Alcohol is the drug of choice for youth and the leading cause of death among teenagers. It’s involved in the deaths of more teens than all other illicit drugs combined – by a four-to-one ratio. Underage drinking is a factor in nearly half of all teen automobile crashes and 50 to 60 percent of youth suicides. Alcohol abuse is linked to as many as two-thirds of all sexual assaults and date rapes of teens and college students, and it contributes substantially to homicides, suicides and fatal injuries.

While many believe that underage drinking is an inevitable “rite of passage” that adolescents can easily recover from because their bodies are more resilient, exactly the opposite is true. The brain changes dramatically during adolescence and this growth can be seriously inhibited by alcohol consumption.

The damage alcohol can cause to the adolescent brain is often long-term and irreversible. Even short-term or moderate drinking impairs learning and memory far more among youth than adults. Adolescents need to drink only half as much as adults to suffer the same negative effects.

Youth who begin drinking alcohol before age 15 are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol than those who wait to begin drinking until age 21. In 2006, of the 797 clients enrolled in outpatient treatment services at Alcohol and Other Drug Services, 24 percent of the clients were under the age of 18. Of these, 38 percent reported beginning to drink before the age of 12, which is twice the rate for the state.

Because of the negative consequences of underage drinking – coupled with the fact that, on average, young people begin drinking at 13.1 years of age – it is critical to address youth access to alcohol proactively through all sources, including social sources.

In addition, home parties have repeatedly been identified as the primary source by which youth obtain alcohol. Studies indicate that most underage drinking “occurs primarily outside commercial establishments and most often in residences and open areas like beaches and parks.”

National research shows that 57 percent of minors reported drinking at friends’ homes and that one third of sixth and ninth graders obtain alcohol from their own homes.

If you are a parent interested in preventing the use of alcohol or drug in your home or if you are a youth that is interested in making changes in your community please call Carrie White, prevention specialist for the Lake County Alcohol and Other Drug Services, at 263-8162 ext 228.

Team DUI is a group of individuals and local agencies who are seeking to reduce underage drinking and drinking and driving in our community.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

It's no secret that our older population is increasing in size, and living longer. That means more of us are going to develop chronic conditions of some sort and need more medical care, probably some stays in nursing homes.

At last Tuesday's Board of Supervisors hearing on Sutter Lakeside's plans for change, we heard medical director Dr. Diane Pege say that medical care has changed radically. Because of the near-miraculous nature of today's medical technology, operations which used to require several days hospital stay now are outpatient surgery. You're in and out on the same day, with no need for heavy duty nursing care.

But if you live alone, as more of us do now, you may not feel able to go home and back to fully taking care of yourself – shopping, cooking, bathing, dressing. A convalescent home could be just the ticket.

But will we tolerate the typically awful food of nursing homes? The constant blare of competing television sets from every room? The distressing and rather frightening presence of mentally ill patients mixed in with those who only have a broken ankle?

Probably not. At the Tuesday hearing, Sutter Lakeside CEO Kelly Mather said chronic conditions are the big problem, and full hospital care for most of them is just too expensive, and unnecessary.

Time for some change

We're in a transition stage, and those are always uncomfortable. It's a relief to know that Sutter Lakeside has been working to upgrade the standards at a local nursing facility. We certainly need a new model. Many convalescence periods don't need fancy machinery or 24-hour nursing, just a cheerful setting, a little peace and quiet, maybe some intensive physical therapy, at which Sutter Lakeside excels, and which they can certainly provide in a less expensive setting.

There are serious questions about why hospital care and insurance are so expensive, and why insurance is so complicated. The hospitals didn't create that situation. They buy expensive technology because we want all the latest gadgets, just as we want prescriptions for all the latest drugs we see advertised on television. Insurance is a world unto itself, which many legislators have allowed to run wild as the campaign contributions roll in. Those are issues to deal with on a political level.

On a personal level, we need to examine our assumptions. Is a high-tech hospital the only place for long-term recovery, or the best place to give birth or to die?

