I participated, in a very minor way, in helping to change the name of the Kelseyville High School mascot so that it would no longer have the name "Indians" in it.

The reasons were very simple: it was the will of the majority of the local Pomo people, and their wishes and feelings regarding this matter appeared more important to me than a misplaced "pride" in the name of a team by local residents who could not even relate culturally to such name, not knowing much about Pomo culture and obviously not interested, believing it was alright to represent the Pomos with a mascot parodying the 1940s Hollywood version of an Indian from the plains.

Furthermore, the argument of those who did not want the change was essentially as follows: "We think we are honoring you, the Pomo people, with this 'Kelseyville Indians' mascot name, so we don't really care what you think or feel, get over it ... "

In other words we are the masters of the land and we make the rules ... This did not sound like respect to me, as a matter of fact I found it to be arrogant and insulting to the Pomos, and a thinly veiled expression of redneck racism.

Kelsey was not a nice person, and this has nothing to do with any of his living descendants, who are probably very nice people, so I do not mean to hurt or embarrass them and I apologize if I do. But even a plaque in Kelseyville somewhat acknowledges that he mistreated Native people. It does not say that he enslaved them, nearly starved them, murdered some of them, tortured some of them and molested young Pomo girls, including the daughter of a chief ... all abuses that lead to his and Charles Stone early demise at the hand of the Indians, which gave interested parties the excuse they were waiting for to commit yet another act of genocide in the state of California (Bloody Island), whose official and federally sanctioned policy was the extermination of native people in order to grab all (nearly all) the land and its resources. Am I going too fast?

Mistreatments of the Indians, abuses, provocations by criminals, no legal recourses or protection for the Indians whatsoever, exasperated Indians finally administering their own justice or implementing protective measures as any free people should, and then the official California policy of extermination came into effect, such as butchering up to 200 Indian men, women, elders, children, babies, as a payback for the killing of a couple of white people.

Of course the state policy of paying for Indian scalps (men, women, children, to the tune of $1 million) did not require any violent act on the part of the Indians to be implemented and taken advantage of by psychopaths. It was just another opportunity to make money without having to do any work, just murder, which the federal government approved, by reimbursing California.

Why is it that such ugly aspects of California history, such atrocities, are mostly suppressed, unknown to the nation, while almost everyone has heard of the Wounded Knee massacre? Is it because California represents the end of the American rainbow, the ultimate American dream land, and no one wants to

tarnish the immaculate fantasy of the golden state?

Some say why dig up such "cans of worms"... If the past is a "can of worms," why celebrate Columbus Day? The man was lost, he enslaved, killed, maimed and tortured hundreds of thousands of gentle, generous, welcoming Indians in order to get gold, he was a mass murderer of the likes of Cortez and without any conscience ... Is this something to be proud of?

How can America pretend to be the world moral leader when it not only will not clean up its past, but honors such murderers and thieves, lying about them in order to make them appear to be heroes, and teaching children that they are heroes? Logically, it would appear to only mean one thing, that Euro-Americans would do it all over again and in the same manner, if given the opportunity. This is what is usually known as not learning from the past.

If this is not the case, then why have a town, such as Kelseyville, named after what everyone could agree was a shady character at best, and someone who today would be charged and jailed for murder and child molestation? (He would not, today, be protected by the 1800's California Civil Practice Act, Section 394, which prohibited Indians from giving testimony for or against whites, assuring their abuse at the hands of the lowest and most brutal of the frontier population, and, because of the Pomos' inevitable retaliations and the subsequent outcries of the politicians and the press, the validation of the inhuman official policy of extermination).

Nothing has really changed in the way this civilization operates by the way: first create a problem (in this case the provocation and abuse of the Indian population by criminals who were legally protected), then offer the solution that facilitates the fulfillment of certain goals (here the attempted extermination of the Indians, so as to "clear the land" for "settlers" and for America to expend). How can we hope to have a clean and healthy future as a nation when we insist on keeping garbage in our basement and call it part of our history and heritage, and wave it in the air as a badge of honor?

If we are to remember that it is Kelsey and Stone who, by their abuses, were responsible for the Bloody Island massacre, we can also understand that honoring Kelsey with the name of Kelseyville is basically saying to the Pomo people that abuse and genocide were perfectly alright and justified, and it is keeping

the wounds they suffered open and unhealed, and festering among them, as it would be festering among Jewish people if Hitler was honored in Germany.

