Best Ticket. In looking at the dismal choices afforded the American people by the two major parties, I am sad to see that the lead contenders are, to my mind, utterly unfit to become President of the United States. That is not to say that no one is qualified to serve, and of course the President doesn't do it all alone but heads a Federal Government of 12 million people. The issue is what one conceives a President to be, and how the various candidates qualify by that standard.
+
Is a President a manager? policymaker? cheerleader? military commander? legislator-in-chief? moral leader? role model? paterfamilias? friend? movie star? social critic? pundit? intellectual leader? What?
+
Each category has its own hierarchy of best choices. For quick reference, here is a list of the major-party candidates (alphabetical order) with their background in brief.
+
Democrats:
Joe Biden – Senator
Hillary Clinton – Senator
Christopher Dodd – Senator
John Edwards – Senator
Mike Gravel – Senator
Dennis Kucinich – Major city mayor, Congressman
Barack Obama – Senator
Bill Richardson – Governor, Congressman, Ambassador, special envoy, hostage negotiator
+
Republicans:
Rudolph Giuliani – Major city mayor, prosecutor
Mike Huckabee – Governor
Duncan Hunter – Congressman
John McCain – Senator
Ron Paul – Congressman
(Willard) Mitt Romney – Governor, corporate executive
Fred Thompson – Senator
+
If the President is conceived to be first and foremost a manager overseeing the huge Federal bureaucracy, then experience in executive positions, such as governor, big-city mayor, or CEO of a major corporation, rises to the fore. Part of the function of an executive is to spot talent and select submanagers whom he can trust. That entails people skills and management intuition. BUT the President doesn't make such decisions alone. Rather, he is pressed to place in the highest management positions, people of his own party proffered by the top echelons of the groups responsible for his election, which means not just party functionaries but also fund-raisers and major contributors. Some contributors expect something for their investment, a quid pro quo.
+
The most experienced managers are the mayors, governors, and corporate executives: Giuliani, Kucinich, Huckabee, Richardson, Romney. But remember that managing the federal bureaucracy is for the most part the job of the highest-level civil servants of those myriad government departments, semi-autonomous agencies, and public corporations that constitute the "permanent government", which goes on regardless of who is in the White House
+
The basic role of the President and department heads (usually called "Secretary" of this or that) is to determine the direction and goals that the bureaucrats are to work toward.
+
That brings us to the actual role of the President, which combines the roles of policymaker, legislator-in-chief, moral leader, social critic, pundit and, ultimately intellectual leader. A real President, unlike the current posterboy for a collective Presidency, the puppet Dumbya, must have smarts and insight, or at least the judgment to choose the right advisors and make nuanced choices among actually-available alternatives, all of which may sometimes be bad.
+
Commander-in-Chief. There is only one candidate known for his military experience, John McCain, but he was never a general nor part of a high strategy-planning body. He is in fact known mainly for a military failure, having his plane shot down and being held captive by the Communist North Vietnamese. His long imprisonment under deplorable conditions may have broken his mind, because the man is just plain nuts. You don't like his stance on some major public policy question? Just wait. It will change. Or he'll adopt another stance on another policy issue that is absolutely inconsistent with his stances on the first.
+
What if we conceive of the President as legislator-in-chief, who not only proposes the outlines of legislation but actually steers the drafting and passage of legislation? Lyndon Johnson is credited as the best President at getting his program thru Congress, and not just because of sentimental desires on the part of the people, impressed upon Congress, to enact programs that John F. Kennedy did not live to see thru to completion.
+
Plainly, legislators have the edge at understanding how best to get measures thru Congress. All eight of the Democrats and four of the seven Republicans are now or have been legislators at the national level. Obama was a legislator at the state level before his rise to the national legislature.
+
But it can't be just any legislator. It has to be an effective legislator, someone in the leadership who rallies the troops and leads the fite. None of the presidential candidates qualifies in that regard.
+
A Question of Character. You don't want a person of detestable character setting the goals that the enormous, powerful, and intrusive Federal Government will pursue during his entire tenure. Morality counts, as does the source of a person's morality. If a person is intimidated into behaving only by fear of being found out or being punished by Divine Judgment, and his morality derives basically from superstition or fear of disapproval, that is very different from a person who is guided by the Golden Rule and who never wavers from considering the rights and interests of others, be they other individuals, other nations, or other species.
+
Nor do you want someone who tolerates the intolerable. As far as I'm concerned, these double moral standards rule out Rudolph Giuliani, a brazen adulterer; Mike Huckabee, a devoted advocate of superstition-based morality; Mitt Romney, who has shown himself to be absolutely untrustworthy for "flipflopping" on basic issues like abortion and who is part of a bizarre religious cult; Hillary Clinton, who tolerated brazen adultery on the part of her disgusting husband and who has flipflopped on abortion, at once coyly suggesting that abortion on demand is just fine morally and that this thing that is just fine should be rare!
+
Ron Paul is a radical Libertarian, devoted to a cult of selfishness that basically resolves to "every man for himself": 'If you can't make it on your own, that's your problem. The rich are rich because they deserve to be rich. The poor are poor because they deserve to be poor. And if that means that you can't afford healthcare, then you deserve to die from accident or disease that people with health insurance could recover from. If you can't find a job, you deserve to starve to death. It's all your fault, and it is not the obligation of society to help the underdog. Underdogs are where they are because they deserve to be.' Ron Paul is slime, an enemy of society.
+
Judgment is a major consideration in evaluating candidates for any job or elective office. Barack Obama admits to having used cocaine. Cocaine! This isn't binge drinking we're talking about. This is a hugely dangerous drug that society became so concerned about that we outlawed it. Everyone in the leadership of society was telling everyone, including Barack Obama during his teens, that cocaine was dangerous, but Obama used it anyway. Today we are to believe that that was a youthful indiscretion and he knows better now. Some even suggest that his experience as a cokehead enables him to reach and warn kids away from hard drugs. No, absolutely not. The contrary: What his experience and that of all those other highly publicized individuals who used hard drugs but go on to recover and make a great life for themselves really says, extremely powerfully, is "You can use all the drugs you want and just give them up anytime you want, with no adverse consequences. Go, have fun. You're a kid. Nobody's going to hold you accountable." Barack Obama has ruled himself out of consideration as far as I'm concerned.
