Column 122 – Eco-Terrorism

There was quite a furor last week over a headline in this fine village tri-weekly that indicated that open flames might be banned in cases where they posed a danger of, I don't know, burning down a multiple dwelling. The philosophy seems to be that if you own your own home and want to take your chances on your barbecue grill, that's up to you, but you can't endanger others who don't get the opportunity to try the brisket. Go figure.

 

At the same time there was an incident up in a suburb of Seattle wherein several luxury homes under construction were burned down under the signature of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an eco-terrorist group. Whether it was ELF or not, the incident was clearly an act of eco-terrorism. Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI's Domestic Terror Section as "the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature." That last part is kind of problematic, I think – there is nothing symbolic about burning down buildings – at least not to the owners of the buildings or to their insurance companies. It has been estimated that the damage caused by environmentalist sabotage from 1980 to 1999 amounted to $42.8 million. Since 2003 the FBI has credited "eco-terrorists" with $200 million dollars in property damage. Pretty big symbols, even with the dollar at a long-time low in value.

 

Back in the '70's, people who were opposed to that decade's war had a saying that, translated for a family newspaper, went something like "fighting for peace is like (having carnal relations) for chastity." That analogy would seem to apply here. As one who cares about the environment, I can't imagine better ammunition for those we oppose than acts of wanton, meaningless, and hypocritical destruction.

 

The question for me is what these supposed environmentalists are attempting to accomplish. I consider myself an environmentalist – I've consulted to the Sierra Club and other environmental organizations and I would match my credentials in this area with almost anyone. Within that, different people have different environmental concerns – global warming, fossil fuels, recycling, air pollution, water pollution, etc. What all of us have in common, though, is a respect, even reverence for the environment and for nature and a real commitment to finding a way for human technology to interact with the natural world in a way that includes what is important to both. These eco-terrorists, on the other hand, seem, to think that we should abandon all technology and go back to living in the forest. What I don't understand is how they rationalize their actions. For example, by burning down those houses under construction, they assured that twice as much lumber (as in "from trees") would be used, they added smoke and particulates to the air, and in general acted in a manner that was about as environmentally responsible as driving a Hummer.

 

According to sources in the Washoe County Sheriff's Office, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies consider eco-terrorism to be a far greater threat to us here at Lake Tahoe than international or other forms of political terrorism. Given what we've seen in Seattle last week and at Northstar a couple of years ago, it behooves each of us to be vigilant. In post-9/11 New York there are signs in the subway, on buses, on trains and in the street that say "if you see something, say something." The non-emergency number for the Incline Substation is 832-4110. The Sheriff's office and the Fire District would rather respond to ten calls that turn out to be nothing than to miss one that is the real deal, so if you see something, say something.

 

Column 121 – Nuisance Enforcement

A good deal has been written about the community workshop last week on the County Nuisance Ordinance, and I'll try not to repeat much of it here. One thing, however, did stand out for me in addition to the good attendance and the active participation, particularly by the Realtor community, but by the community at large as well, and that was how much of what people here consider nuisances could be made better by enforcing existing laws and codes.

 

The problem with enforcement of this type of non-life threatening situations is that the Sheriff, the County Development Agency, and others who are charged with enforcing the ordinances just can't be everywhere at once, so enforcement requires a partnership between those offended or annoyed by the nuisance and the agencies that will enforce the laws.

 

Maybe because I cleared a foot of snow from my driveway this morning and am looking at clearing it again, the first thing that comes to mind is enforcement of the winter off-street parking regulations. I grew up in upstate New York and I've lived in Vermont, so I'm no stranger to snow and lots of it, and I will say unequivocally that we have the best road clearing and snow removal I've ever seen. The County plow guys are quick, hard-working, and enormously considerate of driveways and the like. When people leave their cars in the street and snow comes, the plow guys' job becomes exponentially harder – they have to be careful not to damage the cars and they have to plow around them, all of which takes time and extra effort. It used to be illegal to have cars on the street in winter, period. Then in what I imagine was an effort to be accommodating, Incline instituted a red-yellow-green system to allow street parking when there was no danger of snow and a kind of "take your chances" system when the snow was on the ay but had not arrived. Apparently this system afforded more freedom than some people could handle, and they took it as license to leave their cars out all the time.

 

The Sheriff can't find these scofflaws if neighbors don't report them. If we do report them, it's a rather stiff ticket for them, so as good neighbors we try to give them some leeway, but if we do that it's not the Sheriff's fault if the law isn't being enforced, it's ours.

 

Then there is the issue of bears and garbage. It's illegal to put containers that are not bear-proof out before 5 am on the day of the garbage pickup. Again, who's going to enforce this if it's not reported by those directly affected, the neighbors?

 

A lot of people at the workshop were concerned about lighting – two specific problems are backlighted signs (any sign where the light shines through the sign rather than being beamed onto it) and outdoor lighting that beams up as well as down. Another concern expressed was that of lights illegally mounted on trees rather than poles. I believe that both the County and TRPA have regulations about this, but they don't have the personnel to patrol it – they respond to complaints.

 

I could go on – how many of us have complained about the old Orbit station, compared to how many of us have filed complaints about that eyesore with the County? – but my point is this: if we take a "let George do it" attitude toward nuisance enforcement, no amount of new, more specific, ordinances is going to make any difference. If we care about how our community looks and feels, then we as residents are going to have to partner with the County, the Sheriff, the Fire District, and yes, even TRPA to have the codes, ordinances and regulations enforced. Make a call, go to the appropriate website, and if you don't know who to complain to either find out or complain to all of them.

Column 120 – Whose Ox is Being Gored?

"It all depends on whose ox is being gored" is an old saying of uncertain origin – it may relate to an obscure verse in Exodus relating to compensation for the eponymous damaged cattle – but in wide use. It means that a given event will be seen differently depending on the degree to which the viewer's self-interest is involved. I think this adage should be given serious consideration as the motto for Incline Village.

 

We all want to take our friends to the beaches. If we rent our houses out or sell them, beach access is a prime selling point. But those Crystal Bay folks better not try to come on our beaches! We all want the community to be safe, and we are all against drinking and driving, as long as the Sheriff stops other people. But let them enforce the law on us or our family, and, in the words of a letter-writer in last week's paper, it "borders on harassment." (Never mind that the "harassee" was actually in violation of the law, drinking while underage and driving).

 

We all want a quiet, clean, attractive community. We don't want cars and boats blocking our streets, junk cars on people's lawns, and closed-up gas stations. But suggest that a glut of signs for real estate open houses and houses for sale may be undesirable and realtors and their relatives will rise up in anger, condemning the whole beautification process, nuisance study, and County involvement as "about as necessary as putting out the…fire with 90,000 gallons of supreme gasoline." (I guess 80,000 gallons of regular would have been OK).

 

The point is we live in a community. As far as I know, the only way to guarantee that everything in your life is determined solely according to your interests and preferences is to live in isolation. Living in a community requires some degree of compromise for the good of all. Compromise has been defined as a solution with which nobody is totally happy or unhappy – everyone gets some of what they want. That means that sometimes things are going to be determined either by the majority's wishes, by reaching a middle ground, and sometimes by what serves public health and safety, even if this last means infringing on the freedom of individuals and groups to do what is in their narrow interests.

 

Most communities regulate safety and what are called nuisances. A nuisance in the legal sense of the word is "something not allowed by law because it causes harm or offense, either to people in general (public nuisance) or to an individual person" In a just society, laws cannot be enforced on the basis of "whose ox is being gored." If a teenager is (a) drinking illegally and (b) driving, I really think it's disingenuous to call that "harassment" and "a nuisance." If we believe in the right to own property, then it stretches the imagination to think that the right to own property jointly with others should be abridged.

 

Washoe County rarely recognizes that Incline Village/Crystal Bay is in many ways distinct from the rest of the County. Notwithstanding that, the County, in its nuisance ordinance intentionally left "blank space" for communities to fill in their own, local definition of what constitutes a nuisance. A committee here has spent quite some time studying this issue, hearing from interested parties, and preparing to tell the County Planning Department our local standards. Saturday's open meeting is a critical step in that process – a chance for residents to tell the County that we care about nuisances that are peculiar to this community and what we consider those nuisances to be. A letter-writer asks "Do we need a Nuisance Workshop or a County Comprehensive Planning Department?" Again, I would characterize the question as disingenuous. A civilized society needs laws and regulations that reflect its values, and that is what Saturday's workshop is about. We should all be there and bring our oxen, but be willing to sacrifice them for the common good.

Column 119 - DUI

Last week saw an interesting juxtaposition in the Bonanza. On Friday an article detailed that "Washoe County Sheriff's Office deputies arrested 273 drivers for driving under the influence in 2007, according to a report recently issued by the WCSO. That's up from 230 arrests in 2006, 159 arrests in 2005 and 168 arrests in 2004. From 2004 to 2007, arrests showed a 63 percent increase."