It is also saying to the world that America has two standards: one by which it treats its own Native people, and one by which it insists the world abides ... this is commonly known as hypocrisy. Of course America is not the only country to do so ... Canada, Mexico, South America, Australia, New Zealand do the same, but we are in America, and America does lead the world.

I do believe it is time to come to terms with the past, not out of guilt but out of a desire for a healthy future, and to change the name of Kelseyville. It is important because human beings, children among them, were butchered on Bloody Island without cause, and this past, rooted in greed, the most virulent form of racial hatred, and the immorality of this state and this nation's 19th century leadership, must be healed.

People who profess to follow any kind of religious law should be leading the charge on this, as I do not think the values they profess to uphold sanction criminality, and local religious leaders should be involved, to transcend politics and races and set an example of what it means to be human, to have a human heart, a living and functioning conscience, a spirit or soul.

It would seem to be a basic requirement of religious leadership, if organized religions are to be taken more seriously. It might also more properly define what it means to be American, if America is to be respected by the world for something other than its might, that is to say if it is to be truly respected rather than feared.

Raphael Montoliu lives in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

In the blink of an eye, the life as you know it could change forever. A poor decision or an unwise action could affect you, your family, friends as well as those that you don’t even know.

Every 15 minutes, someone in the United States is killed or seriously injured in an alcohol-related collision.

I refuse to call these traffic accidents simply because the term “accidents” implies that these crashes resulting in injuries or deaths are unavoidable, when, in fact, they are predictable and preventable. This is particularly important when referring to alcohol-related traffic crashes since drinking and driving is the conscious (albeit impaired) choice of the driver.

Many of us have a sense of invincibility that it can’t happen to me. It can and it does. We all know someone who has either been the victim or the cause of such crashes because the statistics show that approximately one-third of all fatalities are caused by the impaired driver.

With this in mind, the decision is yours to make. Do I take the chance and gamble that I can drive safely to my destination after drinking or throw away life as I know it, possibly destroying my future and the futures of those around me?

The choice is yours.

Lance Mino is an officer with the Clear Lake office of the California Highway Patrol.

If you have any questions about this article or ideas about future ones, contact CHP Officer Adam Garcia, 279-0103.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

I wanted to let the dust settle for a while before leaping into the Scooter Libby-Bush commutation fray, for several reasons.

First, this was not unexpected, at least not to anyone who has consistently watched this administration distance itself from any problems or hints of illegality (except for that part about defending the Constitution, which Bush never really meant anyway).

Second, when it did happen, either a pardon or some other intervention, it was clear the Democrats would scream and the loyal GOP members would praise it as the right thing to do, since “there was never any underlying crime in the first place” and Libby should never have been prosecuted or tried or found guilty or punished, apparently.

And third, how can the Dems complain about this when President Clinton (perhaps we’ll have to start referring to him as Clinton I soon) lied to a grand jury and faced impeachment and walked away without punishment? That third point is the most partisan and intellectually dishonest of the arguments.

Here’s why: Lewis “Scooter” Libby was a career administrative operative, and worked in his last government job as the chief of staff for the vice president of the United States. He got caught up in the Valerie Plame-CIA outing incident, and we know that Scooter did not leak her name or identify to anyone. (We actually know that Karl Rove did that, and probably Cheney, too, but they’ll never be prosecuted.)

So Scooter didn’t give up a CIA agent, but learned that someone had. And then under oath to a grand jury, he lied about what he knew, who he got it from and when, and basically protected the backsides of his bosses and his bosses’ bosses.

He was prosecuted by a Republican-appointed special attorney, tried in a federal court before a Republican-appointed judge and found guilty unanimously by 12 people from all persuasions.

The federal law specified a sentence for lying to a grand jury and obstructing justice, and the judge imposed that sentence. Bush said “Tut-tut, too much” and while giving lip service to honoring and respecting the jury system and the verdict, essentially wiped away any punishment but a fine.

I hope Bush sees fit to do so for all those currently incarcerated for perjury and/or obstruction of justice who have no prior records, because if it’s too much for Libby, should it not be too much for anyone similarly situated? We are, after all – or so I’ve been told – a nation of laws not of men. Or are we?