+
Dennis Kucinich was attacked for saying he saw a UFO, even tho he said plainly that he saw something in the sky that he couldn't identify, which made it an "unidentified" flying object, so yes, technically, he did see a UFO. He didn't say he saw little green men step out of a flying saucer, or that he was abducted by aliens, taken into a spaceship and anally probed. He didn't say anything remotely like that. But people who want to make fun of him, for little more reason than that he is short and from Cleveland, one of the Nation's kneejerk laughingstocks, seized upon that UFO statement to make Kucinich out to be some kind of nut. His personal life has been filled with difficulties, and he has wavered over key issues like abortion, but he has a generally principled voting record, including sponsorship of a universal, single-payer healthcare system. Is he of presidential caliber? Perhaps not, if one conceives of the President as a giant, a star, a larger-than-life cheerleader to take us into a new "Camelot".
+
That brings us to the issue of star quality. Dennis Kucinich is a little man physically, and, tho certainly not ugly, he is generally regarded as a little funnylooking. Looks matter to the electorate. We want a President who is handsome, strong, a role model for our kids, the equal of anyone on the world stage, who can go toe-to-toe with Putin or the Butchers of Beijing and come out on top. We want a hero.
+
So who has matinee-idol star quality, that combination of good looks and rugged charisma that would win him the role of President in a Hollywood movie? Mitt Romney is plainly the best choice to act the part. He is thoroly handsome, in a rugged sort of way. The only other 'actor' who comes close in physical beauty is John Edwards, who is a little too much the prettyboy. His notoriously expensive haircuts and excessive attention to his appearance in a video, now on YouTube, in which he is shown primping for some public appearance to the tune "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story, may have prompted the loathsome Radical Rightwinger Ann Coulter to call him a "faggot" — tho I am unclear whether Coulter also thinks she has information that Edwards is homosexual. Certainly no followup has investigated that possibility. I would love to see an openly-gay President, even if it should not be me, but John Edwards is not openly gay, so is presumed heterosexual.
+
None of the other candidates, of either party, has the handsome movie-star quality of Romney and Edwards. Even the actual TV actor, Fred Thompson, doesn't have star quality. He is, instead, almost an anti-star, old and really unpleasant to look at. And yes, voters are 'superficial' enuf not to want to have to look at that face every day for four years.
+
Cheerleader-in-Chief. The President is not just a government functionary. He is head of state, not just the top supervisor in the administration of the Executive Branch. In his person resides the majesty of the Nation. He should have gravitas and charisma, charm and wit. When he meets foreign leaders or speaks before the United Nations, he must be seen to represent the best of us and be seen as well as being able to deliver on the promises and threats he might make. He should be at once paterfamilias and movie star, someone whose counsel we value and who makes us proud. The Kennedy Administration wasn't called "Camelot" for nothing. The White House during the Kennedy years was a palace of culture and refinement, filled with luminaries from all fields. JFK's press conferences were something people actually tuned in to rather than avoided, because he was funny and charming, not just on top of the issues and able to spout statistics in answer to technical questions. Yes, he knew his stuff. But he was more, he was like George Washington with a dazzling smile.
+
Who could be that to us from this crowd? Anyone? No one has come even close in the 44 years since Kennedy's death. Ronald Reagan, that old ham actor who played President so convincingly that a lot of people thought he actually was President, when in truth he, like Dumbya, was just a puppet for a collective leadership, the public face of a faceless conservative cabal, was called "the Great Communicator". It is to laff. Whether he was talking about National Pickle Week or the challenges of the Cold War, he was always the same: studied, in character, dignified but relaxed. Grandpa. In his person, he excited no passions for nor against. But that's not what builds a Peace Corps or Food for Peace program, much less an Alliance for Progress. When Kennedy died, the luster and hope of a generation was shattered, crushed under the weight of all that is wrong with the world. And whereas we had started to believe that change is possible, progress can happen, and we really can bring peace and freedom to the whole world, when the man in whom we invested so much of our collective aspirations was killed, we crashed to the ground. "Abandon hope all ye who enter here." That's Dante's inscription at the gates of Hell. And our view of the world since then has been dark.
+
People lost in the dismalness of a world without hope don't usually exert themselves to change it. Few people take Eleanor Roosevelt's counsel, "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Far more would say, "Don't curse the darkness. Lite a fuze".
+
Barack Obama is offered as the man who can return us to Kennedyesque optimism and pride in our self-assigned duty to be the City on a Hill that is a lite unto the world. Does he have that kind of magic? I don't see it. He comes across as a nice man whose congenial and easygoing personableness warms audiences. But will he inspire us higher?
+
John Edwards speaks ardently about unfairness. But he presently comes across as too negative, too much inclined to condemn the present, to show us the future. That might just be the distortion of his message by media concerned about sound bites. His heart is in the right place. He's handsome/purty. He's smart. He might just be able to do it, lead us into a new "Camelot".
+
Among all candidates of both parties, one is plainly the best qualified to serve in government, because he has done so in various capacities. "And the winner for Best Résumé by a candidate for President is ... [drumroll] Bill RICHARDSON!"
+
So, from what I have seen so far, the best ticket for the Nation would be John Edwards for President, Bill Richardson for Vice President. I have spoken. If the voters of Iowa now torn between Hillary and Obama decide they can't actually bring themselves to vote for either of them, they have a compromise candidate they should all be able to agree upon. And if John Edwards pulls a win out of Iowa, he might be on his way to giving the Democrats, and the Nation, the best chance we have had in a generation to return to the optimism with which we launched this great experiment in 1776.
+
(P.S. Ordinarily, I would have put this blog post in phonetic spelling first and traditional orthography (T.O.) second, but I am pressed for time. I personally would much prefer to read the Fanetik, but I imagine most readers would skip to the T.O. anyway.)
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,897 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:47 PM