 

Then on Sunday a reader wrote in to ask "when does aggressive law enforcement become police harassment?" He went on to assert that "If you are driving in the Incline area, especially on Highway 28 after 10 in the evening, your chance of being stopped by a WCSO patrol is probably 1000 percent higher than anywhere else in the county." I don't know how the writer went about determining this, but in 12 years of driving all over Incline I think I've been stopped twice – once for going too fast (I was) and once for missing a stop sign (I did), so maybe he and his friend are getting all the stops I'm missing.

 

It's pretty easy here in Incline to get agreement that the County sees us as a cash cow that should be milked whenever possible – I've stated that opinion myself from time to time. I think, however, that it's grossly unfair to tar Captain Steve Kelly and his deputies with this brush. Steve Kelly has lived and served here for a long time and has a genuine concern for the community. About a year ago he organized a series of conversations on the DUI problem in Incline – he did this on his own initiative, not as part of his job. His hope was that a group of citizens would take on the anti-DUI effort so that there was a more popular context for it than law enforcement and punishment, and that hope was realized in the formation of CARD – Citizens Advocating Responsible Driving – under Bill Horn's able leadership (full disclosure: I was the organizing chairman of CARD and am on its Board of Directors).

We have a genuine problem with DUI here as the numbers in Friday's article make clear. DUI is not a joke or just hi-jinks. People are killed and injured by drivers who have been drinking. The relative risk of death for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high blood alcohol content is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 707 times that of a sober driver, according to estimates by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. So I would ask the letter writer what he would like from our law enforcement agencies – lax enforcement resulting in deaths, injuries, and property damage or "aggressive enforcement" resulting in a lowering of DUI numbers?

If we train law enforcement officers to look the other way and enforce the laws loosely, we send the message to them and to potential lawbreakers that we aren't serious – the laws are just suggestions, to be broken if you think you can get away with it. If, as the writer says, the laws are not enforced the same in Reno or in the valley as they are here, then I say two things: first, thank God we live here and second, let them come up to our standard rather than try to lower our standards to theirs.

Column 118 - Schools

I've been writing this column for over three years now, and while it started as a kind of "point-counterpoint" with Jim Clark's column, it quickly became apparent that most of the differences of opinion Jim and I had were on national issues – on most local issues we were pretty close, and so we've each mostly written about what interests us – for Jim that's mostly state stuff, for me mostly Incline, and that's been fine.

 

I've been dismayed, however, at Jim's recent columns about education in general and Nevada schools in particular. Since Jim generally hews pretty closely to the Republican view of things, I've been even more surprised that his views are even further to the right on the issue so schools than most of the GOP.

 

In last Friday's column, I think Jim went beyond the bounds of reason. Jim notes that in a report in Education Week magazine, Nevada schools received a grade of D plus, against a national average of C, notably receiving a D minus for "K-12 achievement" and a D plus for "student success, school finances, and student transition into the work force." Call me naïve, but I think those grades are cause for concern for those of us who live in Nevada.

 

It seems that for Jim and many Republicans, any expenditure on education is too much, and any attempt to finance educational improvement constitutes lamentation and whining by school officials who think "it's all about money." Further, the teacher's union "regularly lies with statistics in order to bludgeon state legislatures and the federal government into throwing more money at the public education monopoly." Strong accusations, presented as fact, but with nothing to back them up.

 

These same Republicans don't seem to have a problem with corporations lying with statistics in order to get or keep business from the federal government – for example, Blackwater and Halliburton, and I haven't heard any outcry from the right at such obscenity as a $101 million package for the CEO of Countrywide Mortgage, which bears a large part of the responsibility for the recent debacles in the industry. It seems that the current GOP has rewritten Jefferson's famous dictum of "millions for defense, not one cent for tribute" to read "millions for defense contractors, but cut education to the bone.

 

Jim makes the absurd assertion that "if all the individual state education systems were graded on a curve…Nevada would receive a C plus. Not wonderful but passing." Jim, in business do you grade employee or company performance on a curve? No company I've ever worked with does.

 

Jim also says that because Nevada students mostly enter the workforce in lower level jobs (is that true? I don't think so), the pressure isn't there for high quality education. Hello? The Education Week report downgraded the state on "student transition into the work force." That means our kids aren't even being educated well enough to enter our work force, much less Massachusetts' or California's.

 

There are two groups of employed people who serve the public and are expected to live between poverty and the lower middle class while politicians get fat off lobbyists and corporate parasites get rich at the public's expense – the military and educators.

 

We are spending billions in Iraq, and every attempt to limit spending on that ill-advised GOP adventure has been blocked by the Republicans. Yet these same politicians have repeatedly foiled attempts to pay our military a living wage and to provide decent health care to those injured in the war. By blocking any rational approach to health care, the GOP is effectively subsidizing the medical and pharmaceutical industries as well as the HMOs and health care companies. At the same time, our dimwitted Republican governor is cutting services and particularly cutting education. Yet when those we have hired to educate our children protest at program cutbacks and inadequate funding, they are accused of whining and being in it to "bludgeon state legislatures and the federal government into throwing more money at the public education monopoly." Have you no shame sir, have you not a shred of decency?

Column 117 - Trustees

As the year drew to an end, the IVGID Board of Trustees elected their officer for 2008 and, wisely I think, chose to retain the same officers as last year. Chairwoman Bea Epstein expressed a sense of responsibility for the "Pandora's Box" she opened in 2007 and wished to stay on as Chair to complete some or all of these issues. The Bonanza, in an editorial, endorsed this decision and so do I.

Epstein has been a different kind of Chair than the Board has seen in recent years. She has not been intentionally controversial, but neither has she shied away from controversy. She has encouraged what it is fashionable to call "out of the box" thinking in approaching issues, and has not worried about popular approval so much as she has tried to do the right thing for the whole community.

It's a popular misconception that the Trustees represent the residents of the District. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Trustees are not elected by constituencies – all Trustees are voted on by the entire village and are charged with holding the assets of the District in trust. My dictionary defines a Trustee as "a…person to whom property is legally committed to be administered for the benefit of a beneficiary." We, the residents of the District, are the beneficiaries, and the Trustees serve as stewards – they manage our common property and interests for the benefit of all of us and are charged with maintaining and increasing the value of those properties and interests. A representative may favor the interests of those he or she represents against the interests of others – for example, a representative from Northern California may defend the interests of San Francisco or Napa when they conflict with the interests of Los Angeles or Anaheim. A Trustee does not have that charge nor should they – each Trustee represents the interests of the whole District and the reason to have more than one Trustee is to ensure that those interests are fully represented in the Board's deliberations. For the most part this Board has tried to do a good job of that.

The Trustees, and particularly the Chair, are considered by some in the community to be fair game for criticism, vilification, and personal harassment. Trustees have told me that they have received late night and early morning phone calls letters both signed and anonymous and reams of email, some of it thoughtful and useful, and much of it insulting and rude. This seems to come with the territory of public service, even volunteer public service, but it also often crosses the lines of propriety. It's one thing to write a letter to the editor or a column disagreeing with or criticizing the Board or a given Trustee – public discourse is the proper venue for public issues. It's something else again to call at 4 in the morning, to insult a Board member's spouse who happens to answer, and to send what amounts to hate mail.

Three seats will open up on the Board for the November election. Running for a seat on the Board in 2006 was very interesting and enlightening to me about our community. If you have an interest in taking on the job or if you don't like the job the current Trustees are doing, I urge you to run. If you don't, then at the very least keep your response to the Board and about its members to public and proper forms. I wish Chairwoman Epstein and the other Board members all the best for the coming year and trust they will continue to do a good job.

Column 116 – Governor Gibbons (again)

As 2007 winds down and we enter the presidential election year, it's predictable that a great deal of attention in the media and in our lives will focus first on the nominating process and then on the election. Here in Nevada there will be very little of local interest in this election (although in Incline we will have another IVGID election with three of the five seats up for grabs), and it would be natural to think nothing of state interest is going on. That would be a mistake.

 

Nevada faces a worst-case revenue shortfall in 2008 of some $440 million. In response to this, Governor Gibbons, who is required constitutionally to balance the budget, first floated what many thought were draconian budget cuts in education and human services, and then after the outcry pared the cuts back to spread the burden over more agencies and to average less than 5% in cuts overall. Sounds good, right? Only by comparison to what was arguably a straw man proposed to make the real plan sound good.

What is obscured by the Governor's usual arrogance and assumption that he is smarter than the electorate is that K-12 public education will have some $95 million in cuts during this two-year budget cycle and that the state university and college system would have its budget reduced by some 32.7 million dollars. The appropriation reduction would require the suspension of searches for 55 faculty and classified positions, reduction of already under-funded operating budgets, elimination of library book acquisitions, elimination of equipment replacement, elimination of applied research initiatives, deference of network upgrades and maintenance, and other actions that University of Nevada Chancellor Jim Rogers has called "devastating."

I don't find it terribly surprising that Gibbons, who seems to revel in his own ignorance, would cut funding for education in our state which consistently ranks near the bottom nationally in quality measures. He has set up his plan in a way that avoids the need for legislative action, caught the Legislature's leadership, particularly Democratic leadership off guard, and can pretty well rely on the national campaigns to distract Nevadans from what he is doing. We should not be distracted.