Enter the Republican pundits who say Bill Clinton did the same thing and went unpunished. Wrong, wrong, wrong and here’s why that is dishonest: Clinton faced impeachment, and articles were voted out of the House and delivered to the Senate. That’s the same as the filing of a complaint, and it’s up to the Senate (think court) to conduct the trial.

The Senate did, and was unable to convict Clinton of any of the charges contained in the articles.

“That’s just politics!” one harumphs, and should have been impeached anyway.

Remember who held the majority of both houses in 1998 when this entire Clinton-Lewinsky thing occupied our spare time (and way too much of the media)? That’s right, the Republicans. And they couldn’t convict a Democratic president.

Libby convicted, not punished. Clinton not convicted, not punished. Not quite an even equation, is it? George Bush stated for the world to hear when the Plame case emerged that if someone in his administration was responsible for breaking the law, he would take care of them.

He certainly has.

Doug Rhoades is an attorney. He lives in Kelseyville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

The preponderant opinion among the people of Lakeport seems clear: they very sensibly want to preserve the Natural High site as public open space, and to take any steps necessary to keep the option of its becoming a city park at some later date open. This parcel is uniquely precious, since it's the only remaining location on Main Street that provides more than a transitory glimpse of Clear Lake and an opportunity for shoreline recreation. Selling it off for commercial exploitation in order to reap the transitory gains offered by private developers would be like burning heirloom antiques to take the chill off the living room.

Unfortunately the wisdom of the citizenry doesn't seem to have made much impression on some members of the city council, who apparently are letting dollar signs prevail over common sense. Equally unfortunately, some statements in the print media (not on Lake County News, which knows better) may have created a false impression that the councilors' determination to facilitate commercial development on the site is “unanimous” – a misapprehension which could lead to the discouraging conclusion that attempts to persuade them to change their minds would be fruitless.

Here are the facts: on June 19 the Lakeport City Council did indeed approve changing the parcel’s General Plan designation from “Open Space” to “Residential/Resort” as one of the interim stages in the adoption of the city's newly revised Plan. If this recommended change is confirmed, it could make eventual acquisition of the site from the school district for park purposes much more expensive and perhaps impossible, by eliminating the thrifty possibility of tapping into Quimby Act funds for its purchase, but far from being unanimous, the decision hung by the flimsiest of threads: only three of the five councilors – a bare quorum – were in attendance and one of the three voted no.

The next stage of Lakeport's General Plan adoption process will come in a Planning Commission public hearing (at a date yet to be announced), and that meeting will provide an opportunity for a decisive expression of opinion in favor of retaining this splendid public asset for public benefit.

In the meantime, all Lakeport residents are urged to phone, write and email their councilors (contact information at http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake/government.htm), to speak to them in person at every opportunity, and also drop into Watershed Books (305 N. Main St.) to sign a petition opposing the zoning change.

As for the rest of us – the concerned citizens of Lake County who don't happen to reside in Lakeport – we have every right to make their voices heard as well. As our county seat, Lakeport's destiny is our business too, whether we live in Middletown, Blue Lakes or points between.

Victoria Brandon is chair of the Sierra Club Lake Group. She lives in Lower Lake.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

If you value the Internet, it's time to take action.

Monday, July 16 is the deadline to sign a petition to Congress demanding that they protect the Internet from being taken over by phone and cable companies who want to become the gatekeepers of the Internet.

To sign the petition, go to www.savetheinternet.com, where you can learn more about this important issue.

The central issue is “Net Neutrality,” which no discrimination on the Internet.

Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data – not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.

The battle for Net Neutrality won't end next week, and it requires everyone to educate themselves about the issue.

Helping spread the word is the www.savetheinternet.com coalition, an historic grassroots alliance of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum, thousands of bloggers, and millions of everyday people concerned about the future of the Internet.

The coalition came together last year when Congress first took up dangerous telecom legislation that failed to protect Net Neutrality, which has been called the Internet's First Amendment.

"I think www.savetheinternet.com's success surprised everyone, especially those who thought the public was way too uninterested in issues like 'Net Neutrality' to give a damn," said Tim Wu, a leading Internet scholar who first coined the term Net Neutrality – the fundamental Internet principle that prevents big phone and cable companies from discriminating against Web sites and services.

After leading the effort to stop telecommunications legislation last year that would have handed phone and cable companies unprecedented gatekeeper power over what Internet users see and do online, www.savetheinternet.com is ramping up its campaign to reinstate Net Neutrality this year.