 
Lakoeta 'Siseshan'

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
Lakoeta 'Siseshan'. Daevid Chou, Founder uv tha Faurmoesa Staetqhood Muevmant & tha Demakraatik-Reepublikan Porte uv Tiewon, aaskt mi vyu uv a nuez ietam he found frum Deesember 20tth, a launger verzhan uv hwich yu kaan fiend aat FoksNews.kom. Heer or ke ekserpts:

Tha Lakoeta Indeeyanz, hu gaev tha werld lejandere waureeyerz Siting Bool aand Kraeze Haurs, haav witthdraun frum treeteez witth the Yoonietad Staets, leederz sed Wenzday.

"We or no laungger sitizanz uv the Yoonietad Staets uv Amairika aand aul thoez hu liv in tha fiev-staet aireeya thaat enkumpasaz ouwer kuntre or fre tu join us," laung-tiem Indeeyan riets aaktivist Rusal Meenz toeld a haandfool uv reepaurterz aand a delagaeshan frum the Baliveeyan embase, gaatherd in a cherch in a rundoun naeberhood uv Woshingtan faur a nuez konfrans.

A delagaeshan uv Lakoeta leederz diliverd a mesaj tu tha Staet Deeportmant on Munday, anounsing thae wer yuenilaaterale witthdrauqing frum treeteez thae siend witth tha federal guvernmant uv the Yoonietad Staets, sum uv them maur thaan 150 yeerz oeld.

Wun duk muevd intu plaes in September, hwen the Yoonietad Naeshanz adoptad a nonbiending deklaraeshan on the riets uv indijanas peepoolz — daspite opazishan frum the Yoonietad Staets, hwich sed it klaashed witth its oen lauz.

I reeplied:

Tha "treeteez" witth Indeeyan 'naeshanz' wer aulwaez a shaam beekauz no wun on tha Y.S. sied felt thae wer aakchuewale deeling witth soveran naeshanz in tha Yuerapeeyan sens, aand if tha Lakoeta feel it iz OK tu witthdrau frum treeteez yuenilaaterale, tha Y.S. kaan uv kaurs void such 'treeteez' yuenilaaterale aaz wel aand simple klaem tha laand bi riet uv konkwest aand/aur okyoopaeshan. Ene Lakoeta hu reenounsaz Y.S. sitizanship but kantinyuez tu reezied in tha teritaure uv tha Yoonietad Staets beekumz aan ileegal aileeyan subjekt tu deepaurtaeshan if thair iz ene Lakoeta teritaure outsied tha boundareez uv the Yoonietad Staets tu deepaurt them tu.
+
Wikipeedeeya sez:

Lakoeta or aulso found for tu tha naurtth in tha Faurt Pek Rezervaeshan uv Montaana, tha Faurt Bertqhoeld (?) Rezervaeshan uv naurtthwestern Naurtth Dakoeta, aand sevral smaul reezervz in Saaskaachawon aand Maanitoeba, hwair thair aansesterz fled tu "Graandmuther'z [i.e. Kween Viktaureeya's] Laand" (Kaanada) duering tha Minasoeta aur Blaak Hilz Waur.