It is patent insanity to cut education spending in a state that, according to Education Week ranks 43^rd nationally in "chances for success" for its children and 44^th in K-12 educational performance, and insulting to the intelligence of the electorate to assert, as Gibbons did, that much of the reduction mandates can be met by postponing construction projects.

It's possible that the worst case will not be realized, but the state's estimate of the shortfall has gone up from $286 million to $440 million and assumes that the current slump in key revenue sources, particularly sales taxes, will continue. Given the direction of the national economy under the current administration, that assumption seems likely to be true. I can't think of a stupider response to worsening economic conditions than to cut back on education in a state that is already in a league with some of the most backward parts of the country – Nevada's economic future lies in attracting new businesses and professionals to the state, and one of the key factors in attracting those is the quality of education. If we want to be a backward state known for gambling, prostitution, and recreation rather than being known as a great place to live, Governor Gibbons seems to be taking us in the right direction.

Don't let the national clamor distract you from what this incompetent governor is trying to do in furthering his political ambitions.

Column 115 - Potpourri

I've had occasion recently to be present at several very interesting events that say a lot, and not all of it positive, about our community.

 

Last Saturday the Parasol Community Foundation hosted its annual awards (they really should give these a name – all the best awards have names – Oscar, Emmy, Toni – maybe the Parrys). A couple of hundred people were there and many awards were given to agencies and individuals, and this was one of those occasions where the cliché "it's an honor just to be nominated" really does apply. The judges must have had an awful time deciding on the winners, but they did a good job. Particularly notable was the acknowledgement of the Integrated Services Team – this is a collaboration within the Collaboration designed to find and meet the needs of families in need, and demonstrates the best of what is possible when bureaucracy is eliminated in favor of doing what is needed. Also, I can't think of a better selection for Volunteer of the Year than Bill Horn. This is a guy who could, if he chose, put in an 8 or 10 hour day at IVGID and then go home. Instead, he is part of every major volunteer effort in a village he doesn't even live in and has made a huge difference in his two years as PCC Chair.

 

I also had occasion to attend the presentation by Boulder Bay, LLC of their plans for the Biltmore and Mariner properties in Crystal Bay. Contrary to my expectations, it was not a slick, all-questions-answered dog and pony show, it was an admittedly preliminary plan and the presenters seemed genuinely interested in getting input from those present. More importantly, they seemed to be taking the input seriously. I was left with a lot of hope that this project would be carried out with a real commitment to collaborating with the community rather than the "public be damned" attitude we have sometimes seen with major developments. There are serious questions and issues to be resolved. With a development of this size, the state line at Crystal Bay could be a real traffic bottleneck in the event of an emergency evacuation of Incline, particularly if Mt. Rose Highway isn't usable. The developers project a seven year phased construction program, with the construction along the road being done first so that subsequent building is masked by the roadside buildings. Still, seven to ten years (remember, seven is ten in Tahoe construction years) of construction is not a pleasant prospect, and one wonders about what Crystal Bay will be like with a beautiful new development on the east side of the road and the same 1930's architecture on the west side.

 

The last event was at the Bonanza Tuesday morning meeting a few weeks ago. A discussion arose about the possibilities of attracting younger families, businesses, etc. to Incline Village/Crystal Bay in the face of our declining younger population and the declining enrollment in the elementary and middle schools. Much was made of the supposed fact that our schools are a large part of the problem – that we have such terrible schools that young families don't want to move here. As I've pointed out before, there is an unfortunate tendency among those of us for whom World War II is a memory, not a history lesson to state our opinions as if they were proven fact, and there was a lot of this in the conversation about the schools. The following week a number of the younger attendees at the meeting rightly raised the question "who says?" and I have to say I agree with them. I work each year as much as I can with the We the People Program at IHS and am continually impressed with the quality of the education our kids are getting. Last year we had IHS grads go to Harvard, Yale, and Cornell as well as a host of other good schools. Where is the evidence that our schools are so bad, and in the absence of that evidence (and ignoring evidence to the contrary) when people talk about our "lousy schools" as if that were a fact, what damage are they doing? I work with some arguably lousy schools around the US – schools where the kids are in serious trouble and where by any measure they're not getting an education. Compared to those schools, the Incline schools are top-notch, and as a matter of community pride, if nothing else, we should stop bad-mouthing them out of opinion and ignorance.

 

Finally, a shout-out to Cory Farley of the Reno Gazette-Journal who is retiring after 28 years. Having written this column for three years I have a certain appreciation for being a progressive voice crying in a conservative desert. I've been fortunate in having the support of an open-minded paper, while Farley was a lone voice in a very conservative writing environment. Well done, Farley. You've earned your retirement.

Column 114 - Dissent

I've just returned from the United Arab Emirates, a place where I'll admit that I had some degree of trepidation about going. I was assured that the UAE is politically pretty safe – the general feeling is that the people and government there are concerned with oil and business, not politics, and by and large I found that to be the case. I never felt I was in danger. In general, I have found that in most of the world people draw a clear distinction between America and Americans – they may not like our government or its actions, but they don't hold it against individual Americans, particularly business people.

 

So I didn't find it at all strange that, at a women's bridge tournament in Shanghai, the American team tried to distance themselves from the US government by holding up a sign at the awards dinner saying "We didn't vote for Bush," an action reminiscent of the Dixie Chicks' similar declaration in a much more publicly noticeable venue.

 

The reaction was immediate and intense. Bridge fans sent e-mails accusing the women of "treason" and "sedition." The U.S. Bridge Federation proposed several punishments, including 200 hours of community service and expulsion from next year's World Bridge Olympiad in Beijing. Never mind that that the bridge players were not criticizing their country, but a politician; that they did it in a lighthearted way; that they sang the national anthem and waved little American flags -- none of this calmed those who took mortal offense at that tiny bit of critique.

 

I've commented before on this administration's attempt to suppress dissent about the President and about the war in Iraq. The Right has a long history of equating dissent with disloyalty, despite the fact that this country was founded on freedom of speech as a basic right, and despite the moral responsibility of the citizen of any country to speak out against actions they see, rightly or wrongly, as immoral.

 

In the years after World War II, we were quick to analyze and criticize the people of Germany for not speaking out against the Nazis. Actually, Hermann Goering was clear on how dissent was suppressed in the Third Reich: "It is always a simple matter to drag the people along..[to do] the bidding of the leaders," [regardless of the form of government]. "All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 

I don't know that I would choose an international bridge tournament as the place to state my dissent, but I don't think it's wrong to do so either. Rather, I think the ladies' action was in line with the actions of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma and of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. Those women's actions had greater potential consequences, but were of the same ilk.

 

As Edmund Burke said, and as has been noted so often in discussions of pre-war Germany, McCarthy Era United States, and Vietnam War dissent, "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good [people] to do nothing. The Bush Administration has cost us our budget surplus, our international reputation, the lives of thousands of American service people and countless others, and even the semblance of apolitical justice at home. We cannot let it cost us our freedom to dissent.

Column 113 – Liberals and Conservatives

In my very first column in the Bonanza just over three years ago, I quoted JFK's definition of liberalism: "…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" I said then that I defined my political stance by that statement and I still do. In today's political climate I would probably place the emphasis on the "welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions" part because now, more than any time in my memory since the 1950's, that is what differentiates mainstream liberal thought from mainstream conservative views, which I hesitate to label as "thinking."

 

Some examples: The President vetoes the CHIP (Child Health Insurance Plan) bill that had bipartisan support in both houses. Asked why he vetoed it he says "I want to be sure I'm relevant." Not one conservative politician or pundit has, to my knowledge, questioned what this inscrutable statement means.

 

Rush Limbaugh calls members of the Armed Forces who have been in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and who question the war effort "phony soldiers;" when he is called on this bombast in a demand from Harry Reid and 40 other Democratic Senators to Clear Channel Communications that he retract the statement, Limbaugh calls the letter ignorant and a smear and auctions it off on eBay with the proceeds going to organizations that, presumably, he thinks will rankle the Left.

 

MoveOn.org runs a sophomoric advertisement punning on General Petraeus' name and asserting he betrayed the American people. The Right goes bonkers, John McCain says that MoveOn should be deported. No one sees Limbaugh's reaction as ironic in light of this, no one seems bothered by the personal and destructive attacks by the right on people like Max Cleland in the last election campaign, attacks that were at least as questionable as "General Betray-us," far more personal, and against a man who gave his legs for his country, and finally, in light of Retired Gen. Rick Sanchez recent statements that totally contradicted everything he said when he was on active duty about the war in Iraq, no one suggests that maybe, just maybe, Gen. Petraeus is not being 100% forthright in his views.

 

So the primary tactic of the Right as we approach an election in which they don't have a viable candidate and in which the incumbent's approval rating hovers around 30%, can be summed up as "don't bother me with the facts, I know what's true." This is the "rigid reaction" that Kennedy had in mind, I think. Liberalism, as a philosophy (and I know, it's not true of every liberal all the time, just as there are Conservatives who think – I'm talking principles of political philosophy here, not about individuals) looks at the facts and is open to new ideas. Conservatives call this soft on policy, flip-flopping, and muddle-headed and the likes of Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, and others call it much worse things.

