Friday, April 29, 2016

Consumer Electronics and Chicken Feet- A Cautionary Tale

Of all the advancements in consumer electronics, the progress in televisions has been one of the most revolutionary. Flat screen TVs have improved at an amazing pace, and the prices have fallen dramatically. Now with the advent of the 4K UHD sets, the “old tech” 1080P sets can be bought for a bargain. I guess that is to be expected with anything in consumer electronics. Almost anything that is bought is obsolete as soon as one leaves the store.

TVs have always had a base or stand located in the middle of the set. No matter the size of the screen, one could set it on most tables already around the house with the pedestal base. 

Which brings me to the latest TVs and chicken feet. If you have bought a new TV recently, you may have encountered them. They have nothing to do with the electronics- they are the result of a design decision that did away with the center pedestal. Now, when you try to place your new set on almost any size table, those chicken feet that are positioned almost to the ends of the set fall off the sides.

I spoke to the manufacturer of a popular brand of 48” TV that I had just purchased. His response? Go to ShopJimmy- they’ll fix you up with an aftermarket universal pedestal base! I did- they sell them for $69. At least they offer free shipping.

D. Norman

Monday, April 25, 2016

The Celebrity as Politician

The political landscape since the late sixties has been notable for the fascination with celebrities and the elevation of some of them into political office. California has seen the elections of George Murphy, Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Minnesota turned Jesse Ventura and Al Franken into politicians, as did Tennessee with Fred Thompson and Iowa with Fred Grandy.

Name recognition is certainly a factor, and seems to outweigh other qualifications that would ordinarily expect to be valued. With celebrity comes wealth, which in recent years has been a paramount consideration in campaigns. Celebrities also attract wealth, as donors are eager to be associated with them.

Darrell West, in his 2003 book Celebrity Politics, foretold the current presidential race:
“Celebrities furthermore are advantaged because of the weakness of political parties. It used to be that those who wanted to seek elective office had to serve lengthy apprenticeships in lower positions before they could run for governor, Congress, or the Senate.

“Now, candidates from outside the world of politics who are famous, adept at fundraising, and able to attract media coverage can leap-frog career politicians and run for coveted office. They do not have to wait years serving on city councils or in state legislatures to get a chance to be governor.

“Finally, celebrities make good candidates because of the ‘white knight’ phenomenon. In an era of extensive citizen cynicism about conventional politicians, voters often see celebrities as white knights from outside the political process who are too rich to be bought and thereby deserving of trust from the electorate. This gives celebrities a kind of credibility that normal politicians do not have.”

Voters are entitled to wonder whether a celebrity from outside of politics will be effective. West goes on:
“The ultimate question of Hollywood celebrities is what kind of office-holder will they be. Do celebrities make for effective Governors, Senators, and Representatives? What challenges face them when they win a major office? What determines how successful they will be in the governing process?

“In looking at past cases, celebrities have a mixed record in terms of office performance. Governor Jesse Ventura came to office in Minnesota amid high hopes. He had surprised the experts and become one of the few Independents to win executive office in the United States. By assembling an unusual coalition of new voters, young people, and those who had just moved to the state, he was able to beat an established Democrat and Republican.

“However, as his governorship unfolded, Ventura alienated the state press, made a series of outrageous statements that aggravated the public, and had difficulties working with the Minnesota legislature. Before long, his popularity had dropped and Ventura was not considered a very effective governor.”

Ronald Reagan has become a mythical figure in American politics. Numerous examinations of his time in office have surfaced, which serve to remind us of easily (or readily) forgotten facts about his performance. I found this recent article in Salon to be especially revealing. An excerpt:
“In all fields of public affairs—from diplomacy to the economy—the president stunned Washington policymakers by how little basic information he commanded. His mind, said the well-disposed Peggy Noonan, was ‘barren terrain’. Speaking of one far-ranging discussion on the MX missile, the Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, an authority on national defense, reported, ‘Reagan’s only contribution throughout the entire hour and a half was to interrupt somewhere at midpoint to tell us he’d watched a movie the night before, and he gave us the plot from War Games’. The president ‘cut ribbons and made speeches. He did these things beautifully’, Congressman Jim Wright of Texas acknowledged. ‘But he never knew frijoles from pralines about the substantive facts of issues.’”

Many current politicians, serving now or running for office, have identified with him and utilize a revisionist version of his presidency, adding to and burnishing his myth. At the Yale University Commencement in 1962, John F. Kennedy said this about myths:
“For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Donald Trump, with his celebrity and name recognition, has been able to maintain his front-runner status. He has attracted many with his “white knight” status, being able to say that he is not a politician and isn’t interested in being politically correct. But interestingly, he is now beginning to pivot, taking the advice of political pros. He is toning down his rhetoric. By necessity he is becoming the politician he said he would never be. Will that be a turn-off to his celebrity-obsessed supporters? Time will tell.

D. Norman

Thursday, April 7, 2016

The Buenavue- a Casino in Ione’s Future?