So it wood seem thair iz a plaes tu deepaurt non-Y.S.-sitizan Lakoeta siseshanists tu. But eevan if thae kood not be leegale deepaurtad, hwich seemz duebeeyas, givan tha Kanaedeeyan reezervz, thae kaan be deenied aul Y.S.-sitizan riets, such aaz tha riet tu werk in the Yoonietad Staets, tu voet in Y.S. federal eelekshanz, aand tu traaval tu aur reezied in uther ports uv the Yoonietad Staets, aur tu reeseev guvernmant asistans reezervd tu sitizens/leegal rezidants. In shaurt, thair staatas wood beekum thaat uv staetlas persanz. Aand uv kaurs ene laand givan tu tha Lakoeta aaz rezervaeshanz wood no laungger be reezervd, beekauz tha rezervaeshanz wer estaablisht bi tha vere treeteez the aaktivists nou klaem or void. Insted, aul thaat laand kood be klaemd bi tha federal aur staet guvernmant(s) unles eech indivijuewal lot-hoelder aur triebal kaurparaeshan haad preeveeyasly fieyald a deed faur spasifik peesaz uv laand witth tha staet guvernmant on hwich thaat porsal iz loekaetad. The okyoopants uv laand not deedad then beekum skwoterz. Tu gaen tha riet tu tha laand, thae wil haav tu PAE FAUR IT, hwairapon thae wil fiend out hwether it iz aaz wertthlas aaz thae wont peepool tu bileev.
+
Ene biznaz kanduktad on a (faurmer) rezervaeshan thaat iz in konflikt witth tha lauz uv tha serounding staet(s), such aaz kaseenoez aand diskount sailz uv sigarets, wood beekum ileegal aand be shut doun aur reekwieyerd tu kanfaurm tu tha lauz uv aand pae taaksez tu tha staet(s) uv hwich thaat laand is port, aand tha federal guvernmant.
+
In no eevent wood the Yoonietad Staets simple aaksept tha "leegaalite" uv the abserd iedeeya thaat Indeeyanz kaan taek thair laandz out uv the Yoonietad Staets. Saen peepool must kaushan ekstreemist Indeeyanz thaat we faut wun Sivool Waur, hwich kild 600,000 peepool, tu estaablish thaat the Yoonietad Staets iz aan indisolyoobool yuenyan. Tha Kanfederase wuz a much maur faurmidabool militere ename thaan a fyu raagtaag baandz uv Indeeyanz — aand no, "Indeeyan" iz not aan insulting term. Rusal Meenz, tha Lakoeta speerhed uv this driev, wuz amung the erle leederz uv the "Amairikan Indeeyan Muevmant". I sent tha foloewing eemail toodae tu AIM [pranounst "aem"?]:

I se thaat AIM duz not (yet) haav on its websiet ene staetmant, pro aur kon, reelaeting tu tha deklaraeshan uv Rusal Meenz aand utherz on Deesember 20tth thaat tha Lakoeta Indeeyanz or no laungger port uv the Yoonietad Staets. I'm shuer Amairikanz in jeneral aand the werld aat lorj wood liek tu heer hwut AIM haaz tu sae, spasifikale adresing ishuez liek tha 'siseeding' Lakoetaz beekuming ileegal aileeyanz in the Yoonietad Staets aand deepaurtabool tu Lakoeta reezervz in Kaanada; the autamaatik seshan uv rezervaeshanz tu tha staets in hwich thae or loekaetad, rendering aul rezidants hu du not oen tietal tu thair indivijuewal plots intu skwoterz aand tha reezulting sabjekshan uv biznazaz in thoez aireeyaz tu staet aand federal lauz; tha leegal staatas uv Lakoeta indivijuewalz reezieding outsied tha Lakoeta 'naeshan'; aand tha preepairadnas uv Lakoeta rebalz tu fiet a sekand Sivool Waur, witth tha saem, ineskaepabool outkum aaz tha ferst, agenst tha Yuenyan. Yu need tu plaes on yaur websiet infermaeshan aaz tu tha staans uv AIM taurd this 'siseshan'.
+
I saspekt thaat moest Amairikan Indeeyanz reeyaliez thaat thair or hundradz uv milyanz uv peepool, inklueding milyanz uv "eendeeyoes" fraum Laatin Amairika, hu wood deerle luv tu haav tha leegal riets uv Amairikan Indeeyanz, aaz tu liv aand werk in ene port uv the Yoonietad Staets, aand thaat moest Amairikan Indeeyanz or aaz ataacht tu the Yoonietad Staets aand its iedeelz — flaud tho ouwer aadheerans in tha reel werld tu thoez iedeelz mae be — aaz hwiets aand blaaks. But I'm just gesing.
+
Pleez alert me hwen AIM ishuez a faurmal staetmant on tha Lakoeta 'siseshan'. Kaurjale...