 

I suggest that the time for doctrinal rigidity, personal smears, lies, and stonewalling is past. That is what got us into this mess in Iraq, it is what took us from a record budget surplus to being trillions in debt, and it is what would have us elect another dangerous ideologue to the Presidency rather than someone who thinks and listens. In business, the model of the command and control, "I can do no wrong" doctrinaire leader has long been abandoned; it's time that politics caught up to what business has known for the last couple of decades – leadership is most powerfully based in listening, learning, and a profound regard for the facts, uncolored by ideology, ego, or what the leader wants to believe, and that no company or country can afford to ignore its impact on the rest of the world.

Column 112 - Privilege

My business has taken me away from Incline, indeed out of the country, for much of the summer and I can't say I'm fully up on current events in our community. I've tried to stay informed about the beach access issue but don't know what if anything else is going on that's of interest.

 

The other hot issue of the summer seems to revolve around what I would have otherwise thought would be an innocuous matter, that of the Bonanza's publishing a page in Spanish once a week. This has given rise to a spate of letters that were surprising in the level of their calumny and specious arguments.

 

As Jim Clark pointed out in his column on Sunday, the approach advocated by the usual gang of mossbacks has been shown historically to produce the opposite of the effect it's proponents claim to want, yet here it is again.

 

I don't think it's stretching things too much to draw a parallel between the two issues. Both seem to me to stem from an attitude of "I've got mine, now if anyone else wants a piece they will have to pay dearly for it." No one has advanced a rational argument to show that opening the Incline beaches to the 400 or so Crystal Bay properties will have the slightest adverse effect on Incline – logically, the increase in beach use would be negligible, and there is nothing to indicate that there would be any effect on property values or home sales. Yet IVGID meetings have seen those opposed to the change turn out in droves, and the rhetoric has been extreme, vilifying trustees who were acting in good faith to try to find a solution, and characterizing those who disagreed with them in the most negative terms.

 

Similarly, there is, as far as I can tell, no intelligent argument against people speaking Spanish (or for that matter Cantonese, Italian, Farsi, or any other language) while living in the US. Other than remote parts of Idaho, Northern Sweden, and China, I have not been anywhere in the world where only one language was spoken. With the exception of France, I have not been anywhere where this was not accepted and even welcomed. Yet here in Incline we find that one page in a local paper is cause for bemoaning the invasion of the US by Spanish-Speakers. Well guess what, folks, that ship has sailed. Just as Chinese, Brits, Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, and Jews immigrated and left their mark on our language, cuisine, and culture, so have the Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Spanish-speakers. And in a small area like ours, where it's probably not feasible to have newspapers in different languages, it makes economic and social sense for the Bonanza to reach out to this audience.

 

Now here's the part nobody is saying, so I'll say it. I believe that what is at issue here is not beaches or language, but privilege. If Crystal Bay gets beach access, then Incliners have lost a privilege. Never mind that they really haven't lost anything, there is the appearance of loss. If people speak Spanish, then somehow native speakers of English are diminished. Don't ask me how – I don't understand it – but a certain kind of American has always found it somehow personally offensive that others do not speak English. This same American, who demands that everyone who comes to America speak English, when he goes abroad blithely speaks only English and expects to be understood wherever he goes.

 

So one more time: English is not the official language of the United States. The United States does not have a national language. We are all free to speak whatever language we want, including in public, on signs and in advertisements, and in the newspapers. I would suggest that if we are going to be concerned about language as a public matter, a good thing to be concerned about would be the use of obscene language in public and on t-shirts.

 

And one more time: the so-called privacy of our beaches hangs by a thread. We are one court case away from having our beaches opened to the public (including the Spanish-speaking public) and no one knows which court case that would be. The Board had a chance to settle this issue in a way that had the potential to put it to bed for the long-term, and some Trustees at least caved to pressure. Enjoy the privileges while you can – they are unlikely to last.

Column 111 - Spanish

Last week, the Bonanza published its first one-page section in Spanish. I made a bet with myself that within two subsequent issues there would be a letter of protest, and sure enough, there it was last Wednesday, and a particularly offensive one it was, accusing the Bonanza of "becoming a Spanish newspaper" and "becoming more and more Spanish". But most egregiously the writer goes on to say that by publishing a page in Spanish, the Bonanza is "encouraging illiteracy!!!!" A teacher of English as a Second Language weighed in in favor of the section, and I'd like to add my thoughts to hers.

 

First of all, let's get straight. Literacy is not, as this writer seems to think, the ability to speak English. "Literate" means, simply, the ability to read and write. If you can read or write any language, you are literate. Since the Bonanza is a print medium, anyone who can read the Spanish page is literate; more precisely they are literate in Spanish, and if they picked up the Bonanza in the first place, they may be literate in English as well. By definition, publishing a written piece intended to be read can't be "encouraging illiteracy." To the contrary, anything that promotes reading would be "encouraging literacy." What seems to vex the writer of the letter is that the literacy in question is Spanish, or maybe that it's not English.

 

My parents came to this country in the late 1920's from Russia by way of China and Canada. Their native languages were Russian and Yiddish, and they learned English along the way. In the 60 years or so that they lived in this country they spoke English in public, English, Russian, and Yiddish at home.

 

I was born here, so English is my first language. I speak three other languages passably well, and when I'm in countries where those languages are spoken I speak mostly in the local language, though I find that most people in the world speak English better than I speak their language.

 

I've traveled over a good deal of the world and have heard the following joke everywhere I've gone: "A person who speaks three languages is called trilingual. A person who speaks two languages is called bilingual. What do you call a person who speaks one language?" Answer: "American."

 

The Founders considered making English the official language of the new country and rejected the idea, and attempts to amend the Constitution or pass laws to this effect have consistently failed. There are arguments both ways, but my point here is not to advocate for or against an official language. Seven states and territories are either de facto or legally bi- or tri-lingual, and many other parts of the country are as well. My point is this – if people want to read or write in a language other than English, it does me no harm. My cable service has at least two Spanish language channels, and when I travel to New York, San Francisco, or LA I find channels in Chinese, Japanese, and Tagalog to name a few. I pray in Hebrew, and others pray in Latin, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, and Tagalog. This in no way diminishes my or their American-ness any more than my Republican parents' speaking Russian or Yiddish diminished theirs.

 

My point is simple. Get over it. If you want to live in a community that is exclusively people like you, then start one. If you are going to live in the United States, which was founded on diversity by people from England, Holland, Germany, France, Spain, Russia, and some who lived right here, then maybe there is something you can learn from those "others."

Column 110 – Sore Winners

My mother used to say that the louder you proclaimed something, the less sure you were that it was right.

 

In the aftermath of the beach decision, there have been an awful lot of letters from folks loudly proclaiming that the Board's decision reflects the position of the majority of residents in the District excoriating Bea Epstein and Bob Wolf for voting in the minority, and taking the Bonanza to task for its supposedly biased coverage of the issue. There are a couple of problems with these positions.

 

First of all, the same people that laud Gene Brockman for voting his convictions in the matter rather than going with the recommendation who are at the same time scathing in their condemnation of Epstein and Wolf for doing the same thing. The basis of the condemnation is that classic Incline argument, "you don't agree with me, so you're bad." Epstein and Wolf had the same right as Brockman to call it as they saw it. Further, the Board of Trustees are just that – Trustees – not representatives. Their job is to hold the assets of the District in trust even when their view of how best to do that conflicts with the popular view. If residents don't feel they are being good Trustees, they can vote them out in the next election, but while they are in office, their guide must be their view of what is best for the District in the long run, not what is popular.

 

Second, the letter writers have protested (too much, methinks) that the views expressed by a majority of the people at the IVGID meeting were the views of a majority of the residents. What evidence do they have for this? There is a great deal of data that indicates that, in any political debate, those who turn out are those who feel most strongly about an issue and not necessarily a representative sampling of opinion. That's why reputable pollsters go to great lengths to balance samples in order to get a truer picture of opinion. While I wasn't here, my understanding is that the audience at the meeting was overwhelmingly, loudly, and sometimes insultingly against beach access. Good – they had their say – but I see no basis to conclude from this that they represented everyone or even a majority. Maybe they did, but that is yet to be shown.

 

Finally, because I was away on business for the past two weeks, I read the Bonanza's coverage all at once and found no bias in the reporting. The much-maligned headline did not say that residents or the Bonanza were "disappointed" in the Board's vote, it said the committee that worked hard on the rejected recommendation were disappointed, which I don't find hard to understand. The losing side in any debate is usually disappointed. Big deal. The Bonanza reported, I think accurately. Yes the paper's editorial position was for access, and the editor and publisher have the right to take any position they choose and to express their disappointment, disapproval, or even disgust editorially, but they did not do so in the news coverage.

 

So, unless I fall back on my mother's dictum I don't see what all the gloating, excoriating, and asserting a majority position is about. Some of the same people who accused me of being a "sore loser" in the IVGID election are now acting like "sore winners." Well, at least their consistent.

