You say, “It’s nice that you’ve given us some nice homey moments with the family. And it’s nice that your visit to Mayo was nice, but how about something a little more edgy. It’s been weeks since you did the news, how about the news?. Or how about some urban angst?”

Well, I’m touched by your nice sentiments. But I don’t think I can do urban angst, so how about dirty and disgusting, or something or other? How about a little California politics? You get it anyway.

For a little history:
8/26/2003-SanDiegoTribune
While the sacred places of Native Americans should be protected, the imperious method chosen by lawmakers and the haste with which this new bureaucracy is being formed would scare Californians – if they knew about it. By rushing the sacred sites bill through in the last days of the legislative session, lawmakers are severely restricting public debate on the measure. The law of unintended consequences is sure to broadside the people of California shortly after the bill goes into effect.
Senate Bill 18 would empower the Native American Heritage Commission to regulate development on any land that includes or is close to an Indian sacred site. This would add a new, lengthy and costly regulatory process onto the already complex California Environmental Quality Act. There's no distance limit between a project and a sacred site, so the Native American Heritage Commission could have power over projects that are quite removed from the sacred site itself.
What's more, the bill includes very questionable secrecy provisions. It would make it a crime for anybody engaged in identifying a sacred site and gauging its importance to divulge any information about it to the public. The Native American Heritage Commission could conduct its proceedings on sites, including proposed mitigation measures required of developers, in secret. This would violate the public's right to know about the process of government. And it could prevent property owners from learning if there are sacred sites on or near their land until the commission acted against a project on that property.
Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a very similar bill last year but supports this year's effort. The current bill is co-authored by Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, D-San Francisco, and Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego.
Wow, sounds spooky. But wait, there’s more, and it gets worse.

7/20/03 CaliforniaLicensedForestersAssocLetter
The legislation also stipulates that the Native American Heritage Commission must determine whether a TTCS is within 5 miles of a proposed project’s boundaries during its lengthy review of a project listing proposal. There are currently 150,000 known prehistoric archeological sites in California. If only 1% of the known sites in our state were upgraded to TTCS status, this would mean that an area equivalent to ¾ of the entire state (75 million acres) would be covered by these TTCS circles.

That’s only 1% of the archeological sites to cover ¾ of the state. It certainly wouldn’t take much of an increase to cover the rest. Not that this might even matter, because the foresters’ letter is concerning archeological sites. The legislation may not be nearly so specific.

You may recall from the song ‘Paint With All the Colors of the Wind” from Pocahontas that, “every rock and every creature has a life, has a spirit, has a name.” The Indians might be content with an archeological interpretation, but they’ve already argued that an old tree is sacred. There can be an argument over “what would be logical?”, but a Federal judge would make the decision, not a State one. Would you be willing to bet your house on the outcome? Hint: Federal courts lean towards the Indians.

Either way ”sacred” is defined the Indians would have tremendous power over development. All they’d have to do is slap a ‘sacred site’ injunction against it and everything would grind to a halt. Negotiations would then be opened to decide the proper compensation the tribe is due for withdrawing its objection, a shakedown scheme that would make Jesse Jackson green with envy.

Time for a flashback:

10/2/02 National Assoc. of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
Gov. Gray Davis' veto Monday of a controversial bill aimed at protecting California Indian sacred sites off tribal lands was met with sharp criticism from the Pechanga tribal chairman.

That’s right, they tried the legislation last year and Gray Davis vetoed it.

8/7/03 SanDiegoUnionTribune
Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante is gearing up to run for governor in the Oct. 7 recall election, breaking ranks with other prominent Democrats who promised to support Gov. Gray Davis and stay off the ballot.

9/8/03 TheDesertSun
Gov. Gray Davis was the darling of California Indians the last time he ran for office, but so far the tribes have abandoned him as he faces an Oct. 7 recall.

Campaign contribution records on the Secretary of State’s Web site as of last week show that Indian tribes have not donated a dime to Davis’ efforts against the recall, after donating $750,000 to the governor’s campaign against Republican Bill Simon last year.

Davis spends much of his time squeezing groups for campaign contributions. The Indians tried to play the game with the 2002 legislation, but they were simply outbid.

But Davis is willing to give them another chance. The legislation is up for his approval or veto again. Davis needs money to fight the recall.

9/4/2003 TheMercury
Davis, who vetoed a similar bill last year, received more than $1 million from Indian groups for his re-election campaign last year. And his endorsement of SB18 in July -- shortly before the recall effort qualified for the Oct. 7 election -- suggests to some critics that it was intended to woo more money from the tribes.
What am I bid for this fine piece of legislation? Going once, going twice…can’t you hear me? The Indians aren’t bidding it seems.

9/3/2003indianz

The Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians announced on Tuesday it will spend $2 million to boost the recall bid of California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante (D).

Oh, they’re betting on another horse.



9/3/03 WashingtonPost
"This contribution is not a support for the recall, or a comment about Gov. Gray Davis," Tribal Vice Chairman Bobby L. Barrett said in a statement. "Our support comes from our people to a person we know as our friend, who we believe should be the next governor of California."
Yeah sure, but this is politics and you talk with your money. The rest is just… talk, ineffective talk.