Of all the development projects being discussed for Amador County, the proposed Buenavue casino in Ione on Coal Mine Road is one that has created a good deal of confusion and controversy. Issues of Native American lineage, corporate involvement, citizen activism, and numerous court challenges have been in the mix for a long time.

When first made aware of a new casino there some years ago, I heard it characterized as a bogus effort by one or a few people who weren’t really Indians trying to build on land that wasn’t even a reservation. I confess to have held on to that impression ever since. Perhaps I had also read about it back in 2002 in an article in the New York Times. I have no interest in going to casinos, but appreciate that the Jackson Rancheria employs many people in the county, and laud them for their tremendous help during the Butte fire last year. I write this to hopefully provide needed clarity.

A recent piece in the Ledger Dispatch contained much information that attempted to explain all of the issues and the players involved. The subject is so complex that, in my opinion, the attempt ended up creating more questions. And in trying to sort it all out, the names of the various tribes got mixed up. Actually, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-wuk Indians is trying to develop the Buenavue casino, not the Mewuks. The Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwok Indians operate the Jackson Rancheria, not the Me-wuks.

The article seemed to give the impression that Amador County will ultimately prevail in its effort to block the casino, calling the March 16 summary judgement from a U.S. District Court “a temporary setback”. Central to the effort has to do with whether the site involved is in reality “Indian land”.

What is generally understood about the proposed Buenavue casino site and its tribe:
“The Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California is a federally recognized tribe of Miwok in Amador County, California. The Buena Vista Miwok are Sierra Miwok, an indigenous people of California. The tribe conducts business from Sacramento, California. The tribe is led by an elected council. The current tribal chairperson is Rhonda Morningstar Pope.

“The Buena Vista Rancheria is [a] 67 acres (0.27 km2) parcel of land, located just outside the census-designated place of Buena Vista. The land once belonged to the Oliver family and was purchased by the federal government to establish an Indian rancheria in 1927.

“The rancheria was unilaterally terminated by Congress, along with 42 other rancherias, under the California Rancheria Act of 1958. In 1970, President Richard Nixon declared the Rancheria Act a failure. The Buena Vista Rancheria tribe joined 16 other native California tribes in a class action lawsuit, Hardwick v. United States to restore their sovereignty, and in 1987, the tribes won their lawsuit. On 22 December 1983 the Buena Vista Rancheria tribe ratified its constitution. The tribe has been federally recognized since 1985.”

Regarding the issue of recognition:
“In 1987, the Buena Vista Tribe entered into another Hardwick Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, specific to the Tribe and Amador County. The 1987 Buena Vista Stipulation provides in pertinent part that:
The original boundaries of the plaintiff Rancheria … are hereby restored, and all land within these restored boundaries of the [Buena Vista Rancheria] is declared to be ‘Indian Country.’

“The plaintiff Rancheria shall be treated by the County of Amador and the United States of America, as any other federally recognized Indian Reservation, and all the laws of the United States that pertain to federally recognized Indian Tribes shall apply to plaintiff Rancheria and the Plaintiffs.

“In a letter dated June 30, 2005, the National Indian Gaming Commission wrote:
‘Hardwick, Stipulation and Order, Dec. 22, 1983. The effect of the judgments was that all lands within the Rancheria boundaries, as they existed immediately prior to the illegal termination, were declared to be “Indian Country” as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1151. Amador County expressly agreed to treat the Rancheria like any other federally recognized Indian reservation. Thus, the Rancheria consists entirely of the original reservation land base of approximately 67.5 acres.”

From the above, it seems clear that the issue of whether the site of the proposed casino is Indian land has been long settled. Perhaps that explains why the summary judgement was handed down last month. Why go through the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious?

Anyone interested in reading more about the history of the Me-wuks in Upusani (Buena Vista) can refer to this and this. I found that this collection of letters from Mr. Glen Villa Jr. of Ione, a casino opponent of Miwok ancestry with cultural and historical ties to the Buena Vista Rancheria, to be very interesting. Also, this from Stand Up California, a casino opponent who incorrectly call the tribe Mewuks.

From all appearances, the Buenavue is more than a idea, with Warner Hospitality actively involved. In the early 2000s, the Cascade Entertainment Group, with their initial $10 million investment in the “Flying Cloud” casino, seemed to be in the driver’s seat. But they had relied on the tribal status of Donnamarie Potts, which proved to be a mistake. Lineage issues have since been sorted out, along with a more complete picture of the history of the tribe. Attempts by opponents such as Friends of Amador County to define differently the lineage have failed. And now the county’s attempt has been dismissed with the summary judgement.

The prospect of another casino in Amador county is controversial, and sparks emotions. All across the state and country, Indian casinos, like them or not, have become a fact of life. There are currently 486 gaming operations connected to 486 tribes in 28 states. As in most other business endeavors, market saturation will undoubtedly become a factor. Apparently we are not there yet, as evidenced by Warner Hospitality’s interest.

D. Norman