Column 109 - Miscellaneous

Hard to believe Summer's almost over, but the kids are back in school, Labor Day Weekend is upon us, and soon the population of Incline will have its annual falloff. I've been away on business so much this summer that it's a bit hard to find things to write about, so herewith that old columnist's standby, the bunch of short, unrelated items.

 

• It looks like there's actually a chance of the beach issue being put to bed this week. We can expect (it's already begun) the usual flurry of outcry from those who, Chicken Little-like, are sure the sky is going to fall if their view isn't upheld, but in point of fact the Board of Trustees has done yeoman service on this issue and can be expected to come up with a good compromise, the definition of which is that it will please no one completely and won't cut anyone off completely either. I don't know about you, but I for one will be very happy to see this one put to rest once and for all.
  

  
   

• When did public profanity become acceptable? On my first Costco run in quite a while last Saturday there was a young man with a tee shirt, the printing of which I can't reproduce here, but which included a word that, not so long ago, was considered rude in the extreme to use in polite company, much less print on a tee shirt. I take a back seat to no one in my commitment to free speech, but I believe it was Justice Holmes who said that the freedom to swing one's arm ends at the other person's nose. I think that the public display of extreme profanity, whether spoken or printed on garments, rises to the level of "the other person's nose" in more ways than one. I've spent a great deal of time outside the US this Summer, and I hope it won't seem unduly Pecksniffian of me if I say that this is an area where we are far behind others in terms of gentility.
  

  
   

• Having lived in Incline through one full cycle of school years, it's a little strange to see children I've known since they started school going off to college and to watch a new class of IHS Freshpersons walking down Village at lunchtime. This is that proverbial case where the high school kids seem to get younger every year, but in fact it's we who are getting older – each successive class is about the same age, and each is a year younger than we are by comparison to the last class. Still, it's great to see them and to watch them grow up and move on – great for all of us except maybe their parents.
  

  
   

• Despite the staff turnover and the continuing, sometimes laughable, typos, I'm sure you've noticed the improvement in the Bonanza over the months since Terry Drago and Tanya Canino took on the jobs of Publisher and Managing Editor respectively. As a columnist who has nothing whatever to do with editorial policy or management, it's not immodest of me to toot the NLTB's horn. The emphasis on local news and issues and the return to a "community newspaper" concept has, in my never humble opinion, brought the paper back to a par with its quality in the Jurkonis/Carraway era, and may even be expected to surpass it.
  

 

• So here we go into another election year, with the Nevada Caucuses in January and then the quadrennial spectacle of a presidential race. Maybe, just maybe, we can keep it civil – at least 67% of us nationally agree that we need a major change, though we may differ reasonably about what that change should be. Let's hope against hope for a decent airing of the issues and a respectful campaign.
  

 

Happy Labor Day, all. Let's send the Summer of '07 off with real appreciation for all the joy it brought us from its early start through the great celebration of Red, White, and Tahoe Blue, and on through the glorious August weather we've been having. See you on the lake.

Column 108 – Santa Claus

We live in pretty cynical times, and most of us have to look twice or three times at someone who seems to be about doing good and for whom we can't seem to locate something material in it for him. Even so, it's pretty hard to be cynical about Incline's Santa Claus.

 

You may know Santa – if you attend St. Patrick's or the Foursquare Church, or if you come to the Bonanza Tuesday morning meetings where he's a regular you've probably at least seen him and may have met him. If you don't know him, you may think he's some sort of character or eccentric, or you may figure here's a guy who's turned his appearance into a money-maker. And what about his changing his name to Santa Claus? Pretty odd, huh?

 

I've had the privilege of knowing Santa under one name or the other for most of my time in Incline and I'm writing this column because I think it's important that people know he's the real deal and know what he's doing. By way of full disclosure, I'm on the Board of Santa's foundation, about which more later.

 

Santa has been an actor, an executive, and a disaster worker. He is also a monk in the Order of St. Nicholas (of course), a community activist, and a candidate for the Fire Board. Already ordained in one denomination, he is in the process of becoming an Episcopal Priest. Most importantly, he is an advocate for children. He has traveled to 49 states on Santa's Bless the Children Tour (he is in Alaska, his 50^th state, this week) visiting federal and state legislators and their staffs in every state, advocating for children throughout the United States and visiting as many children in dire circumstances as he can along the way. He does this as a volunteer, supported by private donations and otherwise at his own expense as an expression of his commitment to children's welfare.

 

According to the US Census Bureau, there are more than 74 million children under the age of 18 in the United States. Of that figure, about 2 million are abused, neglected, or exploited; and another 1 million are abandoned, homeless, or institutionalized. The numbers increase every year. Right now, that is 1 out of every 37 children in the United States. Santa Claus is an advocate for these children, especially those who are wards of the states.

 

Now Santa is starting a non-profit foundation to extend his work and to provide a vehicle for broader public support. Santa is a modest man, as you would expect, and while his vision is a big one – to eliminate child abuse and neglect and for every child to have a true home with loving parents – he sets his sights modestly. When I asked him how much he needs to raise to launch the Santa Claus Foundation (www.thesantaclausfoundation.org) he replied that he'd like about $1000 to underwrite the organizing expenses. When I asked what he would want if he could write his own ticket, he smiled and shyly replied "$4000." Modest indeed.

 

Much of my non-work life is devoted to creating, along with Father Jim Beebe, Santa Claus, and others, an interfaith ministry that will break down the divisions between Christians and Jews, and ultimately we hope between those of all faiths and those of no faith (and I suppose also the proverbial "ye of little faith," too). In my view efforts like Santa's will do more to erase these divisions than anything else I can think of. I recently shared an airport shuttle with a South Asian family that didn't seem to speak much English. As is my wont, I spent the ride making eye contact and smiling at their baby daughter who, in the way of small children, responded enthusiastically to me, and the parents, while not understanding what I was saying, beamed at what I was doing – that's how it is – caring about children crosses all boundaries.

 

As a Board Member of The Santa Claus Foundation I'm not obliged to share Santa's modesty – I would like to see the Foundation funded by much more than a few thousand dollars so that this kind, good man can continue his work unimpeded by his personal vow of poverty. His tour was funded by folks here in Incline both individually and through the churches. Why not step up and help fund the foundation as well? Think about it – isn't it time we gave something to Santa Claus for a change?

 

Column 107 - Ethics

It's too bad that Bill Horn was named in the Nevada Commission on Ethics findings regarding the Bohn/Mapps affair of last Fall. As I've stated publicly and was noted in the story, I was one of those who filed complaints with the Commission, and my complaint at least was limited to John Bohn's actions – in my view, as an employee of the District, Bill Horn's options were pretty limited and I think it is the elected official who should be held to account.

 

That said, I was gratified to see that the Commission takes this seriously. My raising the issue in this space after the election was the occasion for a certain amount of mud to be slung my way, with "sore loser" among the milder epithets that came from Bohn's claque, however small it might be. I have to admit that this was somewhat vexing to me – sure, given I ran I would have liked to win, but the ethical questions in Bohn's actions raised a concern to me that was much more important than my being on the Board, and that's why I withdrew from consideration for the appointed seat now very ably filled by Chuck Weinberger.

 

To cite Lord Acton's famous (and overused) maxim, power corrupts. The IVGID Board of Trustees has pretty limited power, but for those without the maturity and integrity to wield it, that limited power still has the potential for corruption and this is a case in point. Whatever his motivation, Bohn's actions were inappropriate. The resignation of an elected public official is inarguably something the public has a right to know about and to find out about in a timely manner, particularly on the eve of an election that will fill 40% of the seats on the Board, and Bohn as Chairman had an affirmative obligation to disclose it. Given he was also a candidate for re-election, this disclosure would have, at the very least, avoided the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

Bohn's recent intractability in the Beach access discussions continues his long-term pattern of arrogance in placing his opinion ahead of the facts and of the law. While Chairwoman Epstein and the other trustees seem to be doing their best to find a solution that will work and will protect the interests of property owners. Bohn has, since before the election, been obdurate in his insistence that the Board has no power to change the status quo, even in the face of legal opinion to the contrary, and while citing no authority more competent than his own questionable opinion to support his position.

 

Bohn should save the Board and the Village from a protracted process and resign from the Board. Lest this suggestion send my respected correspondents to the lakeshore to gather a fresh supply of mud, let me say that the only dog I have in this fight is that of being a concerned citizen. In the unlikely event that Bohn puts the interests of the village ahead of his own dubious position, I have no interest in being appointed to fill his seat and if asked to stand I will not do so.

 

I also think that the Ethics Commission should rethink the wisdom of their investigation of Bill Horn. I looked into this whole affair pretty carefully last Fall, and I don't think an investigation is warranted. For historical reasons, I am loath to cite "following instructions" as a defense, but in this case it was not Horn's place as General Manager of the District to disclose a situation that involved only the elected Board and did not touch on the staff directly. For the GM to go around the Chairman in a matter like this would have been questionable in terms of proper procedure and arguably inappropriate. I don't know who included Horn in their complaint to the Commission, but I would call upon them to withdraw that complaint. It was Bohn who acted unethically and Bohn who should be held to account.