Maybe not.

Sophie Annan Jensen live in Lucerne.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

That they should so wish is interesting. It is best understood as an astute reading of their voting base; and their voting base doesn’t have any idea what they are actually voting for, or what bending of the U.S. tradition and liberty it might allow!

Average Republicans will and do deny this, but with some study the truth will out. Specifically, the current cant is that in a Republic, the legislators (which, co-incidentally but unacknowledged, are elected democratically) are not to be subject to the will of the people; rather they are subject to the rule of “law.” Oh yes … but which law? No one actually says. This semantic slight of hand is that “patriots” (read conservatives) know what the law is, and that what they are proposing and promulgating has been here since the founding of America. The usually un-verbalized (but assumed and injected) con is that the “Law” is always apparent, and that all “good Patriots” know what the “law” is!

Once their assumption of the “obviousness” law is posited, then next sequential conservative shuffle step is to totally avoid and ignore the source from whence the law (remember, we are not discussing religion) would come! Nor do they explain how, when needed, the law can, would, and/or should itself be changed "by the rule of law.” Can't you just see the “conservative conservatives” waving the flag of “Law” against the “not quite so conservative conservatives.” Doesn’t this remind you of old church ladies arguing about who is “Holier than Thou?” In arrogance, the conservatives are sure that they know how many angels can dance on the point of their pen!

Let's think a little about law. It is very much like theology, but we need to think about it. In a "republic", what would the "law" dictate? Is it, the “pertaining law" Christian, Muslim, Judaic, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu or … or what? And in whichever pertains, which sect, branch, division, split, or denomination has the best understanding? Is the "law" white, yellow, red, brown, black or mixed? Is it immutable or changeable? And if so, who is to interpret its immutability, and/or who determines the essence of the change? If “changeable,” who gets to do the changing. If “unchanging,” Who knows best to explain? Do these arbiters just "happen" or do we select them? Who determines that they are correct in their interpretation? ... who judges the judges, and who elects and un-elects those judges?

If the "law" is changeable, do men change it? If so, can those we elect change or is it changed from on high. And if from on high, who’s on high delivers the interpretation and by what vector? How do we know that they are from … “on high?” If it is changed by men, is voting on it how it is changed? If so, is it done democratically by vote? If not, how do we determine? Democratically? How? Do we go back to monarchy? Bow to dictatorship? Submit to slavery?

In America, most politicians would, at least publicly, agree that “we the people” vote. But, most of the time “we” vote through “our representatives” but other than wisdom and honesty, what and who watches over our “representatives?” The answer, of course, is our vote reigns over their head … but our vote may be years away. And, more to be feared, our votes may be suborned.

Unfortunately, the authors and propagandists of current conservative party lines immediately gloss by such questions. They loudly proclaim their want for the stability of "law," but if questioned about the nurturing and maintenance of the "law" they assure us it will be done "by the rule of law." The hidden proviso? That they, the conservative comrades, are, in their minds and plans, to be the oracles of that law. They reassure and promise and attest and explain what the law wants. They find “patriotic” rules to tell you what to do, how to act, what to think, what you can expect and, at all times they assure you that they are right. They, these conservative representatives, will tell us what they want us to know.

Unfortunately, even if they are totally faithful to their own lights and job, they still may not be adequate. Sometimes their vote will be based upon error, or in ignorance, or both, or worse. All they know, may not be all they need to know, and sometimes even these self proclaimed commissioned from on high “conservatives” will change to support personal agenda. Their standard reassurance is that what they want is what the "law" wants. But, fair warning, even if they are totally honest, their understanding of "law" may be wrong, and, politics being politics, may even be different than they portray and promise.

I find all this and its political agenda amazing … so strange, in fact, that it would be funny were it not such a fundamentally important thing for and in our lives. Don't ever forget that we, the people in concert, by vote, and often in compromise, have the right to determine and mold "law." Most politicians will readily acknowledge that when we vote for them, but they frequently forget when it is time for them to vote … for us.

