Opinion

Details

Written by: James BlueWolf

Published: 29 September 2009

It's soccer season and suddenly the circle has come round and my wife and I are re-creating our lives from the early 1980s.

Instead of three children, it's four grandchildren. But times have changed and where we originally had to scrape and scurry to come up with money to sign them up and buy shin guards, this year we faced higher signup costs, uniform and cleat costs, shin guards as well as being asked to buy balls – one for each child – and almost all these costs are mandatory for participation.

The total cost for our grandchildren approached $400 and we haven't paid for pictures yet (or the balls). None of our grandchildren could have participated without our support.

It got me thinking. Last year I was amazed at how many times during the year our grandchildren came home from school saying they had to have $2, $3 or $5 for this or that. Field trips required a contribution. Class photos and participation in book-buying or candy sales, fundraisers and pledge drives all required that we pitch in financially. After all, no one wants their child to be the only one in class with no signatures on that pledge form and who doesn't purchase a class picture or individual photo?

Of course, I don't want to forget the nonschool-related but socially demanding holidays and events throughout the year – the county fair, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, birthdays, other kids' birthdays, school plays, costs to attend high school sporting events, etc. For parents living way below the poverty line, who can't rely on grandparents support, these costs can be overwhelming.

We can provide anecdotal evidence that in many cases local families regularly use monies earmarked for rent, utilities, clothing or food to cover these costs to protect themselves and their children from embarrassment, ridicule or denial of participation.

I know what many of you are thinking: Don't be concerned with sticks and stones and all that, be fiscally responsible like the US government or Wall Street. Rent comes before food, food before entertainment, and to all these superfluous expenditures one should “just say no!” After all, aren't home budgets about deciding on priorities and shouldn't those who are unable to stick to solid economics be deserving of ruin? Shouldn't we be expected to follow fiscally responsible policies like the state of California?

These kinds of responses are representative of the traditionally conservative economic line most of my generation grew up with. Basically, we were taught, “If you can't afford it – don't spend it!”

While the previously stated point of view was appropriate for my generation, times began changing even as our children began to grow. We lived significantly below the poverty line but we almost always paid our bills and managed to provide the basic necessities.

While they were growing up our standard of living did not provide for enough income beyond our basic expenses to allow them to participate without depending on the offer of credit. Our children suffered ridicule, embarrassment and taunting because their tennis shoes and clothing didn't come from the right stores.

Although we counseled them not to pay attention and quoted platitudes about “money not buying happiness” and “wealth not being an indicator of success,” it was difficult to compete with the endless barrage of consumeristic exhortations coming from TV and their peers. We were unaware, until much later, how great an effect those taunts and slights had on their perspective and self-esteem.

The most recent economic calamity is a direct result of unexpected changes in the socio-economic paradigm. Where we lived through periods without running water, utilities and sewer, eating rice and beans for dinner, believing that possessions were secondary in importance to cultural enrichment and family – subsequent generations have been educated (by the media) and encouraged by their peers and society around them to participate wholeheartedly in a consumer frenzy.

Thirty-something and younger adults grew up with feelings that they were entitled to a standard of living far beyond their means. It was no longer about keeping up with the Joneses (as it was in our time) but in sharing in the entitlement of the American Dream. After all, they saw it on TV every night – everyone should have a new car, a new house, new clothes, a new body, the latest toy, a well-paying job, a Super Bowl party, a well-heeled Christmas, store-bought Halloween costumes, Easter candy, etc. And it isn't just about families shedding balanced budget ethics.

Point 1: During most of my life loan sharks were prosecuted for charging greater than 10 percent interest on credit, but today corporate credit organizations can charge 18-, 25- even 30-percent interest without blinking. Recent health insurance corporation documents show that their industry would like to have 35 cents on the dollar.

For many years now, young people have been encouraged to rely on credit if their income was not compatible with their desired standard of living. Many of them simply cannot imagine making do, they have to have the latest phone or techno gadget to make them feel like they are a part of the technological main stream.

Point 2: Despite an older generation's perspective that it's just common sense to stay within your means economically, that comes from a different time. I won't open the discussion of why it was a different time – just emphasize my point of view that social and individual priorities, both nationally and individually have changed. For the sake of argument and this article, let me make that assertion.