While phone and cable companies spent millions and millions on inside-the-Beltway advertising and Astroturf groups, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition – which takes no corporate money – kick-started a public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. Word spread thanks to local organizers, bloggers of all stripes, and Internet auteurs, who made dozens of viral videos about the looming threat to Internet freedom.

To find out more about Net Neutrality, check out the following video.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Read more ...

Recent labor developments in Lake and Sonoma counties illustrate the strong roots of some persistent union problems.

Unions appear to have largely forgotten what made them successful in the first place, and management has been getting smarter for many years.

For more than a decade I served as a shop steward, officer, and regional representative for the Santa Rosa Press Democrat unit of The Newspaper Guild, and am a retired member. I am far from anti-union. However, during those years I regularly battled the Guild.

First it was over defending members in discipline or firing cases: There were times when the member clearly had no legitimate defense and the union could have worked to convince them they should not abuse a very generous sick leave policy, or that they needed to seek help for personal problems.

Then it was helping to persuade the Guild it should not accept money from a CIA front organization, the American Institute for Free Labor Development, which purported to be training labor organizers in Latin America, but was in fact targeting them for totalitarian governments. (See Ronald Radosh, “American Labor and United States Foreign Policy: The Cold War in the Unions from Gompers to Lovestone”, or George Morris, “CIA and American labor; the subversion of the AFL-CIO's foreign policy”).

Finally, there was a proposal that the Guild join with other Northern California unions to establish a non-profit summer and holiday camp for union members' children. Guild staffers weren't interested, although there was ample evidence members desperately needed that help if they were going to concentrate on their jobs during working hours.

Those experiences convinced me my union had lost interest in serving its members in any way except increased salaries, although its mission statement includes raising the standards of journalism and ethics of the industry.

The Lake County Board of Supervisors, in offering slightly higher pay to IHSS members who take drug tests, is trying to raise standards of home care. The union wants to recall the supervisors, and says the proposal is an invasion of privacy and creation of a two-tier pay system. Instead, why don't we call it merit pay? Who wouldn't prefer a caregiver who has tested clean and sober?

In Sonoma County, Gallo winery workers have just voted out their union, the United Farm Workers. They said the dues were high and they couldn't see much benefit in union membership. Some complained they couldn't understand the English ballot. So why doesn't the union offer language help to its many immigrant members? Management does.

Smart move

The Press Democrat recently reported “The Sonoma County Winegrape Commission and the Sonoma County Grape Growers Foundation are sponsoring two Spanish-language employee development workshops on the use of the Internet for viticulture on July 14 ... Samuel Barros, of Greenfield Winery, will teach Spanish speakers how to perform basic searches on Google and use industry-related Web sites such as the University of California pest-management Web site. . . . There is no cost to seminar participants.”

That's smart.

The winery situation, and that of any industry which employs immigrants, is complicated by more than a language gap. Mexican workers come here with a justifiable distrust of unions. For many decades, the role of the official unions was to maintain labor peace and keep wages low, to keep Mexico profitable for Mexican capitalists and attractive to foreign investors.

Fidel Velázquez Sánchez was Secretary General of the Confederation of Mexican Workers, the national umbrella workers union, from 1941 until his death in 1997. He regularly sold out the workers, Mexican friends in the construction, music and domestic workers unions have told me. They called him a dinosaurio, and complained he supported a series of four presidents who privatized state-owned industries, a center of power for the unions, and agreed to national contracts that shifted most of the burden to workers — while their minimum wage in real terms fell by nearly 70 percent. Velázquez also supported passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 after initially denouncing it as a disaster for workers of all three countries.

Earlier waves of immigrants from Europe came here with more trust in unions – their countries had a long history of guilds and unions which taught their members a craft and gave them places to stay when they were traveling in search of jobs. (That's where we get the term journeyman.) Often, they were also the center of social life and a surrogate family.

The UFW complains labor contractors opposed the union. Of course they did. They're employed by management and have a huge role in the lives of immigrant workers, who depend on them for housing, translation, transportation and advice.

There was a time in the United States when unions played that role. The union helped immigrants learn English, find housing and medical care, get their kids into school and learn the ways of their new country. They knew how to develop loyalty.

If today's union leaders would take a look at history they might figure out how to raise their nationwide membership above its current 12 percent.

E-mail Sophie Annan Jensen at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

{mos_sb_discuss:4}