To those of “conservative” proclivity, this all suggests that “patriotism” is doing what our leaders tell us. I disagree, patriotism is our job of directing our leaders? This is most specifically and frequently needed when our “leaders” use their position to impose their will for “party” (or their own selfish benefit…) rather than for the mutual benefit of our country.

We, the people, are the nation. Our elective representatives and the government functionaries exist at our will and for our collective well being. They can be and are a part; but they are a part of “we!” Their job is not their power “over” us … rather, it is the representation of the “collective” us.

Do you want to live in a truly “free” society and country? That is possible and happens only when "We the people" are also we the “law.” As assignment, our representatives should not be our “leaders;” in fact, they were hired to follow us. They are paid to be our hired hands.

Jim Lyle is a previous Lake County Poet Laureate. He now lives in Yountville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

And a big thank you to Lenny Matthews, you are a good friend and neighbor to the folks in Lucerne. Without your assistance I doubt anyone would have ever been held accountable for the illegal dumping at Morrison Creek.

Lenny has provided me her account as a witness of what it took to get this case to court – we already have seen the first dump and know its location in Lucerne. What most of us don’t know about is the other dump she had to deal with while bulldogging this mess to its conclusion.

She called in her original complaint in February 2007 and not being one to give up the good fight, she kept calling, be it Fish and Game Warden Loren Freeman, her Supervisor Denise Rushing, Code Enforcement Department Head Voris Brumfield, District Attorney Jon Hopkins, Sheriff Rod Mitchell, Caroline Chavez of Solid Waste and Ray Ruminski of Environmental Health.

One year later it finally came to court and this is where the second dump comes in.

Lenny went to the DA’s office to speak with the prosecuting attorney Daniel Moffatt, assuming that he would want to prepare his witness. He didn’t but he promised he would call her on Monday, the day before the trial was to start. He didn’t but she rose early and prepared to go to court. She left at 8 a.m., calling the District Attorney's Office repeatedly and getting a recording that the office was open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and as she said to me “then pick up your (expletive deleted) phone!”

She arrived at the court building in the City of Clearlake and “walked into the small lobby through the metal detector (no one was there and it went off). I accessed the building when a man finally showed up and asked, “Did you just walk through the metal detector?” So much for the argument about feeling safe because of metal detectors being installed.

Finding only the defendant Mr. Re in the lobby, she left the building “going back out in the cold to my car, it’s now about 8:40 and the DA’s office finally answers their phone … they attempt to contact Moffatt to let him know I am in the parking lot. About 10 minutes later Mr. Moffatt comes out. Now I’m really pissed! I let him know that it was totally unacceptable, exposing me to Mr. Re, not calling as he said he would. He is not really apologetic and escorts me to their office where he says have a seat anywhere.”

“I look around a room that accommodates two desks with chairs with 4 more chairs, most with items living in and on the seats. 'It shouldn't be long,' he said. He closes the door of the room and is gone.

“During my hour and a half long wait I make a full circle. I'm not any less angry and slowly begin to look around at the deplorable condition of the room. Dirty dishes on the desks, a floor that hasn't been washed in probably a year, blinds torn on the window, parts of the ceiling missing, exposing hundreds of wires and vents. Electrical wires under desks exposed in a jumble. I move on to the books and begin to check out the Law book for the Department of Fish and Game. I had provided both Moffatt and Hopkins with the California Penal Code section that allows me to collect half of the fine imposed.

Moffatt said he had never heard of such a thing ... that morning when I again brought it up Moffatt asked me if I know about Fish and Game and if they would be getting any of the fine imposed. I said , 'You would need to ask Fish and Game.' (Am I the only one wondering why a lawyer from the DA’s Office is asking a witness what the codified laws of the State of California are?)

“It took a while but I found the code section for Fish and Game and fines imposed regarding illegal dumping and the distribution for those fines. Restless, needing to pee and wanting some coffee, I again got pissed being dumped into a room without squat. I got brave and opened the door. Across the hallway there was the break room/stock room/community service followup interview room! Between individuals arriving I glance in. Unbelievable! And I thought the room I was in was bad!

