve them if they are voted in in 2012.

Tahoe Ticker Column 21 - Hypocrisy-Fest on the Right

2010-02-19T16:47:00.001-08:00

"Yeah of course its extreme, you don't know anything the individual he could have had other issues." Imagine if that was said about the underwear bomber or the Ft. Hood killer, and now imagine the outrage from the right that would follow – further proof that liberals are soft on terrorism! Treason! String 'em all up!

Now imagine that the quote is not from a liberal or democrat, but from our newest US Senator, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, the poster boy for grassroots outrage, who ran in part on a platform of being tougher on terrorism than is the current mode of operations. And he said it not about a terrorist so inept that all he did was set his pants on fire, but one who flew a small plane into a government office building where 200 people were working, killing at least two and destroying much of the building.

So Senator Brown, where's the outrage? Yeah of course its extreme, you don't know anything the individual he could have had other issues. No one likes paying taxes obviously. Really? That's it? This is an act of domestic terrorism by a right-winger against the government, and all Mr. "tough on terrorism" has to say is what under other circumstances he would characterize as leftie soft on terrorism pap?

Senator Brown hasn't been in the Senate long enough to have a cup of coffee but he seems to have jumped right on the bandwagon of Republican hypocrisy. In the past couple of weeks it's been revealed that many of the leading opponents of the economic stimulus, who railed against it as everything from ineffective to socialism have quietly been getting money for their states from that same stimulus and touting its effectiveness. We've seen again and again Republicans in Congress – people from the same party that, in addition to swift-boating John Kerry, accused Kerry of being a flip-flopper – these same people are now reversing themselves on a wholesale basis on anything that the GOP has done or endorsed that President Obama now supports.

In fact, that is the only logic to their actions – if Obama's for it, we're against it. Try KSM in civilian courts – horrors! But Richard Reed, the shoe bomber was tried (and convicted) in civilian courts. Act aggressively against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even killing key leaders – Horrors! But Obama is soft on terrorism.

De Tocqueville said that in a democracy the people get the government we deserve. If we continue to tolerate the Right's "say anything, do anything, as long as it makes the President look bad" assault, then maybe we do deserve them if they are voted in in 2012.

Bonanza Column 162 - TOCCATA

2010-02-14T17:46:00.001-08:00

What the heck, it's Valentine's day, Mardi Gras is Tuesday, let's put partisan rancor aside for one week and talk about something that's unarguably good.

I had the privilege last week to attend a concert by the TOCCATA Orchestra and Chorus with the violinist Elizabeth Pitcairn. It was the fourth of four concerts held at Squaw, on South Shore, Cal Neva, and the one we attended at Trinity Episcopal Church in Reno. What an evening!

You may recall that Ms Pitcairn was here last Fall when she played the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto – this time she played a short Dvorak piece in the first number of the evening and then the Bruch Concerto for Violin as the pièce de resistance of the evening. She followed these with encores that included two duets with Donna Axton on the piano.

I'm not a music critic, I don't play any instrument more complex than an iPod, and as for my singing, forget it, but I do love music and listen to it a lot, and I'm especially fond of music for the violin. I wrote last Fall that I had not had an experience to match Pitcairn playing Mendelssohn since the time, as a graduate student, I sat in the first row to hear Yehudi Menuhin play the Beethoven Violin Concerto with the Rochester Philharmonic. That was about 45 years ago. Now I've had matching experiences twice in six months. The Bruch is a marvelously complex piece of music, the red Stradivarius is a magnificent and historic instrument, and Elizabeth Pitcairn is, in my humble opinion (and when it comes to music, it really is humble) the best young violinist to come along in a very long time. Her playing is in a class with Menuhin, Heifetz, and Stern, she is beautiful and lively and has an amazing rapport with the orchestra and the audience.

And while the focus with any concert like this is on the soloist, I would be remiss if I didn't give props to James and Nancy Rawie and the incredible contribution they've made to our community by organizing and managing TOCCATA (it stands for The Orchestra and Community Choral Artists of the Tahoe Area). In five short years they have brought together an orchestra and chorus that I would put up against any orchestra I've heard in New York, Chicago, or San Francisco, and it's all local talent and all volunteers. When my friends in other cities ask me if I don't miss the cultural advantages of living in a city I just laugh quietly – we have the Reno Phil, the Lake Tahoe Music Festival, opera, ballet, plays and most of all we have TOCCATA. We are very fortunate, and don't tell those city folks because if they find out, they'll all move here and we won't be able to get tickets.

TOCCATA's next performance is over Easter Weekend when they'll do the Bach St. Matthew Passion, a perfect accompaniment to the Easter holiday. Here's my advice – go to that performance, join as a supporter of TOCCATA, and take a minute to thank James and Nancy and all the players and singers for making this a world-class place to live, music-wise.

HuffPo Column 11 – The Enemy Within: Republican Fundamentalism Confirmed

2010-02-11T15:33:00.001-08:00

What do Islamic fundamentalists have in common with the far-right core of the Republican Party? And what do your average, non-extremist Muslims have in common with the (slim) majority of the GOP who are not right wingers?

