The Indian Affairs Quagmire

We just spent five days in Albuquerque, visiting my new in-laws. One day, we took a drive up to Santa Fe via the Pueblo of Jemez, a poor village set in the the middle of some very beautiful land. Because of its remote location, it is one of the few reservations in New Mexico that doesn't have a tribal casino:

New Mexico Governor Michael Toledo, Jr., Albuquerque Journal: "Pueblo's Deal With Doña Ana County Helps Both"

Images of Jemez were on my mind when I ran across this article about Cobell v Norton, a long-standing class action lawsuit over land-use royalties owed to Native Americans:

Jon Christian Ryter: Government Betrays the Indians Again

Ryter's article ventures into some (warranted) indignation. If you want an article without any political spin, here's one from an accounting newsletter that gets into the numbers:

"Indian Trust Fund Scandal Points to Decades of Poor Accounting"

Since I read about Cobell v Norton years ago, I assumed that some progress had been made by now in resolving the suit. Instead, the Department of the Interior lawyers are trying to have the presiding judge replaced.

It is estimated that the Federal government owes about $100 billion, but it's hard to say since the Bureau of Indian Affairs record keeping for the payments has been very lax since, err, 1887. $100 billion is in the same ballpark as the cost of the Iraq War. The plaintiffs are willing to settle for about $30 billion.

Since there are racial issues involved, this lawsuit may seem to be in the same category as demands for reparation payments for slavery or internment. But it is actually akin to the hundreds of business-related breach of contract suits that civil courts handle every year. I think the government lawyers should settle for the $30 billion while the offer is on the table.

Good Wal-Mart, Bad Wal-Mart

I used Wal-Mart the other day in "Seeing Whole Elephants" as one example of an organization too huge and complex to be summed up as good or evil. Allow me to illustrate:

GOOD WAL-MART: OK, the real reason I'm doing this blog entry is that I wanted an excuse to link to this article I ran across the other day. It has got to be the most ironic thing ever written about Wal-Mart. Admittedly, it's more anti-union hit piece than testament to the goodness of Wal-Mart:

Stacy J. Willis, Las Vegas Weekly:"Picketers for Hire: The strange business of protesting jobs that may be better than yours"

They're not union members; they're temp workers employed through Allied Forces/Labor Express by the union—United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). They're making $6 an hour, with no benefits; it's 104 F, and they're protesting the working conditions inside the new Wal-Mart grocery store.

BAD WAL-MART: According to this webpage, Wal-Mart is one of the biggest benefactors of eminent domain abuse and subsidies in the country. They've sinned on one of my pet issues here:

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html

Wal-Mart leads the pack in attracting subsidies, this year collecting $10 million in Denver; $500,000 in Dallas; $36.7 million in Scottsdale, Ariz., (as part of a shopping center that includes Lowe's); $9 million in Bartlesville, Okla.; and $17 million in Lewiston, Maine.

GOOD WAL-MART: It's been pretty well publicized that Wal-Mart has been generous in offering relief to Katrina victims:

Michael Barbaro, Justin Gillis, Washington Post Service: "Wal-Mart receives praise for hurricane relief effort"

Wal-Mart's response to Katrina -- an unrivaled $20 million in cash donations, 1,500 truckloads of free merchandise, food for 100,000 meals and the promise of a job for every one of its displaced workers -- has turned the chain into an unexpected lifeline for much of the Southeast and earned it near-universal praise at a time when the company is struggling to burnish its image.

Looks like this publicity was actively spun by corporate headquarters. Still I have to give them points for doing good, no matter what their motivations:

Robert Berner, Business Week: "Can Wal-Mart Wear a White Hat?"

The troops also try to spin positive stories about the corporate giant. As they sat facing one another around three tables arranged in a U shape one day in mid-September, Hurricane Katrina was still high on the agenda. Action Alley had scored a bull's-eye after just weeks on the job when it garnered widespread national publicity about Wal-Mart's efficient relief efforts following New Orleans' devastation.

BAD WAL-MART: It looks like they are being sued for mistreating employees, yet again, this time in Oakland:

David Kravets, Associated Press: "Wal-Mart accused of depriving employees lunch breaks"
(requires sign in)

Lawyers representing about 116,000 former and current Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees in California told a jury that the world's largest retailer systematically and illegally denied workers lunch breaks.