I saspekt thaat tha jinggoewist, militarist, rednek raesists uv tha faurmer Kanfederase wood be amung tha ferst volanteerz tu poot doun aan Indeeyan reebelyan. We or no laungger in the aej uv haursbaak kaavalre waurfair. We haav not just taangks but aulso helikopter gunships aand jet fieterz tu seek out aand dastroi aul Indeeyan ormd faursaz araed agenst the Yoonietad Staets. Rusal Meenz haaz laust hiz miend. I ges wun Wuendad Ne wuzan't eenuf. He wonts tu leed hiz peepool tu toetal dastrukshan. But I dout thair or mene peepool hu wil folo hiz insaen leed.
+
It iz maur thaan wertth noeting thaat beefaur tha kreeyaeshan uv the Yoonietad Staets aand its entre intu hwut wer Indeeyan laandz in tha West, thair wuz no singgool laanggwaj bi hwich tha vaareeyas Indeeyan grueps kood kamyuenikaet witth eech uther. AIM iz posibool oenle beekauz tha laanggwaj uv the Yoonietad Staets, boroed fraum Britan, empouwez vaareeyas preeveeyasle separat aand aufan hostool grueps tu kamyuenikaet aand werk toogether.
+
Wikipeedeeya haaz this tu sae:

On Deesember 20, 2007, a gruep uv Lakoeta aaktivists infaurmd thaat tha Lakoeta peepool wer witthdrauqing frum treeteez siend witth tha Y.S. federal guvernmant. It iz aaz yet unkleer hwether tha staetmants uv the aaktivists repreezent tha vyu uv the eelektad guvernmant(s) uv tha Su Naeshan, aur hou YS federal autthoriteez wil reespond.

Aaz faur tha YN deklaraeshan reeferd tu in tha nuez ortikal, tha .PDF iz availabool heer. I found it tthru the AIM websiet, aafter sevral steps. Tha staans uv the Y.S. Guvernmant, kwiet properle, iz thaat fundamental hyueman riets beelaung tu indivijuewals, not grueps. Thus indivijuewalz haav the riet tu speek a laanggwaj uv thair chois [aur, I miet aad, tu spel aaz thae wil], persu a sekshuewal aureeyentaeshan thae feel riet faur themselvz, ets., reegordlas uv the aatituedz uv tha peepool in thair kamyuenite, trieb, staet, aur naeshan. Aand indivjuewal riets trump tha wil uv a trieb tu preezerv a kulcher the indivijuewal duzan't kair about.
+
Siseshanizam haaz a self-dastruktiv, infinitle self-kampounding dienaamik. If tha Lakoeta jenerale haav a riet tu siseed frum tha Y.S., then shuerle ene trieb not kantent tu be port uv a singgool Lakoeta naeshan kood aaz wel siseed, aand ene subtrieb tu siseed frum thaat entite, aand ene reejan tu siseed frum thaat, aand ene toun tu siseed frum thaat, aand ene housqhoeld tu siseed frum thaat, aand ene faamile member'z indivijuewal ruem tha riet tu siseed frum tha house! If maur thaan wun persan, say, tue siblingz, shair thaat ruem, then shuerle wun sib haaz tha riet tu taek hiz aur her paurshan uv tha ruem out uv the kanjointle siseedad ruem!
+
I aulso found a jeneral diskushan uv tha mene myuechuewale kontradiktare staansaz uv tha Soopreem Kaurt aaz tu Indeeyan "sovrante" aat http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html (veeya a diskushan aat, uv aul plaesaz, KoelbairNaeshan.kom, a faan siet uv tha sateerikal Komade Sentral proegraam, Tha Koelbair Ripaur). It iz inkanseevabool thaat tha Soopreem Kaurt wood dair tu rekagniez tha siseshan uv a Lakoeta naeshan. If it wer tu maek so insaen a deesizhan, thaat deesizhan wood be disreegordad aaz foole aaz tha Soopreem Kaurt deesizhan thaat the Cherakeez kood not be muevd frum the Eest tu Oeklahoema veeya tha "Trail uv Teerz". It miet eevan leed tu a konstitueshanal amendmant siveerle kuting baak tha pouwer uv tha Soopreem Kaurt aand institueting a mekanizam bi hwich Konggras aand tha Prezidant, aur Konggras aloen bi a lorjer suepermajorite, kood oeverried a Soopreem Kaurt deesizhan — hwich iz laung oeverdu. Indeed, tu undu the ifekt uv a Soopreem Kaurt deesizhan on Lakoeta siseshan, a ferther amendmant permiting retroewaaktivite tu nu lauz miet aulso be apruevd.
+
Insidentale, I haav bin tu tha Litool Big Haurn Baatoolfeeld Naashanal Monyoomant in Montaana, hwich iz not for frum Bilingz. I herd thair thaat tha tuemstoen faur Jenral Kuster haaz haad tu be reeplaest maur thaan wuns beekauz it haad bin dastroid in bits aand peesaz, eether bi indignant Indeeyanz aur bi suevaneer hunterz.
+
I persanale aam a bit tikt-auf thaat a fyu Lakoeta fuelz daird maek thair anounsmant on mi 63rd bertthday. I much preefer anuther Deesember 20tth, in 1804, hwen the Y.S. took pazeshan uv tha Lueweezeeyaana Teritaure. Cheerz.