The answers, of course, is obvious - the first two treat their worldview as the only correct, God-given view and treat anyone who demurs from this as worthy of any sort of attack up to and including destroying them, and the second pair remain silent, as in Burke's admonition that "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good [people] to remain silent.

As reported elsewhere on HP, The Daily Kos, a liberal/progressive blog, employs a very reputable and neutral polling organization called Research 2000 to do polling for them on a weekly basis and posts their results no matter what they show, including demographic information about those polled.

Recently they posted the results of the Daily Kos/Research 2000 Republican Poll 2010. For this poll, conducted between January 20 and 31, 2010, the interviewed 2003 self-identified Republicans by phone. This was a random sample selected by random variations of the last four digits of phone numbers. The margin of error was 2%, which means that there is a 95% probability statistically that the true figure for all self-identified Republicans would fall within 2% plus or minus of the sample's results. Interviews were conducted in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia - 11% of respondents were from the Northeast, 42% from the South, 22% from the Midwest, and 25% from the West.

So here we have 2003 people, selected at random who identified themselves as Republicans and were willing to answer poll questions over the phone. Now it's axiomatic in the polling business that you only get answers to the questions you ask, and I don't know who designed these questions - let's say, worst case, they were designed by the Daily Kos, and so the questions reflect liberal/progressive concerns about Republicans, and don't tell the whole story, only that which reflects those concerns. Nonetheless, the answers are what they are. It's a long poll, so I'll just highlight some of them here. For the full set go here.

Under the heading "Obama and America," we find that 39% of those surveyed say Barack Obama should be impeached with 32% saying no, and 29% not sure. Really? For what? The Constitution is pretty clear - high crimes and misdemeanors is the criterion. Can anyone point out even one thing he's done in the past year that qualifies? But 68% of Republicans (±2%) say he should be impeached, or at least it's a possibility.

And the grand prizes: 36% believe Obama was not born in the US and 22% aren't sure, and 24% believe Obama "wants the terrorists to win" and 33% aren't sure. This is not just being divorced from reality, it's having left reality far, far behind.

There's a lot more - on Issues (anti-union, anti-immigrant, pro-death penalty), gays, (anti-serving in the military, anti-same sex marriage, anti-benefits for gay couples, and astonishingly 73% against openly gay men and women teaching in public schools with 19% unsure). Schools (anti-sex education by a slim margin, but overwhelmingly for public schools teaching that the Book of Genesis explains how God created the world).

The last category was women, where some of the results were surprisingly encouraging - 76% with 11% unsure said that marriages are equal partnerships and 86% with 4% unsure said women should work outside the home. But then it all goes horribly wrong: "Should contraceptives be outlawed?" 31% yes, 13% not sure. "Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?" 34% yes, 18% unsure. "Do you consider abortion to be murder?" 76% yes, 16% unsure.

And finally, "Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is through Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? 67% Christ, 15% other faiths, 18% unsure.

All of which leaves me wondering - exactly what America do these people live in? Not the America of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the Constitution, apparently.

Actually, there are three groups - the right wingnuts, the mainstream, and the Republican politicians. The group best positioned to make a difference in the party are the politicians. Maybe Markos Moulitsas, creator of the Daily Kos, said it best, though. Those politicians are "beholden to conspiracy theorists who don't even believe Obama was born in the United States, and already want to impeach him despite a glaring lack of scandal or wrongdoing. They think Obama is racist against white people and the second coming of Lenin. And if any of them stray and decide to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Given what their base demands -- and this poll illustrates them perfectly -- it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no."

Bonanza Column 171 – Republicans are Strange

2010-02-08T11:54:00.001-08:00

The Daily Kos is a liberal/progressive blog, and if that's enough to disqualify anything they say in your eyes, just skip reading this or skip to the comments section and post your weekly accusation that I'm a Communist and should "go back to Roosha, boy, or New York City, one" (a shout out to Kinky Friedman).

On the other hand, if you're interested, the Daily Kos employs a very reputable and neutral polling organization called Research 2000 to do polling for them on a weekly basis and posts their results no matter what they show, including demographic information about those polled. Last week they posted the results of the Daily Kos/Research 2000 Republican Poll 2010. For this poll, conducted between January 20 and 31, 2010, the interviewed 2003 self-identified Republicans by phone. This was a random sample selected by random variations of the last four digits of phone numbers. The margin of error was 2%, which means that there is a 95% probability statistically that the true figure for all self-identified Republicans would fall within 2% plus or minus of the sample's results. Interviews were conducted in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia – 11% of respondents were from the Northeast, 42% from the South, 22% from the Midwest, and 25% from the West.

So here we have 2003 people, selected at random who identified themselves as Republicans and were willing to answer poll questions over the phone. Now it's axiomatic in the polling business that you only get answers to the questions you asked, and I don't know who designed these questions – let's say, worst case, they were designed by the Daily Kos, and so the questions reflect liberal/progressive concerns about Republicans, and don't tell the whole story, only that which reflects those concerns. Nonetheless, the answers are what they are. It's a long poll, so I'll just highlight some of them here. For the full set go to http://tinyurl.com/kospoll.