“I began to imagine a fire and just how quickly it would explode. It had stock rooms with boxes shoved in and shelves falling. I found the bathroom down the hall way, the toilet paper holder was stuck, I used a paper towel. Finding myself back in 'the room' once again. In through the door bursts Moffatt with delight stating, 'Good news, he plead out.'

“Just as I was asking what that meant, a uniformed officer from the court came in and said to Moffatt that he was needed back in the court room. He said nothing and headed out the door. I said, 'Wait, can I take some pictures of this office while you’re gone. He stated NO!' (Gee, I wonder why).

“He is gone again this time for about half hour. I am now quite tired of this whole thing and being treated so poorly, without even access to water ... I look down the hallway and there is Loren Freeman from the Department of Fish and Game and Deputy DA Moffatt talking away in the lobby. Then it dawns on me, I probably could have been in the court room for the fruition of all of this but was not even asked. I walked down the hall and greeted Loren ... love that man.” (Lenny is right, we are lucky to have the wardens we have.)

“Moffatt and I return to 'the room' and he tells me that James Re pleaded out and was given a $1,080 fine! I can’t begin to express my disappointment. But I do ask about my half of the fine. He hems and haws, stating that he really isn't sure just how to go about doing that! I suggest to him that it probably should have been done in the courtroom and requested by you to the judge. He says, 'Yes, probably.'

“Now I'm really pissed and he knows it. He tells me he will look into it! Like I really think that is gonna happen!”

It is important for folks to know that Lenny did not report this crime and follow through because of any potential of reward money – it’s simply another way to get through to these miscreants that this behavior will NOT BE TOLERATED!

“I leave and head for Lakeport, go upstairs to the Superior Court Clerk's office and tell my story of woe. Liz Griffin comes out from behind the plexiglass to meet me. She's kind and interested in what I have to share regarding the penal code and every person giving information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person for a violation of 374.3 or 374(c) is entitled to a reward. She gives me her e-mail for me to send her the information, and her direct line.

“Next I go downstairs where the Board of Supervisors are just breaking for lunch. I catch Jeff Smith and share with him the deplorable conditions of the building. The conversation was within ear shot of Ed Robey who states, “The building is in transition and is now under the state.'

“I really don't give a damn what it's under, this is a public building that is not safe or fit for human kind at this time – it's in need of help NOW! I feel like I did a complete circle, ending up where this all started – whether it’s a garbage dump, a horrible filthy building or just proper etiquette (i.e., would you like a glass of water before I go, the bathroom's down the hallway, etc.). No one seems to be held to any standard of accountability.” Can we expect this to happen to the fourth floor of the courthouse while the powers that be point fingers and say, 'You did it/need to do it – no, you did it/need to do it.'

“This is not an isolated incident, it is all around us today. Frankly I'm sick of it. The donut snatcher gets almost three years and a man who contaminates a town's drinking water with his chemicals gets a $1080 fine, one year of probation and no community service or restitution to the citizens of Lucerne. The County of Lake or the Department of Fish and Game, which spent far more that $1,080 to clean up the dump site and prosecute this case.”

I am sickened also, Lenny. It’s been at least 15 years since I personally became involved in the illegal dumping in Morrison Creek. At that time we were told even though there was plentiful evidence to show who the detritus belonged to, then-District Attorney Steve Hedstrom said they couldn’t prove case. Say what?

At that time, the fine was $500. Not much has changed, my fellow Lake County citizens, it was Superior Court Judge Steve Hedstrom that imposed this paltry sentence for a crime that is very much an offense against every citizen of Lake County and nature. Again, say what?

Lenny Matthews and Donna Christopher live in Lucerne.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

To begin, there is the Patriot Act, which made vast inroads to whatever privacy we thought we had. Also, dozens of U.S. Supreme Court decisions (since the Warren Court of the sixties) have been chipping away Fourth Amendment protections in the criminal context, mostly because the justices are loath to let suspected criminals go free because of an illegal search. There are exceptions, of course, but the overall effect of recent Supreme Court decisions has been to vastly expand the circumstances in which the police may search without a warrant.