Column 106 – Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof." There used to be two interpretations of this Amendment – one said that the government should maintain a strict separation from anything remotely religious and the other said that while it was OK for the government to relate to religion in various ways, it could not favor any particular religion or put any religion into official disfavor.

 

There has always been a strain of religious fundamentalism in this country, and there are those who believe that since the majority of people profess Christian faiths, America should be considered a "Christian Country," whatever that means. They erroneously cite the Founders, many of whom such as Jefferson were avowedly non- or anti-religious, and conveniently ignore those who were not Christians and who contributed to the founding as well. More importantly they ignore the Founders' intent in making the anti-establishment clause the leading part of the Bill of Rights.

 

Senator Harry Reid is a Mormon, and has while he does not wear his faith on his sleeve, he makes no secret of it either. Nevertheless, as Majority Leader of the US Senate and as one of the two Senators from a religiously diverse state, he takes the Constitution pretty seriously. Last Thursday Reid invited Rajan Zed, a Hindu Chaplain and Director of Interfaith Relations at a Hindu Temple in Reno to give the customary brief prayer that begins the Senate's business every day. This was a first for a Hindu clergyman, but not for a clergyman who is not Christian – Rabbis, Imams and even Native American Shamans have given the prayer from time to time.

 

Here's where it gets sticky: a fundamentalist Christian group, the Mississippi-based "American Family Association" urged its members to object to the prayer, and three protestors disrupted the invocation by shouting from the gallery. Here is what they objected to: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the heavens. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds." Mr. Zed then closed with "Peace, peace, peace be unto all." He said all this in English, by the way, and for this apparently the people in the gallery and the so-called "American Family Association" felt he should be shouted down and silenced.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and preferences, but the supreme law of this country, the Constitution, makes it very clear that freedom of religious expression is a core value, and that no religious expression is to be given preference over any other. As a Jew I have no objection when, 90+% of the time the invocation in the Senate is given by a Christian clergyperson. I also have no objection if it's a Hindu, a Jain, a Muslim, or a Buddhist. As a person of faith, I think it's good for our Senators to be reminded that they are working "under God," whether every one of them believes that or not, and I don't think it matters what name the invoker calls God – Deity Supreme, Adonai, Allah, God, Father, are, in my view, different words for the same entity. If I call the thing I'm sitting on a chair, une chaise, ein Stuhl, una stilla, kisei, una sedia, or any of hundreds of other words, it remains what it is, so surely God does not change from one language to another.

 

As a nation we are regressing in this regard. The curve of religious pluralism and attendant religious tolerance that seemed to have been increasing since the Enlightenment seems to have taken a downward turn. It's time we stopped allowing a small number of religious bigots to set the cultural tone and get back to the values this country was founded on.

Column 105 – Independence Day

Happy Independence Day. Yes, Independence Day – that's the name of the holiday, not "the Fourth of July." July 4 is the date of the Declaration of Independence, but a lot of things happened on July 4 and even on July 4, 1776, so I think it's important to remember what we're celebrating today, and that is Independence.

 

History has somewhat clouded the significance of that date. On July 4, 1776, the thirteen colonies of Great Britain in North America declared themselves independent. No one had ever done that before. Countries had been won and lost in wars, traded as colonies, and various dukes, earls, kings, princes, and queens had formed alliances to create new countries, but never before in history had a country declared itself independent. Naturally that declaration then had to be fulfilled, in this case by a bloody war, but that war is not what we celebrate today. The Revolutionary War is generally considered to have ended when Lord Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington at Yorktown on October 19, 1781 – five and a half years later, and that surrender was the fulfillment of the possibility declared in 1776.

 

The Declaration of Independence stands as one of the seminal documents of Western Civilization both because of its irrefutable logic – that all people are created equal, that they share "inalienable rights," and that governments exist to protect those rights – and because of what it inspired in other nations, notably France. But just as the possibility of independence had to be fulfilled through defeating the British, the fact of independence had to be fulfilled through the creation of a system of government that would protect it – that also took time and it was not until the adoption of the US Constitution in 1789 that we had that government.

 

This was also very significant. It was, to my knowledge, the first time in the history of the world that an intentionally secular government was created with an ironclad prohibition against the institution of a state religion and the guarantee not only of freedom of religion, but freedom from religion if one chose not to believe or not to affiliate. Again, 200+ years has clouded the magnificence of the creation of a constitutional democracy and its importance to world history. John Adams, paraphrasing the English political theorist James Harrington, called this "a government of laws and not of men," a phrase that has held its power to this day.

 

And yet democracy is only as strong as our will to uphold and defend it. Today officials as high as the President and Vice President seem to be trying for a government of men who are above the law, and this has filtered through to the point where it seems that some people think we have a "government of opinion, and not of laws." In the debate over beach access we've heard what one attorney characterized as "more bad and false law than I could have imagined." Many in this debate seem to think that because they believe something to be the law, it must be the law and how dare anyone suggest otherwise? Fortunately four of our five Trustees are intelligent enough to see through this bombast and have moved toward a very reasonable stopgap compromise and to get a qualified opinion on the points of law as a basis for moving forward.

 

Another misconception about constitutional democracy is that the majority always rules. While this is ultimately true – a sufficient majority can change the constitution – it is not true in the interim. Until the law is changed, the law always rules in "a government of laws and not of men." It doesn't matter if everyone in Incline wants our beaches to remain private if the law says they must be opened to others. Don't like it? Get the law changed, but don't accuse those charged with supporting the law of being deaf to the majority – they hear the majority, if such it is, but the law speaks louder – again, I applaud the Trustees who voted to hear what the law has to say and wonder about the one who is so certain he is right without qualified rulings on the law.

 

The point is this, folks. Independence is a gift hard-won. Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." You've heard it said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. It is my sincere hope that, on this Independence Day, we redouble our vigilance against those, whether in Washington or in Incline, who would put themselves and their opinions ahead of the law.

Column 104 – Beaches (again)

Sometimes I feel like Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

 

The beach access issue has divided this community like nothing I've seen in my 12 years here, and as irrationally as I can imagine for a local issue. Legal threats are flying around like pine pollen on both sides. The Trustees have been threatened of they let so much as one Crystal Bay resident set foot on the beach and while I was not at the meeting on Monday, I understand that there was name-calling and threats as well as flights of high dudgeon, invocation of the Constitution and, worst of all in our community, even a threat to bring in the ACLU!!!

 

Hiram Johnson said that when war comes, the first casualty is truth – he was echoing Samuel Johnson who had said that in war, the love of truth is diminished by falsehoods that are encouraged by interests and abetted by people's willingness to believe. In the local debate, I don't think anyone is intentionally lying, but a great deal of information is being presented as "the truth" that is, at best, opinion and conjecture, and when the discourse descends to name-calling and threats, we can, I think, declare communication dead.

 

I've felt from the beginning that, in my view, there should be one overriding issue here – keeping the beaches private. If by accepting access for owners of some 400 properties - people who are, at the end of the day, or neighbors we can keep the beaches from being accessible to thousands whom we don't know, then we should. If, as seems obvious, beach access adds to the value of properties in Incline, then why not accept adding value to 400 rather than losing value from thousands?

 

Here's the point, folks – nobody is going to win this one. In the Bluth affair it took $150,000 to defend against a frivolous, ill-devised suit and we didn't get a ruling on the issues. Today it could cost $250,000 and we might not win. If hotter heads prevail and this goes to Federal Court as a constitutional issue, if the ACLU, which has no interest in Tahoe or its beaches gets involved, it will cost a lot more and we are very likely to lose. Even in State or District Court, the jury hearing the case will not be from here, but could easily be Reno-ites or Carson-ites who would love to come to our beaches.

 

I say again, this is a true no-win situation, and we are well down the road to the point of no return. Somewhere, somehow, somebody needs to be the voice of reason in this and I don't know who will do that and have everyone involved listen to them. When people are so dead certain that theirs is the right view, reason is defined as anything that agrees with that view, and anything that does not agree is considered stupid at best. Not exactly fertile ground for dialogue.

 

I wish I had a good ending for this, but I don't. I do remember one instance though that might be instructive: When Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt met at Camp David in 1978, each began by declaring that his country's giving up the Sinai Peninsula to the other was absolutely non-negotiable, and it looked like the negotiations were over before they started. One of the American negotiators, under President Clinton's direction asked each head of state separately what was really important to them about the Sinai. Begin said it was security – Israel could not have that vast territory available to be used as a base of attack against them. Sadat, when asked, also said it was security – they could not have the Israeli army occupy what they considered part of their country. When it was clear that each side had the same basic commitment, it became possible to broker a solution that Egypt would retain the Sinai Peninsula and Israel would provide security patrols there.