Under the heading "Obama and America," we find that 39% of those surveyed say Barack Obama should be impeached with 32% saying no, and 29% not sure. Really? For what? The Constitution is pretty clear – high crimes and misdemeanors is the criterion. Can anyone point out even one thing he's done in the past year that qualifies? But 68% of Republicans (±2%) say he should be impeached, or at least it's a possibility.

Maybe this will shed some light on why: 63% said yes to "do you think Barack Obama is a Socialist, with 21% saying no and 16% not sure. Seriously? 79% of those surveyed don't have a clue what Socialism is? Even Rachel Maddow, who is no Socialist herself, but is pretty far left, considers Obama a centrist.

There's a lot more – on Issues (anti-union, anti-immigrant, pro-death penalty), gays, (anti-serving in the military, anti-same sex marriage, anti-benefits for gay couples, and astonishingly 73% against openly gay men and women teaching in public schools with 19% unsure). Schools (anti-sex education by a slim margin, but overwhelmingly for public schools teaching that the Book of Genesis explains how God created the world).

The last category was women, where some of the results were surprisingly encouraging – 76% with 11% unsure said that marriages are equal partnerships and 86% with 4% unsure said women should work outside the home. But then it all goes horribly wrong: "Should contraceptives be outlawed?" 31% yes, 13% not sure. "Do you believe the birth control pill is abortion?" 34% yes, 18% unsure. "Do you consider abortion to be murder?" 76% yes, 16% unsure.

And finally, "Do you believe that the only way for an individual to go to heaven is through Jesus Christ, or can one make it to heaven through another faith? 67% Christ, 15% other faiths, 18% unsure.

All of which leaves me wondering – exactly what America do these people live in? Not the America of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and the Constitution, apparently.

Bonanza Column 170 – IB and the Community

2010-01-31T18:53:00.001-08:00

Sometimes I don't understand our community at all – other times I think I get a glimmer or understanding, but mostly it's a mystery to me.

It seems like we are willing to fight about anything based solely on our opinions, the opinions don't need to be informed by any facts, and we don't feel very much need to listen to each other. Granted it's hard to listen when the communication is like this one: "Why don't you post constitution Progressives go find your own country and quit wrecking ours?"

Apparently I'm something called a post constitution (I assume this means post-Constitution rather than someone with the constitution of a post, but I'm not sure) Progressive. OK. I don't understand post-Constitution – we're all post-Constitution. That document was adopted in 1789, so anyone who was pre-Constitution would be 221 years old. Progressive? Why do people think I'll be insulted by being called something (along with Liberal, leftist, etc.) that I've said I'm proud to be. And what is the name-caller? Regressive?

Finally, why should I go find my own country, and who said this one was yours? I was born here, my parents immigrated here, and I honestly believe that this is my country as much as it is "yours." Actually, the Constitution kind of guarantees that, doesn't it?

Or the person who picked up on one small piece of personal disclosure in a column and decided that "because your Dad lost his business due to "change" you think workforce housing will solve the economic woes of main street???" which is nothing even related to what I said.

Case in point: the IB program. I have said repeatedly that, while I'm kind of naturally inclined to support it, I have serious questions and think a rational, fact-based dialogue is needed. Writers (mostly anonymous) online have attacked me for favoring IB (what part of "have serious questions" is not clear to you?). Just for fun, how about trying listening?

The Washoe County School District is on record favoring IB even though they won't fund it. In listening to both sides of the debate, a couple of things have become clear to me. First, very little of the debate is fact-based. Either or both sides may have facts to bolster their argument (note:" IT'S A U.N. PLOT!!! Is not a fact – it's an opinion, same for" IT WILL ATTRACT LOTS OF STUDENTS!!!"), neither brings them to bear in what dialogue there has been. Second, no one is listening to anyone who is not on their side. Third, a genuine dialogue, including people listening to each other, is desperately needed.

As I mentioned in a previous column and as was announced in the paper last week, the Bonanza has proposed to sponsor a forum for that dialogue. The ground rules of the forum will be that all presentations by panelists must be based on citable facts and that audience questions will be screened to ensure that they are requests for information, not arguments for a position. The original date for the forum, February 9^th, is now in question due to conflicts we were unaware of, but if we can get the panelists, it will happen sooner rather than later.

I guess the question is what do both sides want? Do they want to defeat the other side or to inform the community? The way it looks now is that we are going to have IB in any case – the School District has approved it and the money has been raised or is close to being raised. So as a community, do we want this to be one more bone of contention dividing us or do we want to really look at what it could do and what it is that professional educators find so valuable in it?

Of course, we can all decide that we know better than the experts in any case and don't have to listen to them – after all, we pay them to educate our children – that means we're smarter than they are, right? After all, isn't the golden rule "he who has the gold, rules?"

Let's try to have an informative, civil dialogue. Whaddaya say?