Bonanza Column 228: Boulder Bay - Will Reason Prevail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow this blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Bonanza Column 225 – Be Careful What You Wish For

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 224 – The People United

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 223 – TOCCATA Wins Hearts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 222 – Olympics in Tahoe? Hmm…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 221 – Let’s Put the Civility Back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 220 – No One Hears

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 218 – The Real Controversy about IB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 216: To My Detractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 215 – Who Should IVGID Serve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 213 – NDOW: Neither Civil nor Servants

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 213: Dirty Pool

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 212 – Thanksgiving 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 211 – The Clinic Will Not Close

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bonanza Column 210 – When All is Said and Done…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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