Reel problamz dizerv reel salueshanz. Preetend 'siseshan' izan't wun uv them. Aand if Indeeyanz reejekt tha reestrikshanz uv tha treeteez, thae reejekt tha benafits tue. I left tha foloewing koment aat the Midool Ertth Jernal blog entre about this saem ishu:

Thair or hundradz uv milyanz uv peepool in tha Ttherd Werld — inklueding milyanz uv "eendeeyoes" in Laatin Amairika — hu wood be ekstaatik tu haav tha riets uv Lakoeta aand uther Amirikan Indeeyanz, inklueding tha riet tu leev tha rezervaeshan aand traaval tu, reezied in, aand taek werk in ene port uv the Yoonietad Staets.
+
Indeeyanz haav bin deralikt in pramoeting thair interests palitikale aand acheeving hi publik prominans aaz, faur instans, in leeding the envieranmental muevmant. Thae haav aaz wel bin aul tue kwik tu blaem utherz faur persanal failingz. Hwiet peepool or not, aafter aul, faursing aalkahaul doun Indeeyan tthroets, aand suewisied iz not jenasied.
+
Tha rezervaeshan sistam haaz, faur tha moest port, bin a failyer, aand if Indeeyan "treeteez" kaan be voidad yuenilaaterale frum the Indeeyan sied, thae kaan be voidad yuenilaaterale frum tha Y.S. sied, aand Indeeyanz givan (oenle) tha saem riets aaz evreewun els: indivijuewal riets, not gruep riets. The Alaaska Naetiv Klaemz Setoolmant Aakt estaablisht a nu vizhan, but I doen't noe hou wel it haaz werkt.
+
Mi feeling iz thaat we got tha best uv the werld's indijanas peepoolz, sertanle aaz kantraastad witth tha monstras Aazteks aand uther Laatin Amairikan triebz, but thaat reetenshan uv a laanggwaj aur kulcher iz a persanal maater aand shood not be koewerst. Hwut haaz valyu tu aan indivijuewal uv Lakoeta aansestre mae haav foole aaz much vaalyu tu a non-Indeeyan. If Indeeyan laanggwajaz or disapeering, it iz beekauz thae or kulcherale valyuelas. If thae did haav vaalyu, thae wood be tha meedeeyam uv a flerishing, if loe-run, publishing industry [aur, I miet aad heer, uv eelektronik publishing on the Internet; if thair iz not prezantle a roemaanik rendering uv smaul Indeeyan laanggwajaz, tha Fanetik speling sistam kood be adaaptad tu render such teksts Internet-yuezabool], aand no wun wood eevan tthingk uv abaandaning them. But hwen eevan Spaanish iz disapeering amung sekand- aand ttherd-jeneraeshan Hispaaniks in the Yoonietad Staets, preezerving Indeeyan laanggwajaz iz goewing tu be hord, eevan aabsant kampulshan bi hwiet ejookaeterz to abaandon naaetiv laanggwajaz faur Ingglish. Reevieving 'dieying' aur 'ded' laanggwajaz iz sumhwair beetween difikult aand imposibool. Witnas tha failyer uv tha Reepublik uv Ieyerland tu maek the Ierish abaandan Ingglish faur Gailik, aand tha failyer uv Zieyanists tu maek Amairikan Juez (hu stil, tu this dae, outnumber Izraileez) tu beekum fluewant entthuezeeyasts uv Heebru.
+
Vizhuewal orts uv Indeeyan indivijuewalz or eevaalyuewaetad on the saem staanderdz aaz uther ortistik auferingz. Thoez thaat or terifik wil fiend aan audeeyans, aand morkat. Thoez thaat or meedeeyoeker wil fair puerle. Yu kaan't koewers a kulcher intu reevieval but must leed tthru eksalans.