My personal experience of Wal-Mart is limited. I shopped at the Mountain View store a couple of times and found the experience unpleasant. I won't go there any more, but then, being an affluent professional, I'm not in their target demographic of rock-bottom price seekers.

I've been told by people that do shop at Wal-Mart that there are much nicer stores than the Mountain View store, which is right in the middle of one of the poorest neighorhoods in Santa Clara County. Our local state representative and former Mountain View mayor, Sally Lieber, was one of the first to call attention to Wal-Mart managers giving employees instructions on how to apply for food stamps. I wouldn't be surprised if the incident that triggered that story happened at the Mountain View store, although I haven't found any documentation of where it occurred.

I also came close to taking a job with a software company that did Wal-Mart's data mining. During my interviews, I learned that Wal-Mart was pushing the envelope in inventory management and analysis of sales patterns. I also learned that they had an entire mock store set up in Benton, Arkansas just for testing out product display arrangements. I didn't take the job, though, because I didn't see the prospect of regular business trips to Benton as a positive.

Feinstein Keeps It Real

I heard only as much of the opening day of John Roberts' confirmation hearing as I could catch while driving to and from work today. From what I could tell the day was dedicated to giving the Senators a chance to do some lofty speechifyin'. In the middle all the hot air, Dianne Feinstein's remarks stood out, bringing it all down to a human level:

"I remember what it was like when abortion was illegal. As a college student, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so young women could go to Tijuana for an abortion. I knew a woman who ended her life because she was pregnant."

"Sen. Feinstein's prepared opening statement for Roberts hearing"
(requires sign in)

Flishback: Million Solar Roofs, 200-Page Textbooks

• "Solar Subsidies Considered Harmful" (July 9th): Senate Bill 1, the "Million Solar Roofs" initiative, which started off with widespread support from the Governor on down, failed to pass the Assembly before last Friday's end of the 2005-2006 regular legislative session.
  
  When I last checked on the bill, it still contained a clause that restricted systems qualified for the subsidies to those installed by contractors holding a C-10 license. Frankly, the latest amended version of the bill has language so dense I'm not sure from my own reading what its current restrictions are. Here's how one article, written a few days before the end of the session, described the sticking points that ended up sinking the bill:
  
  CA's Million Solar Roofs Bill Re-referred to Committee
  
  

  The most controversial of the remaining issues are two labor provisions that were attached to the bill in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 25th. The first requires prevailing wages be paid on all commercial solar installations, while the second would eliminate half of all existing solar contractors by requiring only certified electricians do the bulk of the installations.

  
  

  State labor unions are split over these two amendments with Laborers and Carpenters on one side, in opposition of the amendments, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and State Building Trades Council on the other, in favor of the amendments.

  
  
  In this follow-up interview, Jan McFarland of the Photovoltaic Manufacturer's Association makes a strong accusation against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers:
  
  Interview: Jan McFarland of PVMA and ASPV
  
  

  "I believe the real division may in fact be within IBEW who has long track record of fighting against renewables, new technology and distributed generation."

  
  
  I'm not too worried about the solar power industry. The business might, maybe, grow slower without these subsidies, but it will be more stable in the long run for not having gotten mixed up in the political bog so clearly exhibited in this case. The defeat of SB1 isn't even the demise of subsidies in California. The rebate program run by the Public Utilities Commission should continue.
  
  On a personal note, I just attended an excellent half-day Sierra Club-sponsored class on solar energy systems in preparation for incorporating solar into our upcoming home remodeling. The first half of the class gives tons of nuts and bolts details on having a system installed and the small amount of work needed to maintain it. The second half gave a rundown on the excellent financial payback the systems are yielding. If you get the chance, attend one of their classes.
  
  [Hmm. This post was just supposed to be a quick follow up.]
  



• California to Limit Classroom Materials to 200 Pages?! (May 31): Looks like this bill is also dead, never having come back out of the Education committee.

Allen Rice On The November 2005 Initiatives

Allen Rice, former Libertarian candidate for Calfifornia Senate District 11, and one of the sharpest and honorable guys I know, has posted his analysis of the California ballot initiatives for November 2005:

Initiatives November 2005

As always, Rice has picked up on details that the rest of us might have missed. And come to some independent-minded and unique conclusions.