Whatever the state of the law in our criminal courts, the federal executive branch will use whatever technology is available to ferret out the “enemies of the state,” with or without judicial permission. Our national budget allots many billions of dollars to the National Security Agency (NSA), the agency responsible for monitoring the electro-magnetic spectrum, and we the people haven’t a clue as to how the money is spent under what’s known in Washington as a “black” budget. We can rest assured, however, that the NSA is hard at work to make sure it has access to every communication that occurs in or out of the U.S, save only those disseminated by carrier pigeons (and who really knows about them).

By their nature, civil libertarians oppose the proposition that the executive branch can, without a warrant, legally intercept any and all communications – domestic and foreign – if it (in its executive wisdom) thinks terrorists are somehow in the mix. Unlike the FISA, which required judicial approval of wiretaps, the new version of the PAA advanced by the senate, and sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller, makes the government the sole arbiter of whether any particular communication qualifies for warrantless surveillance. This, in the opinion of the ACLU and other similarly-inclined organizations, clearly tramples on the checks and balances inherent in our constitutional form of government. And in doing so, the legislation obliterates our Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. Who can argue with that?

Not me. But I don’t much give a damn. Most of my adult life I’ve assumed that the government is listening in to my calls and emails. And why not? In the 1960s, we were convinced that the FBI or the local cops had taps on our phones, tape recorders in our meetings, and cameras trained on our protests.

Whether this was because of our political activities or illegal drug transactions (consisting primarily of buying and selling bad Mexican marijuana in matchboxes), our sense of self-importance led us to believe we were the center of a law enforcement campaign to put us away for years if not decades. When using the phone we were very careful to speak in what we hoped was undecipherable code, whether about a particular drug transaction or experience, or about plans to engage in civil disobedience. We never doubted that eager law enforcement ears were just waiting for the right words to launch a bust.

Now, of course, we are much wiser. We know there are only so many hours in the day and the government can only listen to so many conversations in real time – and that ours were and are probably not among them. But the point is, we always assumed we had no privacy when using telephonic communications or engaged in civil rights activity or protests against the Vietnam war. This wasn’t paranoia, but rather an understanding that the government had the capacity to listen in, and watch, if it wanted to. And we were pretty sure it did.

Also, back in the 60s, we always assumed the government could get a warrant if it wanted one, and that the only protections we had under the Constitution were if they busted us and we could prove in court that they somehow screwed up the warrant process. As a latter day criminal defense attorney, I’m of the opinion that the warrant requirement didn’t (and doesn’t) provide much protection. There are numerous loopholes in the warrant requirement itself, and even when one is technically required under current case law, most judges rubber-stamp the applications submitted by the police, and most trial judges uphold warrants issued by their brethren no matter how flimsy the factual basis put forth in the supporting affidavits. There are exceptions, of course, but as the old bromide goes, the exception proves the rule.

There also have been rare instances when the ACLU successfully sued transgressing government agencies for Fourth Amendment violations. For the most part, however, there has been little or no accountability for illegal surveillance that does happen to come to light. The only real accountability for a Big Brother administration is regime change, and even then, the new government will be just as likely to spy on its (or America’s) perceived enemies as the last regime. My reading of history is that the level of government surveillance never goes down regardless of who is in power.

In a democracy we theoretically could bring the government to heel on these privacy concerns if, as a people, we were more concerned about privacy. But the fact is, we don’t really hold privacy in high regard no matter how we respond to the polls. We are, in fact, addicted to gossip (something common to the entire human race and thought to be the reason we have speech in the first place), and a large part of our entertainment is based on privacy violations of one type of another. It would be nice if we could distinguish social privacy from privacy against government intrusions, but that doesn’t seem likely. Our lives are laid bare to the world, and we rather get off on it.