My generation was big about not caring what others thought. We tried, and failed, to engender that belief in our children. The last two generations (except for a few) care very deeply about what others think. In fact, I would go so far as to say that with many of them it is of paramount importance that others view them positively. They desperately want to fit in and be viewed as successful. They want, as most people do, to have their children have what others have, and to participate with their peers. And so they constantly overextend themselves financially to make that happen, often ending up on the brink of economic disaster every month.

But that's only part of what I am writing this article about.

Consumerism created the monster – demanding through seasonal media blitzes that everyone participate in the holidays and events that drive the retail machine. Children have expectations, built by television and movies, that everyone is entitled to a bountiful Thanksgiving and a blitz of presents at Christmas and birthdays, candy at Halloween and Easter, participation in sports and events at school, etc.

The commonly held belief is that these are choices that people can make – whether or not to participate in these events and holidays relating to their economic level. But many of our young people are no longer setting priorities or making those judgments based on what they can afford. Why? We have simply misunderstood the dynamics of social pressure and peer influence.

Native people have a closer understanding of what has happened. Indigenous peoples seldom codified their lives into laws and ordinances. That doesn't mean we didn't have rules and regulations, values and mores, it simply means we enforced them differently.

We used, for the most part, public opinion and social pressures to enforce our precepts and manage our governments. Why was social pressure so effective? Because in native society people wanted to be a part of the whole. We cared what our neighbors and relatives thought and only occasionally did people stray from the norm. In those cases we didn't ostracize those who sought a different path, we built special roles and recognition for them within our societies – everybody had a value and a place. We understood how important and how powerful social pressure was when people wanted to belong and their self image depended on how they were perceived within the whole.

For reasons I won't go into here, much of the American populace under 40 has embraced similar values of caring and wanting to belong and be included. Unfortunately it is not values and culture that is at the center of what they want to belong to and share – it is that specific promise of entitlement to a wealthy standard of living that they have grown up expecting to be a part of.

They have grown up feeling assured it is their right to share in the wealth, whether they earn it or not. They rationalize that they must insure their children can participate in every way and their self-esteem is defined by that participation – for themselves and their families.

That perception is reinforced by their peers and children's schoolmates in the form of ridicule and ostracism if they don't live up to contemporary standards. Many children blame their parents for not being able to provide what others have and think less of them – diminishing the respect and family bonds that used to buffer families against the inequities of lack of wealth and economic status.

They simply must have everything and how they get there, or the potential future consequences of their indulgences, is less important to them than the momentary feeling of belonging and sharing in the success of the whole.

So they overspend at every holiday, birthday, and social event and participate in every school function to make sure their child isn't the only one left home during the field trip, or the only one without a signature on the pledge form – even if they have to overdraw their bank account to make it happen.

Go ahead and criticize them all you want, but we have a generation or two living like that today. The power of social pressure and the misinformation that consumerism is the end-all, be-all of the American Dream has co-opted their values. It's more important to fit in and participate now than to worry about the consequences tomorrow.

So we are enduring the resulting economic crisis – caused by those that encouraged default and those that embraced it. It doesn't do us a whole lot of good to bemoan our circumstances, after all, we all share the responsibility for letting it happen and even Native people are suffering the same problems on the wealthier reservations and rancherias.

The old story about the fiddling grasshopper ignoring the turning of fall and failing to prepare for winter is a perfect allegory to describe our present situation. So many important issues directly related to our future standard of living, even our survival, are ignored in favor of selfish, petty or philosophical fanaticism, and a tendency to ignore the mainstream for the fringe.

What can we do?

We can talk about openly curtailing our indulgent habits and returning to responsible economic practices.

We can begin to limit our consumerism and encourage our children and grandchildren to be satisfied with one present at a birthday rather than purposely inviting 10 other poor kids (all expected to bring a present) to the party so afterward we can experience a glut of things so we can feel rich (and teach our children the wrong lesson).

We can emphasize free music and art and sport without overhead, pot lucks and dances, poetry and prose events, social bonding and responsibility above buying and selling.

If we can do that we'll have a chance – if not we'll have to wait until the standard of living falls so far that the void between those that have and those that don't create the forces that demand change and upheaval. It's not rocket science—it's history and sociology.

But I'm not one to cast the first stone cause I'm just as guilty as the rest. I'm hoping others, more disciplined and capable, will lead the way.

James BlueWolf is a poet and author. He lives in Nice.

Details

Published: 24 September 2009

Lately, we have seen government, first under Bush then under Obama, give away billions of dollars to Wall Street, to mitigate the damage caused to the nation by obscene and cynical greed. Republicans objected mildly, for good form and to placate their constituents.