 

It seems to me that the question that we should be asking is "what is it that makes beach access an important issue for both sides?" Perhaps then we will find a constructive solution. Without that, to quote Woody Allen, "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

Column 103 – Red, White, and Tahoe Blue

Fair warning: This column is going to be an unabashed promotion for Red, White, and Tahoe Blue, and by way of full disclosure, I am on the board of RWTB, Inc, and have been intimately involved in the planning, so this won't be "fair and balanced."

 

To give you a little history, RWTB was the brainchild of local realtor Tom Bruno about a year ago. You may not know Tom – he's not big on social events or local clubs, but he is one of the most committed, hard-working, and self-effacing people it's been my pleasure to work with. He's a regular at the Tuesday morning Bonanza community meetings, and the bane of TRPA representatives who don't have their facts marshaled to meet his always cogent inquiries.

 

Tom surrounded himself with some equally committed folks for the Board of RWTB, Inc. – Greg Mc Kay, Bea Epstein, Bill Horn, Bill Hoffman, Tom Masterson, and Allen Ferris round out the Board, but Tom also got a huge number of people to participate – I won't attempt to name them all because I'd inevitably forget someone, but they'll all be acknowledged in the souvenir program for RWTB. This group, in turn, has raised almost $200,000 to put on what will be one of the great parties ever in Incline.

 

If you're a snowbird and just got back, here's the rundown – it started out as a three-day event; culminating in the 4^th on Wednesday, but other groups wanted to be part of it, so now some of the exhibits, athletic tournaments, and a special "Living Green in Tahoe" event at the College over the weekend. The core of the celebration, though, remains the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th.

 

On Monday, July 2^nd, a breakfast at the Firehouse will kick off the festivities, followed by a parade that will start at the "new" elementary school and go down Route 28 and Country Club, ending at the Middle School. The theme of the parade and RWTB is to honor our veterans, who will be prominently featured in the parade. At noon, church bells will ring and Mark Twain will read the Declaration of Independence followed by an Air National Guard fly-over and a World War Two-style "Stage Door Canteen" show with the Andrews Sisters redux and an old-fashioned ice cream social.

 

Every evening will see concerts at the Village Green – Monday's will be the popular local group Sol Jibe. On Tuesday the Sierra Nevada Ballet will put on a "Yankee Doodle Dance Event" in the style of George M. Cohan, all culminating on Wednesday with headliner Lacy J. Dalton before the fireworks.

 

On Tuesday the I-Can Run and Walk will be part of RWTB this year and for the less athletically inclined, the Rotary Clubs will be sponsoring the Rubber Duck Races. There will be breakfasts every day, a Barbecue and Apple Pie contest on Tuesday, and tons of other events all day, every day.

 

There will be gourmet dinners before each of the concerts and on Monday night an additional dinner at Thunderbird Lodge with the Great Basis Brass Quintet and stargazing with astronomer Dr. Paul Guttman and of course, the grand finale, the fireworks on two (count 'em two) barges in the lake – twice the fireworks display we've ever had before.

 

So plan to be here and to participate. We still need sponsors if you're inclined to donate, and if you want to donate time we still need volunteers. The plan is for this to be an annual event that will benefit the community and financially benefit local charities. Let's make this inaugural year a great kick-off that really demonstrates who we are as a community.

Column 102 – Black Swans

We hear a lot about where Incline residents differ – beach access, dog parks, almost issue that is raised seems to be an occasion for division that is often acrimonious between various people in the community, and you can't tell the sides without a program.

 

I think this focus on controversy is unfortunate on a couple of counts. First, I think it reflects the views of a very small number of people (and I'm among them) who are able, by means ranging from reason to fear-mongering, to get a larger number of people riled up. Secondly, I think it obscures some fundamental areas where IV/CB residents come together rather than move apart.

 

Last week I spent a few hours at what was billed as a trade fair put on by the Chamber of Commerce. One thing that struck me was how many volunteer and non-profit organizations that weren't really about "trade" were represented there – the hospital was giving blood pressure tests and advice on health, the Rim Trail, TRPA, IVGID, Rotary, Red, White and Tahoe Blue, Tahoe Women's Services were there, and I know there were others I'm not recalling as I write this. The Republican Advocates were there, not just to promote their view but offering voter registration to those of any political persuasion.

 

In addition to these organizations I noticed how many of the businesses that were there were supporters of community efforts – I won't name names here because I know I'll leave some out and because so many of the businesses that support the community weren't there, but you know who they are.

 

While we do argue a lot, giving of ourselves – time, money, and talent – is a deep-rooted part of the culture of our community, and that, I think, is what makes us a community. How many towns of our size have a huge facility that is completely dedicated to supporting community efforts the way that the Parasol Foundation and Collaboration are? At how many events like the Trade Fair would people who have invested considerable time and money to promote their business take the time to seek out an opportunity to volunteer for the anti-DUI effort or to run over and buy ducks for the Red, White, and Tahoe Blue duck races?

 

I don't want to sound saccharine, but I think we let acrimonious differences get in the way of our really appreciating what we have here that is more fundamental. I find that if I can sit down and talk with people and get past the rhetoric and reaction (mine as well as theirs) even those with views that are diametrically opposed to mine and even in those cases where I find their views repugnant, what is behind those views is never evil or mal-intended. I don't know why this surprises me so often – if I look at myself as a test case, I am never mal-intended by my own lights – even my most boneheaded moves have the best of intentions behind them – so why would that not be true of everyone else?

 

The philosopher David Hume once said that no number of observations of white swans will prove that all swans are white, but it takes only one observation of a black swan to disprove it. This is interesting in a lot of ways, but particularly for this discussion it points up one way that we come to focus on what divides us – we encounter someone who, for whatever reason, we react to negatively – Bill Clinton, George Bush, Michael Moore, Dick Cheney, whoever – and the logic goes like this (to paraphrase Hume): "No number of observations of good (progressives, conservatives, environmentalists, beach-accessers) will prove that all (…) are good people, but this one observation proves that they are not."

 

My point is a simple one – let's spend three times as much time and talk on what unites us so that that remains the context for what divides us, and let's remember that the word and concenpt "community" comes from "commonality."

Column 101 – Harry Reid

Well, our Nevada Senator, Harry Reid, has really stepped in it this time. Like the boy who pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes, he has had the temerity to speak the truth that everyone knows about the Iraq war – it's lost – and now neocons from Washington to Incline Village are screaming for him to resign.

 

Let's see: Wolfowitz gets his girlfriend a promotion and a $60,000 raise, but he shouldn't resign, Gonzales participates in partisan firings and then obfuscates before Congress with the one form of perjury ("I don't recall") that can't be proved, but he's OK, Joe Wilson tells the truth about yellowcake and his wife the spy gets exposed by the Vice President's office in retribution and that's OK, but Harry Reid should resign and one Incliner accuses him of "sedition" and says we should look up what it means.

 

In 1798 the nascent US Congress passed the Sedition Act. This act said that anyone "opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States" could be imprisoned for up to two years. It was also illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything critical of the president or Congress. This act was allowed to expire 1801 and subsequent court decisions have been based on the view that if it had been tested it would have been found to be an unconstitutional restraint of free speech. The dictionary defines sedition as open insurrection or rebellion. Neither of these facts has stopped the President's hard-core neocon supporters from crying "sedition" at Reid's effrontery, and a writer to the Bonanza last Friday repeats this canard and compounds it by invoking the hallowed "aid and comfort to the enemy" as evidence of sedition.

 

Actually, the phrase comes from Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution, a document that the President and the neocons seem unfamiliar with. That Article says "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Since Senator Reid is unlikely to confess, we would have to have two people who would swear in court that they witnessed an overt act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Not their opinion, mind you, but testimony of fact.

 

Let's look at that. It seems to me that the only ones who can say for sure whether Reid's statement gave aid and comfort to the enemy are the enemy themselves. But on more than one occasion Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda higher-ups have been reported to have said that the US presence in Iraq and the prolonging of the war there is to their benefit – that's the only testimony I know of that speaks directly to what "aids and comforts" the enemy. They don't need to win, they may not even want to win – as long as we are there and they are the underdog, they gain political traction in the jihadist world, so it seems reasonable to think that anything that prolongs the war and the US presence in Iraq aids the enemy and probably gives them comfort – they certainly seem more comfortable than we are.

 

So on the one hand we have Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats saying the war is lost and insisting on a plan for getting our troops out of harm's way so that as few as possible die in service of a lost cause, with the ancillary benefit that Al Qaeda would lose whatever they gain from our being there. On the other hand we have the President and the neocons in deep denial insisting on an open-ended commitment to a war they have no plan for how to win or how to get out of. And we have the enemy saying it's to their advantage that we stay there and they benefit from it.

 

So who's giving "aid and comfort?" And who should resign?

 

Column 100 - Polemics

Last Wednesday in a guest opinion column Syd Bekowich took both Jim Clark and me to task for our last "face-off" columns on the Gonzales matter. Specifically, he accuses Jim of vindicating Gonzales and me of a "virulent" (extremely poisonous or venomous; full of malice; objectionably harsh or strong) attack on the Bush Administration. He concludes by accusing both Jim and me of "dogmatic belief that led to burning people on the stake." In Sunday's Letters, Jane Bekowich, his wife, quotes from Ralph Nader and asks if Jim and I are "trying to make us believe in your points of view or…inviting us to think through the issues?"