In summary, since we don’t have much if any privacy in the first place, we shouldn’t worry about what powers the government has under the FISA act, or its amendments and provisions. If you want your communications to remain confidential, stay away from the telephone or figure out a code that is unlikely to trigger the government computers to alert their minders that the conversation warrants further processing. The government has been Big Brother for a long time and, as in 1984, little brother ain’t coming back.

Attorney Steve Elias lives in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

For many Americans, their primary personal identity is found in their alma mater – their high school or college – not in their family or ethnic identity. That is why the mascot issue is such a hot button item in many communities. Those four to eight years of their life seem to provide the only symbols by which many people can identify a personal identity – other than being “American.” That is why the emotional attachment is so strong – because the American social fabric is woven of such thin and transparent cloth. The experience of four years identifying with a mascot symbol is compared equally in importance, without any sense of shame, to the real identity of cultures formed over thousands of years. In our communities people who went to high school and identified with “Indians” draw on that identity and compare it to the emotional reservoirs of families who can trace their roots locally back 10,000 years – and can compare the two experiences without blinking.

I have consistently expressed the controversial view that the real success of the U.S. as a nation is predominantly based on the unique and substantial resources of the land and its varying geology, geography, topography and climate – rather than the actions of men. At this time, I would like to add that I believe the inherent spirit and social balance exhibited by the Native Nations that resided here for millennia provided a buffer of spiritual power that enabled America not only to survive the last five centuries, but to maintain a relatively free and easy life. Keep in mind that we were denied our religious, social and political freedoms, even while Americans were formulating the myth that the guarantee of those rights is what America stands for. Long after our peoples posed any threat to the American Nation or peoples, those freedoms continued to be denied to us. Our peoples still struggle with the moral, social and spiritual disabilities of having been stripped and denied our right to assemble, celebrate and worship as we believed.

The basic philosophy of the American Experiment has been a blend of Merchant-Roman-Christian ideology. What does that mean? Think of it as a three-tiered effigy. At its base, the underlying fundamental principle of America is its mercantilism and entrepreneurial spirit. The potential to get rich and consistently increase one’s individual stand of living. That is the bedrock of what draws immigrants to the U.S. And let’s be frank, America has always needed that influx. Let’s digress for a moment and ask “Why?”

Anytime one takes unrelated groups with varying ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds and attempts to meld them together into any purpose – the first thing that needs to be established is a common identity and goal. The goal is this case is easily defined. Freedom to pursue economic independence and wealth, and to practice one’s culture and religion without persecution. That is the stated, albeit often unrealized, expression of the American Dream. The identity for the Founding Citizens of this country was easily formed. They were all castaways from the systems of Europe, sincerely grateful to have conquered a new paradise. They carried forward with that sense of new purpose and freedom for a number of generations before they began to run out of steam. However, after awhile the novelty of that wore off and significant and divisive forces began to fester in the infancy of America. What brought it out of the doldrums and reinforced its identity was another wave of immigrants in the early 1800s. Newly immigrant Americans have always been the most enthusiastic patriots and believers in the promise of this Nation.

The institution of Democracy, completely plagiarized from two centuries of discussions about American Native institutions of government and social organization in Europe and America, resulted in a government that really was capable of allowing individual freedom for almost all its citizens (except those it purposely disenfranchises along the way). Additionally, and perhaps most important, the length, breadth and rich resources of the land provided every opportunity for that Dream to be realized.

Keeping unrelated and culturally diverse peoples united requires a common identity. That identity was concocted from a series of myths and outright lies to form the basis of the conceptualization of what America stands for. There is no dispute that for many immigrants the freedom to worship and strive for economic improvement is a dream come true, whether the facts of their identity are constructed from wisps of fantasy or not. Each time that the country has faced a period where its unrelated nature began to dissolve the bonds that held it together, a new group of immigrants has arrived to bolster its mythological premise and support it patriotic nationalism. America needs immigrants to infuse its blood supply with new and energetic support, and to continue the myth of its premise that it was founded for all.