Faced with possible and urgently needed health care reform, Republicans are becoming absolutely hysterical, screaming “socialism” every time an aspect of legislation appears to even mildly favor the people at the possible expense of industry.

Let’s put this in perspective: all forms of government bailouts, industry subsidies and corporate tax incentives, which by the way have always been equally endorsed by both parties although both are equally good at playing the blame game to fool the electorate, are for all intent and purpose socialism for the wealthy, what has also been called corporate welfare.

To heavily subsidize an industry with taxpayer money is a socialist policy, contradicting basic free-market principles. In true socialist nations, the government owns industry. In pseudo-socialist nations like the US as well as in fascist nations, industry owns the government. The end result is the same, which is that government and industry have a romantic love affair, and ordinary people get screwed.

The US government has always subsidized industry, in essence intervening heavily to favor and sustain unsustainable industries, such as industrial farms, and damaging or bankrupting others, such as small farmers.

This, obviously, invalidates all claims to the existence of an American free-market system. However it should be noted that the point here is not ideology, but profit. It is not about capitalism or socialism, but about the bottom line, as America is a highly pragmatic nation, not inclined to fight over concepts but over concrete results.

Profit at the very top is the name of the game, which is why there is no left in this nation, not even a center, but a “right” (Democrats) and “far right” (Republicans), because government of the people, by the people and for the people would be denounced as a radical leftist agenda and completely un-American if actually applied.

It is rather simple: in America, all policies that favor ordinary people are denounced as “socialist,” and all that favors the rich, even through blatantly socialist policies, is called “capitalism.”

We are told that we live under a free-market system. False. We are told that this is a form of representative government. Who is represented? Who benefits from the government anti free-market, socialist policies? The rich and powerful, such as Big Oil.

Who funds elections? The rich and powerful. Who controls government, who controls policies?

There is no need to come up with an elaborate conspiracy theory to plainly see that the crooks are in charge, and it requires a certain amount of naivety on the part of the public to still be disappointed by government, it takes a certain amount of denial to even give in to cynicism: would anyone become bitter learning that a thief steals, that a liar lies?

The American government is not worse than any other … as all governments are more or less corrupt. The problem is that it has more power than any other, and consequently has the ability to strongly influence world policies and global trends, such as subsidizing industries like oil that depend upon and lead to ever more wars and suffering, rather than subsidizing industries and technologies that would sustain peace.

According to the Women’s Environmental and Development Organization, the estimated funds needed to look after basic global human needs are as follow: to provide shelter, $21 billion; to eliminate starvation and malnutrition, $19 billion; to provide clean safe water, $10 billion; to eliminate nuclear weapons, $7 billion; to eliminate land mines, $4 billion; to eliminate illiteracy, $5 billion; to provide refugee relief, $5 billion; to stabilize population, $10.5 billion; to prevent erosion, $24 billion. Total estimated budget for human needs, $105.5 billion.

The actual global military spending comes to $900 billion … $900 billion spent to oppress, destroy, and kill with ever more efficacy, versus $105.5 billion to protect and sustain life. Is this such a difficult choice? Should we really keep calling subsidizing peace and harmony between nations a socialist agenda because it benefits ordinary people and the poor, and subsidizing conflict and war a capitalist agenda because it is extremely profitable to some industries and to the rich, while allowing for the expansion of governmental bureaucracies and powers, such as Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, and an ever more effective control of a populace made to live in fear?

Don’t be fooled by ideological labels … The only ideologies of the wealthy and powerful are power and money, by whatever means necessary. If you still believe in the relevance of political ideologies, you are believing in fairy tales.

Raphael Montoliu lives in Lakeport.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details

Written by: Eddie J. Crandell

Published: 17 September 2009

As an advocate for the Robinson Rancheria membership that protests the leadership Nicholas Medina attempts to defend, I can first and foremost state that it is a sad attempt to instigate negativity in all directions “Medina: Tribe disputes eviction story,” Sunday, Sept. 13). He desires to discredit the editor, degrade the memberships’ complaints and put a spin on their efforts to evict those who simply oppose them.

Nick solely wants to demean our efforts for his belief that our tribal issues should stay in a tribal forum that he and his leadership control. They do not want to reveal the way the Robinson Rancheria tribal leadership treats their constituents.