 

Both the Bekowiches raise valid issues but, I think, are unclear on the nature of opinion columns in general and the "face-off" in particular. Given the choices Mrs. Bekowich offers, I would opt for the second – to invite people to think is what I've tried to one way or another through my career as a writer and educator. I certainly do not expect an occasional 700 word column will make anyone believe in my point of view, and I don't think my point of view is something deserving of belief, particularly given that it changes as I get older and learn more.

 

That said, there is more than one way to (metaphor alert) skin a cat. Polemics (aggressive debate, attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another) is a method of argument that goes back to at least the 17^th Century, and is not dissimilar from Mr. Bekowich's own writing in his article. The opinions expressed by Jim and me in our columns are, as they say, our own, and we believe them. I believe, for example, that the import of l'affaire Gonzales goes way beyond the firing of eight US Attorneys and, along with Scooter Libby, the Iraq War, etc., etc., goes to the heart of a Presidency that is rotten to the core with egoism, greed, and disregard for the Constitution. Therefore my column was, in my view, very much about Gonzales as was Jim's. Do I invite people to think? Yes – to think beyond the surface issues to the root of how this Administration is selling this country's founding principles and our place in the world down the river.

 

Do I expect to convince anyone? No, sadly, I don't. Forget the Bush Administration, let's look at a local issue. I attended parts of the thirteen hour public hearing on beach access last Monday and was less than surprised to hear so many people that are so convinced of the rightness of their position and the rightness of their facts that they are, in my view, prepared to sacrifice what they say they hold most dear rather than compromise. It seems that no matter which way the Board decides, one side of the argument or the other will sue. If they sue, it at least opens the possibility, maybe the probability, that the courts will order the beaches opened to all, and everybody loses. Talk about the Charge of the Light Brigade.

 

And what is more dismaying is how sure everyone is of their "facts." People who spoke to me were absolutely certain that if we open the beaches to the 400 properties that do not now have access, that will mean we have opened them to the whole world. Not true. Others were certain that we could not keep the beaches from being opened to the planned timeshares and expansions of some of the Crystal Bay casinos. Not true. The "fact" that has the most currency and supposed certainty is that "properties in Incline are worth on average $50,000 more than those in Crystal Bay, and the difference is beach access." Maybe, maybe not, but no one has, to my knowledge, shown one bit of evidence that supports this claim.

 

So, Mr. and Mrs. Bekowich: Am I inviting people to think through my polemics? I sincerely hope so. Do I expect to convince anyone? No, and I'm not so arrogantly certain that my point of view is right that I even want to. Are polemics the only way to get people to think? No, it's just the method that short newspaper columns lend themselves to. If you want more reasoned dialogue, join the program on Jewish-Christian relations that Father Jim Beebe and I will be doing starting in June – you'll get a whole different approach.

Column 99 - Imus

The First Amendment is, arguably, what makes America America. Other countries have democratic governments of various kinds and share a lot of the freedoms we have – you can vote in many countries, you can bear arms – in Switzerland you're required to own firearms – other countries have safeguards against blurring church and state that make ours look weak – France, for example, is aggressively secular. But nowhere that I know of goes to the length that our Constitution goes to to protect free speech from government interference. If this is the land of the free, nowhere are we more free than we are to speak our mind.

 

Common sense and common practice has long recognized that even this right has its limits. In 1919 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in Schenk v. United States "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," invoking the notion of "clear and present danger" as a legitimate reason to curb some kinds of speech. More recently we have seen laws passed against "hate speech" as well.

 

And that's where it gets tricky. To (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater clearly creates a danger – people may panic, trample others, etc. Hate speech is different than hate actions such as lynching or other physical attacks. For those brought up on "sticks and stones…" the notion of hurtful speech takes some thinking about, but we've all experienced being hurt emotionally by things others have said, so it's understandable. Still, where do you draw the line and still protect free speech?

 

When I lived in New York in the 1970's I listened to this crazy radio show in the mornings on my way to work. While other morning radio consisted of music and news, this guy Don Imus was doing all sorts of wacky and entertaining things like calling a McDonald's store, pretending to be the commander of an army base that had just had a fire in its mess hall and ordering 25,000 hamburgers to go, launching into a long string of special orders (17,000 with no onions, 5,000 with mustard, etc.) Arguably Imus created the "shock jock" genre and is the spiritual father of Howard Stern, Opie and Anthony, and the rest. Increasingly over the years Imus has pushed the envelope of what one is allowed to say and do on the radio. He was among the first to give Kinky Friedman, erstwhile candidate for Governor of Texas, a national microphone, proclaiming "They Ain't Making Jews Like Jesus Anymore" the "Imus in the Morning National Anthem." A lot of what he did was funny, some of it silly and a great deal of it offensive to various people and groups.

 

Now, it's generally agreed, Imus has gone farther than free speech will allow in his comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Yet his remarks fall far short of what rap music puts out every day. Snoop Dogg, that icon of rap, says that the reason his racist, misogynistic, and insulting lyrics are OK and Imus' comments aren't is that Imus was talking about nice women and Snoop is talking about ho's, managing to reinsult black women at the same time he claims to be defending them.

 

But there's something about the First Amendment that should be understood and often isn't. What it says is: "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This means that the Federal Government, and by extension state and local governments, is barred from interfering with free speech – it doesn't say that an employer, particularly in the media, cannot say what is acceptable for its employees to say. In return for making the public airways available to Imus or anyone else, CBS and MSNBC are not legally restricted from saying what they are willing to have broadcast under their banner.

 

Seen this way, free speech becomes self-regulating. If the public is willing to buy rap music that insults women but unwilling to tolerate Imus insulting women, then, as we've seen, Imus will go and rap music will continue to sell. I, for one think that's a pretty good system.

Column 98 - Beaches

As a psychologist, it's always been interesting to me which issues get people here heated up and which leave them cold. Dogs, and particularly the venues for their elimination functions, never fail to cause a stir. Mention affordable housing and people who are not heard from on any other issues will rise up, tar and feathers in hand, to greet you. Anything involving golf and to a lesser extent tennis will bring high passions from some.

 

But no issue seems to bring up as much choler as that of beach access and, frankly, I'm at a loss to see why. Yes, almost 40 years ago the deed that passed Incline Village from its developers to IVGID said what it said. Yes, the merger between IVGID and CBGID 27 years later said what it said. That was then, this is now.

 

It has been asserted that beach access is worth $50,000 additional value to Incline properties over presumably comparable Crystal Bay properties; yet comparable properties in Incline that have no access to Incline beaches seem to share in that $50,000 added value, so is it really because of beach access? Yet some have said that CB residents should pay that supposed $50,000 differential to get beach access. This argument makes no sense to me. To whom would they pay it? There are 400 parcels that don't have beach access and about 8600 that do. Should we create a buddy system where each of the 400 is paired with 21.5 of the 8600 and pays each of them $2,325.58 cents? And if we do that, are we prepared to guarantee that each of the 400 will get $50,000 more for their property when they sell it?

 

Then there is the "do what's right" argument. Proponents of this view say, in effect, "they knew when they bought that they didn't have beach access, so tough." I wonder how far they are willing to go to be right about this position. Deed restrictions and CC&R's do not have a good track record in the courts. Remember that there was a time when restrictions on who could live where and what they could do were common – CC&R's were used to keep out minorities, to force unreasonable compliance with regard to appearance, etc., and the courts have generally knocked down what they have held to be restrictive covenants.

 

Also the courts have not looked kindly on restrictions to natural attractions such as beaches. In cases in Connecticut and California previously restricted beaches were opened to the public when the restrictions were challenged in court. In the view of many this would be the worst possible outcome for all concerned and if that $50,000 differential is real, you can kiss it goodbye if the beaches are opened to the public. You can also kiss our relatively pleasant and uncrowded beaches goodbye. Is standing on a principle that I think is dubious in its logic to begin with worth that?

 

Here's the simple solution: give everyone who owns property in the district equal access to the beaches for an equal rec fee. Oh I know that some people will howl and I may lose some friends over this "principle." As I said, I think the principle is dubious and the potential cost of being right very high. When I lived in Vermont there was a gravestone in an old cemetery that said "Here lies the body of Justin Gray/He died defending his right of way/His right was real/His case was strong/And he's as dead as if he were wrong."

 

I think it is laudable that the IVGID Board of Trustees is willing to spend some 13 hours (hopefully with breaks) on Monday to give everyone a chance to speak their peace. If things go the way they usually go here the anti-change forces will be out in numbers and the other side will be poorly represented. No matter – this is not an issue that should be decided by popular preference. Rather the Board should do what is right for the Village as a whole and its future, and endangering the privacy of our beaches is not what is right. For the math-impaired, 400 is 4.65% of 8600. That means on a day when Incline Beach would now have 200 people, this change might mean there would be 210. On the other hand, if this goes to court, and you can bet it will, that 200 could be 400 or more as people from Reno, the Bay Area, and everywhere else stream in.