'Nuf sed?
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,897 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Lakota 'Secession'. David Chou, Founder of the Formosa Statehood Movement & the Democratic-Republican Party of Taiwan, asked my view of a news item he found from December 20th, a longer version of which you can find at FoxNews.com. Here are key excerpts:

The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States, leaders said Wednesday.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us," long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means told a handful of reporters and a delegation from the Bolivian embassy, gathered in a church in a run-down neighborhood of Washington for a news conference.

A delegation of Lakota leaders delivered a message to the State Department on Monday, announcing they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the United States, some of them more than 150 years old.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

I replied:

The "treaties" with Indian 'nations' were always a sham because no one on the U.S. side felt they were actually dealing with sovereign nations in the European sense, and if the Lakota feel it is OK to withdraw from treaties unilaterally, the U.S. can of course void such 'treaties' unilaterally as well and simply claim the land by right of conquest and/or occupation. Any Lakota who renounces U.S. citizenship but continues to reside in the territory of the United States becomes an illegal alien subject to deportation if there is any Lakota territory outside the boundaries of the United States to deport them to.
+
Wikipedia says:

Lakota are also found far to the north in the Fort Peck Reservation of Montana, the Fort Berthold Reservation of northwestern North Dakota, and several small reserves in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where their ancestors fled to "Grandmother's [i.e. Queen Victoria's] Land" (Canada) during the Minnesota or Black Hills War.

So it would seem there is a place to deport non-U.S.-citizen Lakota secessionists to. But even if they could not be legally deported, which seems dubious, given the Canadian reserves, they can be denied all U.S.-citizen rights, such as the right to work in the United States, to vote in U.S. federal or state elections, and to travel to or reside in other parts of the United States, or to receive government assistance reserved to citizens/legal residents. In short, their status would become that of stateless persons. And of course any land given to the Lakota as reservations would no longer be reserved, because the reservations were established by the very treaties the activists now claim are void. Instead, all that land could be claimed by the federal or state government(s) unless each individual lot-holder or tribal corporation had previously filed a deed for specific pieces of land with the state government on which that parcel is located. The occupants of land not deeded then become squatters. To gain the right to the land, they will have to PAY FOR IT, whereupon they will find out whether it is as worthless as they want people to believe. + Any business conducted on a (former) reservation that is in conflict with the laws of the surrounding state(s), such as casinos and discount sales of cigarets, would become illegal and be shut down or required to conform to the laws of and pay taxes to the state(s) of which that land is part, and the federal government.
+
In no event would the United States simply accept the "legality" of the absurd idea that Indians can take their lands out of the United States. Sane people must caution extremist Indians that we fought one Civil War, which killed 600,000 people, to establish that the United States is an indissoluble union. The Confederacy was a much more formidable military enemy than a few ragtag bands of Indians -- and no, "Indian" is not an insulting term. Russell Means, the Lakota spearhead of this drive, was among the early leaders of the "American Indian Movement". I sent the following email today to AIM:

I see that AIM does not (yet) have on its website any statement, pro or con, relating to the declaration of Russell Means and others on December 20th that the Lakota Indians are no longer part of the United States. I'm sure Americans in general and the world at large would like to hear what AIM has to say, specifically addressing issues like the 'seceding' Lakotas becoming illegal aliens in the United States and deportable to Lakota reserves in Canada; the automatic cession of reservations to the states in which they are located, rendering all residents who do not own title to their individual plots into squatters and the resulting subjection of businesses in those areas to state and federal laws; the legal status of Lakota individuals residing outside the Lakota 'nation'; and the preparedness of Lakota rebels to fite a second Civil War, with the same, inescapable outcome as the first, against the Union. You need to place on your website information as to the stance of AIM toward this 'secession'.
+
I suspect that most American Indians realize that there are hundreds of millions of people, including millions of "indios" from Latin America, who would dearly love to have the legal rights of American Indians, as to live and work in any part of the United States, and that most American Indians are as attached to the United States and its ideals — flawed tho our adherence in the real world to those ideals may be — as whites and blacks. But I'm just guessing.
+
Please alert me when AIM issues a formal statement on the Lakota 'secession'. Cordially...

I suspect that the jingoist, militarist, redneck racists of the former Confederacy would be among the first volunteers to put down an Indian rebellion. We are no longer in the age of horseback cavalry warfare. We have not just tanks but also helicopter gunships and jet fiters to seek out and destroy all Indian armed forces arrayed against the United States. Russell Means has lost his mind. I guess one Wounded Knee wasn't enuf. He wants to lead his people to total destruction. But I doubt there are many people who will follow his insane lead.
+
It is more than worth noting that before the creation of the United States and its entry into what were Indian lands in the West, there was no single language by which the various Indian groups could communicate with each other. AIM is possible only because the language of the United States, borrowed from Britain, empowers various previously separate and often hostile groups to communicate and work together.
+
Wikipedia has this to say:

On December 20, 2007, a group of Lakota activists informed that the Lakota people were withdrawing from treaties signed with the U.S. federal government. It is as yet unclear whether the statements of the activists represent the view of the elected government(s) of the Sioux Nation, or how US federal authorities will respond.