Now let’s return to the discussion at hand. We have identified freedom from political totalitarianism as one of the elements that allows free enterprise to flourish. Though there are other forms of totalitarianism – including corporate economic power – the second tier of the American effigy is in its similarity to Rome. Particularly in today’s circumstances – the symbols of the Emperor, the Senate, and the Coliseum are highly similar to what moves and shakes America. The former two are evident as the primary combatants in our political system (the president and Congress), and the Coliseum represents entertainment and becomes a significant part of the cultural reality of our Age. Sports, media, movies, holidays, commercials, music, even eating establishments become the fabric of American culture replacing a true ethnic and cultural identify as a kind of pseudo-culture, totally devoid of common mores or values unless recognized as part of the game.

The final piece of the effigy, our Christian heritage, is an integral part of the American Myth. It revolves around a Divine Human and asks that we be like him, while at the same time assuring us, that because of our deviant natures, we can never be like him. Additionally it approaches it from the predominantly Roman Christian, rather than Hebrew-Aramaic point of view. The Romans imported the Christian story and ideals in much the same perspective we do today – fitting it in where it has a place, and disposing of it or ignoring it when it conflicts with the lower two tiers of the effigy – politics / the Nation, and economics /mercantilism.

This belief provides a convenient form of social control. On the one hand it asserts: “Your Savior was tolerant, peaceful, and energetic in his criticism of the status quo; of the mainstream; of the staid and conservative point of view. He tore off his clothes and jumped up and down on them to make a point with his nakedness. He associated with the lower strata of society in his daily life and threw off what he considered contrived social norms. He publicly berated the political and religious powerbrokers of his time.” Then, we are told – “But wait, he could do this because he was the Son Of Deity. No matter how hard you strive to be like him, you will never achieve it!” Talk about showing us cake and then serving us stale bread!

The result of this is a duality in our spiritual consciousness. On the one hand we exalt the Nazarene Carpenter for his virtues, but since we are told we can never achieve his perfection – we don’t even attempt it. We accept his beneficent forgiveness, and turn around and do the most unseemly things to others and to the world. We have taken his human characteristics and put them on an unreachable pedestal to be admired but never truly adopted into our social reality. We assume the mantel of the Pharisees of his time, ignoring his message and example, tentatively worshiping his unreachable perfection – and then attending to the business of the day. Because the only accepted study guide is a conglomeration of books that form a story more like a screenplay than a historical narrative, we have plenty of drama to distract us from the few real examples of his behavior—and conveniently ignore His politics and social consciousness.

This fits perfectly with the Merchant-Roman descendant civilization we exalt. We can look to the top of our effigy when we want to identify with our highest principles, yet we can also ignore it on a daily basic to pursue our Roman Mercantilism – where the bottom line always reflects the power of economy and Nationalism over morality, meaning or social responsibility.

But immigrants cannot, and will not, always be there to re-infuse the American Dream with new blood. Somewhere, the necessity for common purpose and commitment must arise. Common values are a necessary part of the survival of any human social organism. Christianity is not shared by enough Americans in common to provide guidance. Having been forcibly driven from our spiritual roots, American Indians still have enough understanding of the necessary elements that bind peoples together for survival to provide significant guidance for this Nation. Our people were far from perfect, yet we lasted far longer as communities and Nations than any of the more “permanent” civilizations that have since fallen into ruin.

Better to be a third-rate country with a contented and moral populace than the militant, puffed up and pretentious leader of the world. With our children suffering declining health, education, morality and hope from stress, suicide, substance abuse, violence and malaise, we need to do more than point fingers at those we think responsible. And as Native People are often told, “We can’t go back to the old days.”

This is just as true for the Americans of today. We cannot recapture the past no matter how grand we perceive its glory. We have to take what’s real – the smiles and future of our grandchildren – and serve their interests. Americans need to formulate a new common identity to sustain us as this new and changing world reshapes itself. There are guides to this process, if enough eyes and ears are opened.

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

{mos_sb_discuss:4}