Nicholas Medina attempts to justify the evictions of issues that were prevalent for quite some time, and now in the light of disenrollment; have become key points of leverage in an attempt to rid us from their sight and mind.

They intend to neutralize our efforts that will prove their lack of adherence to federal regulations, federal funding agencies, The Indian Reorganization Act, Civil Rights Act (U.S. and Indian) and tribal constitutional laws.

Instead of resolving our tribal disputes, he would much rather argue his points of interest, to avoid touching on the real problem that led to where we are now: the June 14, 2008k election, and Oct. 25, 2008, general council meeting.

He has argued those “moot” points before and does not want to touch on subjects that question their integrity, would reveal their intention to gerrymander tribal elections, and uncover all actions of their goal to disenfranchise membership for higher profits to their selves and few supporting parties.

“A land use fee” is what he is referring to when describing tenants' “failure to pay rent”, and is what Nicholas Medina, Tracey Avila (tribal chair, “failure to pay rent” tenant since 2000), and Judy Anderson (appointed housing chair, “failure to pay rent” tenant since 2000 as well) had heavily opposed prior to 2006. They had convinced numerous members to not pay “land use fees” and promised membership they would wipe the slate clean once in power, of course because their slate was in the red as well. Now that it can be used as a tool to rid of people, why not.

Nicholas failed to mention that the Robinson Rancheria Housing Commission is a five-member board, comprised predominantly of his immediate family relatives: Judy Anderson (his mother), Deborah Anderson (sister of Judy, Nick’s aunt), Audrey Gutierrez (Judy’s niece, Nick's close cousin) and Michelle Monlo (Judy’s niece, Nick's close cousin). There is one non-immediate relative committee member, but any opposition would put that person in a position to be dealt with one way or another. Take into consideration the multiple Robinson employees, customers, members and sister Pomo tribal members who have been banned, beat up, demoted, disenrolled, or fired for opposition or even speculative opposition.

The same is true of the enrollment committee, election committee, and gaming commission; they are a cabinet of related individuals who carry out the same agenda that Nicholas and Tracey pursue. They know if they follow along they will reap the benefits of that same agenda. Is this nepotism or not? How can an individual tribal member receive fairness and due process from this totalitarian state ruled by the scheme of Nicholas Medina and Tracey Avila’s autocratic leadership?

They do not accept those who do not follow the status quo and their group think mentality of the “sovereignty cloak.” This belief is that they can do as they wish without any repercussions from any higher echelon, outside authority or entity. With our tax dollars, this group continues to mismanage, waste and utilize federal dollars to their tribal political advantage with the “sovereignty cloak” mindset. They are ruining it for Native Americans as a whole. Nicholas and his colleagues are using bully tactics to avoid facing innocent people who have done nothing but oppose them and pursue a transparent leadership that will not rule in a despotic manner

Medina utilizes common analogies of property management topics to grasp support of Lake County landlords, tenants, and potential homebuyers. This is an attempt to shed light off of our issues, and give a façade of “just leadership” trying to conduct everyday business. He also attempts to brand opposing members, tenants and protesters as tribal members who are taking advantage of “tribal assets.” If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I do not know what is.

Robinson Rancheria is what it is because of their actions, and we are simply tired of allowing it to be unnoticed. To clean up their impetuous past decisions, they utilize people that have poor ethical and moral standards to assist them in solely controlling the tribe as a kleptocracy. For the rest of the membership to receive any of the so called “interfered revenues,” we are to just be satisfied with whatever the leadership blesses us with, or accept quid pro quo offerings.

These issues are simply derivative results of the June 14, 2008, election, and despite Medina's belief of it being a “moot point,” the Robinson Rancheria Members and anyone else who does not obtain a special interest can read right through their ploys and justifications.

In essence this group of individuals is the neo-Indian scout; diminishing cultural tribes into oblivion for short-term gain.

It is quite interesting Nick, how you contradict yourself by requesting qualities such as “thorough and accurate reporting” and “investigating the facts of a situation” from the editor. You and your colleagues have consistently neglected those specific qualities on all issues that include the June 14, 2008, election, disenrollment proceedings, housing allocations, California Tribal TANF (CTTP) directives and many other haphazard actions you have taken to maintain control of this tribe.

Eddie J. Crandell is de facto chairman of Robinson Rancheria after being elected last year. However, the tribe's election committee decertified the election, allowing Avila to remain in power. Crandell lives in Nice.