As for the UN declaration referred to in the news article, the .PDF is available here. I found it thru the AIM website, after several steps. The stance of the U.S. Government, quite properly, is that fundamental human rights belong to individuals, not groups. Thus individuals have the right to speak a language of their choice [or, I might add, to spell as they will], pursue a sexual orientation they feel right for themselves, etc., regardless of the attitudes of the people in their community, tribe, state, or nation. And individual rights trump the will of a tribe to preserve a culture the individual doesn't care about.
+
Secessionism has a self-destructive, infinitely self-compounding dynamic. If the Lakota generally have a right to secede from the U.S., then surely any tribe not content to be part of a single Lakota nation could as well secede, and any subtribe to secede from that entity, and any region to secede from that, and any town to secede from that, and any household to secede from that, and any family member's individual room the right to secede from the house! If more than one person, say, two siblings, share that room, then surely one sib has the right to take his or her portion of the room out of the conjointly seceded room!
+
I also found a general discussion of the many mutually contradictory stances of the Supreme Court as to Indian "sovereignty" at http://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/sovereignty.html (via a discussion at, of all places, ColbertNation.com, a fan site of the satirical Comedy Central program, The Colbert Report). It is inconceivable that the Supreme Court would dare to recognize the secession of a Lakota nation. If it were to make so insane a decision, that decision would be disregarded as fully as the Supreme Court decision that the Cherokees could not be moved from the East to Oklahoma via the "Trail of Tears". It might even lead to a constitutional amendment severely cutting back the power of the Supreme Court and instituting a mechanism by which Congress and the President, or Congress alone by a larger supermajority, could override a Supreme Court decision — which is long overdue. Indeed, to undo the effect of a Supreme Court decision on Lakota secession, a further amendment permitting retroactivity to new laws might also be approved.
+
Incidentally, I have been to the Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument in Montana, which is not far from Billings. I heard there that the tombstone for General Custer has had to be replaced more than once because it had been destroyed in bits and pieces, either by indignant Indians or by souvenir hunters.
+
I personally am a bit ticked-off that a few Lakota fools dared make their announcement on my 63rd birthday. I much prefer another December 20th, in 1804, when the U.S. took possession of the Louisiana Territory. Cheers.

Real problems deserve real solutions. Pretend 'secession' isn't one of them. And if Indians reject the restrictions of the treaties, they reject the benefits too. I left the following comment at the Middle Earth Journal blog entry about this same issue:

There are hundreds of millions of people in the Third World — including millions of "indios" in Latin America — who would be ecstatic to have the rights of Lakota and other American Indians, including the right to leave the reservation and travel to, reside in, and take work in any part of the United States.
+
Indians have been derelict in promoting their interests politically and achieving high public prominence as, for instance, in leading the environmental movement. They have as well been all too quick to blame others for personal failings. White people are not, after all, forcing alcohol down Indian throats, and suicide is not genocide.
+
The reservation system has, for the most part, been a failure, and if Indian "treaties" can be voided unilaterally from the Indian side, they can be voided unilaterally from the U.S. side, and Indians given (only) the same rights as everyone else: individual rights, not group rights. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act established a new vision, but I don't know how well it has worked.
+
My feeling is that we got the best of the world's indigenous peoples, certainly as contrasted with the monstrous Aztecs and other Latin American tribes, but that retention of a language or culture is a personal matter and should not be coerced. What has value to an individual of Lakota ancestry may have fully as much value to a non-Indian. If Indian languages are disappearing, it is because they are culturally valueless. If they did have value, they would be the medium of a flourishing, if low-run, publishing industry [or, I might add here, of electronic publishing on the Internet; if there is not presently a romanic rendering of small Indian languages, the Fanetik spelling system could be adapted to render such texts Internet-usable], and no one would even think of abandoning them. But when even Spanish is disappearing among second- and third-generation Hispanics in the United States, preserving Indian languages is going to be hard, even absent compulsion by white educators to abandon native languages for English. Reviving 'dying' or 'dead' languages is somewhere between difficult and impossible. Witness the failure of the Republic of Ireland to make the Irish abandon English for Gaelic, and the failure of Zionists to make American Jews (who still, to this day, outnumber Israelis) to become fluent enthusiasts of Hebrew.
+
Visual arts of Indian individuals are evaluated on the same standards as other artistic offerings. Those that are terrific will find an audience, and market. Those that are mediocre will fare poorly. You can't coerce a culture into revival but must lead thru excellence.

'Nuf said?
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,897< /strong> — for Israel.)





- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 8:34 PM