9/5/03 TheContraCostaTimes

What's clear is that Indian tribes have anted up for a man who has pledged to loosen the reins that Gov. Gray Davis has held since he signed gambling compacts with 61 tribes in 1999 and early 2000. Bustamante has left little doubt that he would lift a 2,000-per-tribe cap on slot machines operated by those with compacts and end a near-moratorium on about 35 tribes who want them.
Bustamante also suggested that he would reverse an effort by Davis to close the state budget deficit by tapping Indian gaming revenues. Early this year, Davis said he wanted $1.5 billion from the casinos for state coffers -- about a quarter of Indian gaming revenues -- though he has since sliced that amount. Bustamante slammed Davis for "trying to arbitrarily take money from the tribes."
They found a more sympathetic seller. Davis was trying to shake them down for tax money to reduce the state deficits so he could keep his office. It’s a natural reaction, people don’t mind being bought half as much as they mind being extorted.
It’s pretty much a given that Davis has done a terrible job of running the state. If contributions are drying up, what to do, what to do. Gotta get some votes. So…


9/6/03 SacramentoBee

Beginning Jan. 1, an estimated 2 million immigrants living in California illegally will be able to apply for and obtain driver's licenses.


Instant voters. When they get their driver’s licenses they check the voter registration block and there you go, a grateful, newly registered voter. Except the illegals are going to be predominantly Hispanic, and may just be more inclined to vote for Cruz Bustamante. May? They’re excited about having a Hispanic governor.

But talk about a cynical voter grab. It means any illegal, ANY ILLEGAL, can get a valid driver’s license- the document that will get you on an airplane. Fly into Mexico, go across the border into California, declare yourself an illegal, and voila. 9/11 replays, anyone, anyone? For screwing with national security Davis should be recalled, put up against der vall, undt shot.

Another problem will be that this will encourage illegals to drive, and will they have insurance? Don’t drive defensively in California, drive paranoid.


9/15/03 WeeklyStandard

Indians may keep mum on the recall itself, but some of their money is riding on Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. During the last election cycle Indian casinos gave the Fresno Democrat nearly $500,000. Last week, his gubernatorial campaign pocketed an additional $2 million courtesy of the Viejas band of Kumeyaay Indians, a tribe with 300 members that controls gambling east of San Diego. The contribution followed by a few days an $800,000 donation from two other tribes. "Cruz Bustamante is our friend," Viejas vice chairman Bobby Barrett explained. "He has sat down with our elders, learned our stories and our values."

That’s so special, he felt their feelings. I wonder what he’ll look like wearing a feather bonnet as an honorary chief. His friendliness has nothing to do with wanting their money. No it’s more than that. Surely he’s not power hungry like Davis. Of course he’s power hungry like Davis- he’s a politician.

But if I was paranoid, I’d say he’s enthusiastic about helping the Indians because it would be a legal way of getting rid of the gavachos. It would be a legal attempt at ethnic cleansing that would rid California of the European scourge and restore it to the latinos. The MEChA dream.
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~mecha/plan.html
So I’d have to guess Davis will be recalled, Bustamante will get the nomination, he’ll run against Schwarzenegger, and… like I’m a prophet. I don’t know.

I’d still like Schwarzenegger to win, and he may. If he does though he’ll probably be ineffective. The Dems control both houses, he’d have to work from a weak position.

It could be said that stringing together a bunch of newspaper clippings doesn’t prove anything. That events may have been due to other factors and there’s no denying that. Only time will tell if Bustamante signs the legislation, and what the consequences are if he does. Unless you’re a prophet, you just wait and see.

No, I haven’t been Blogging much. I work. I watch movies with the wife. I sleep. Not necessarily in that order.

We watched 'To Kill a Mockingbird.' I liked it. I liked it a lot. Gregory Peck was outstanding, again. The only thing that bothers me about his performance is that I don’t seem to become a fan of anybody until they’re dead. Then it’s too late to write them a gushing fan letter and get an autograph, maybe an 8x10 glossy (do they still do those?). Such a waste.

If you don't know, it's a film about racial prejudice in the south. It's centered around a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman. Gregory... Peck plays his defense attorney, Atticus Finch.

The kids in the film were as curious and annoying as real kids. I found it particularly annoying that they called their dad by his first name. He should have back handed the brats and said, “Just call me Dad, okay? I don’t wan’t flavah, I want juice.” Or something like that.

Robert Duvall gets a fine turn as a spooky neighbor, a harbinger of greater spooky parts to come. Maybe he's just spooky and not acting at all. If that's the case he's not acting and he should give the Oscar back.

It was shot in black and white in 1962. Color film was common by then. But black and white was a logical choice. After all, it’s a film about race relations, and right and wrong.

Anyway, it’s a great film and you should see it. Especially now that Gregory Peck is dead.

We also watched ‘Gods and Generals.’

No Gregory Peck. It is the first in what is supposed to be a civil war trilogy, God help us. The film focuses on Stonewall Jackson. Is the portrayal accurate? I have no idea.

However, you do get a non-spooky Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee, so he can keep the Oscar.

Keep in mind, I’m a Christian. Christ is a friend of mind. But they seem to spend a lot more time talking about their religion than they do prosecuting the war. Maybe southern gentlemen generals are just that way, but it seems… unnatural.

Says Jackson, “My wife’s lemonade is too sweet, not the way God intended. Fetch me some Godly sour lemonade.” Alright, that’s a flagrant misquote, but you get the idea.

My best guess is that Ted Turner is an atheist and this film is a diabolical attempt to be so preachy it will turn all viewers into atheists too. Either that, or he wants Jane back in bed. I dunno, you choose. I don’t care, I’m not watching it again.

http://publicserf.blogspot.com
Whine at me: publicserf@yahoo.com