He may change my mind about Proposition 75. I hate to see public employees compelled to join unions that engage in political activities they don't personally support, but I think Rice may be right that the initiative takes reform too far, intruding on the unions' autonomy.

Hopefully, I'll find time to study all the initiatives and post my own recommendations here.

Seeing Whole Elephants

[This post is a reworking of an email I sent to a "too-prominent local Libertarian" trying to convince him that his extreme views on public schools were contributing to the marginalization of the Libertarian Party. I've never figured out whether he actually holds those extreme views or just enjoys engaging in extreme political rhetoric.]

An unfortunately too-prominent local Libertarian condemns public education as a dismal failure that needs to be shut down immediately. Whole blogs are dedicated to informing us that Walmart is evil. Anti-internationalists gleefully rattle off lists of every scandal that has ever occurred in the United Nations.

What do they all have in common? All are looking at huge, complex institutions with selective vision -- seeing only the parts of the elephant that support their preconceived point of view.

It's human nature. I do it, too, although I'm trying to squash the habit.

Once we've made up our mind about something, once we identify with a political camp, we don't want to consider evidence that contradicts our stance. It hurts our brains. To use a fancy phrase, it causes, "cognitive dissonance."

But, the truth is that huge real-world institutions or phenomena are rarely purely evil or purely good: It's true that there's a lot to criticize about the public schools, Walmart, the United Nations, whatever. But, it's simultaneously true that public education has provided opportunity and excellent education for many people; that Walmart is an innovator in inventory and supply chain management, and provides excellent bargains to the very poor that it is accused of exploiting; and the United Nations has kept the peace in many troubled places and saved childrens' lives.

It's all true at the same time. Reality is more complex than any idealogy I've ever heard of. If we are wise, we should push ourselves to see the whole elephant, not just the parts we want to see. It doesn't mean that we have to suspend all judgement or abandon our guiding values. It just means that we base our views on a solid, always growing understanding of what really is.

The irony is, if you are trying to develop a balanced view of some political issue, people with biased points of view are a valuable source of information. On the Internet, they're the ones who bring out all the information that many would prefer to keep hidden. You just gotta be willing to triangulate between all the extremes, and sort out the information from the misinformation.

Ahnold Of The People

Governor Schwarzenegger plans to veto California's gay marriage bill because it would oppose the "will of the people":

Aaron C. Davis, San Jose Mercury News: "Gay union veto plan opposed"
(requires sign in)

He's factually correct about that. A majority of California voters did approve Proposition 22, a simple one-sentence initiative which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman:

wikipedia: California Proposition 22 (2000)

At first I misunderstood the governor's position, thinking that he was objecting to the bill being unconstitutional. But I went back and verified that Proposition 22 is a change to the California Family Code, not a constitutional amendment. So, it isn't a matter of the legislature having violated the California constitution. But, as the governor says, they are opposing the will of the people. At least, the people who showed up to vote that day.

I'm one of the minority of people who voted against Proposition 22, and I've got a big disagreement with what the majority of people willed in this matter. What they willed that day was to interfere with the private lives of homosexual people because of their fears that allowing same-sex marriages will lead to all of us catching gay kooties.

OK, I'll state it more formally: they barred, without even a matter of public interest involved, a particular minority the fundamental right to form marital contracts. It wasn't that long ago that "the people" willed to do the same thing to another minority: mixed-race couples.

We all get so used to calling our society a democracy, that we forget that pure democracy, unconstrained by safeguards for rights, is just another flavor of tyranny. In fact, our form of government is supposed to be a constitutional republic in which rights always trump the will of the majority.

Hot Conservative Babes!

This one's for Stephanie. Since she's on blogging hiatus, it falls to me to post some of the stories she would have:

Introducing the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute "2006 Great American Conservative Women" calendar, featuring such hotties as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin! Only $25!

http://www.cblpi.org/

From a Washington Times article on the calendar:

"Miss America 2003 Erika Harold is crowned Miss February; ... Everybody's favorite gun-rights advocate, Shemane Nugent, wife of rock legend Ted Nugent, is Miss July; ... and last but never least, Miss December is Ann Coulter, who requires no introduction."

Yowsa!