Liberty559

"The $286-billion transportation bill is like a rib joint. I know that eating its food increases my cholesterol, but it tastes so damn good!

The national government should be ashamed of itself for voting to build a $200 million bridge anywhere to an island of fifty people. The national government shouldn't use my money to build another freeway named for a dead president or to build Pedal Mississippi! ... er ... Petal, MS a bike path. Let the people in those areas pay for their own projects. We get taxed enough!!

I know. The bill isn't all bad. It will be nice to travel from Visalia to Hanford without worrying whether someone going from Hanford to Visalia is going to hit me while passing that slow semi in the mad rush to make his 3:30 appointment. A four-lane divided highway would be really cool, especially if we can get a little help from the feds! Plus, living here just off 180 is great and I can't wait to be able to go to Fowler Avenue without having to go through that gaud-auful Tulare and Maple intersection!

My congressman is doing a pretty good job in Washington. But, I would like him more if he would get us more money. We're not getting our fair share, and if he would just work a little harder, we would get more. It's not fair!

But how are we going to stop this incessant spending? All these congressmen do is spend loads of money on tons of useless projects. These congressmen just want to get relected. OK, sometimes the project is a good project, but why do I have to pay for it? Why don't the people in their own states or counties or cities have the guts to pay for these projects themselves? Do you think anyone in Houston gives a damn about Fresno ... other than the Texans' quarterback? These congressmen are doing a disservice to our great country!

I'm glad that my congressman isn't like that!"

Porterville is looking to place limits on fundraising car washes. Fresno already has done so for several years. Why?

These car washes are becoming popular means for families and groups to raise their own revenue rather than begging the government. Businesses are voluntarily allowing these groups on their property for these events. Some groups rely on car washes for a significant portion of their revenue.

The rationales cited in the Fresno Bee today are very telling about the mindset of far, far too many government officials, elected and appointed.

"The big issue is that regardless of why the car washes were happening, the wastewater was just going down into the gutters, most of which drain into rivers. We have to stop that uncontrolled runoff into our storm drain system."

Does anyone out there think that the fundraising car washes make any kind of even semi-serious bump in the amount of pollution going into the storm drains? What percentage of people use fundraisers as a source of their car cleaning in any given time period? Moreover, does anyone out there believe that fundraising car washes increase in any serious way the number of car washes in an area at any given time? It's reasonable to assume that when most people notice that their car is dirty and decide to go to a fundraiser, the fundraiser will probably substitute for the commercial car wash or the driveway at home that they would normally use.

"Several years ago, we [Fresno] had the same problems that Porterville is having now. The car washes are everywhere, and there were problems with runoff, excessive water use and even traffic. People were standing in traffic to advertise their event. It was a very real hazard."

See above, and substitute "water use" and "runoff" for "pollution". As for people standing in traffic, it would seem that the nuclear option was not necessary in dealing with the behavior of car washers. Discipline them individually when they cause problems, but don't punish people who follow the rules.

"We used a lot of good customer-service skills. We shut them down, but we also told them where they could go to hold authorized car washes."

Liberty559 translation: "It's OK for government to put an operation out of business as long as it's done with kindness. And besides, the business that is hosting the car washes doesn't get any customers out of it because the people doing the car washes and the people waiting for the car washes don't normally buy stuff. So, it doesn't make any difference if the car wash is held at another location."

"That isn't one of the areas they are required to regulate, but they can choose to regulate car washes if they've had a problem."

This was a pollution expert at a pollution agency saying that car wash fundraisers are not on their regulatory radar. If cities are regulating fundraising car washes, they're doing it without any specific prompting from the pollution bureaucracy.

"We were having way too many people holding car washes every day, without a license, and without having to follow the same guidelines as professional car washes. It was polluting our water, and it was an unfair business practice."

Here's where the rubber meets the road. It is routine for a commercial industry to weigh in with their elected officials when small, impromptu individual business competitors spring up. Several years ago in Fresno, the city reviewed an ordinance proposal to clamp down on street corner vendors. Most specifically at that time were complaints about people selling flowers on street corners for Mother's Day and Valentine's Day. Who were the chief complainers? Florists!

"I'm involved a lot with schools, and I know how hard it is for them to raise money. We will try to help as many as we can, as long as people realize we can't do it every weekend."

An apparently sympathetic commercial car wash owner. Of course, scarcely anyone would or should expect commercial car washes to pick up the slack. That's more reason for the government to leave the situation alone and allow fundraisers and property owners to deal with the charitable need on a consensual basis.

"I know they are trying to reduce pollutants and also regulate businesses. What I don't know yet, is how we will replace the money we raised here. The car wash was run by men from the home, which doesn't receive any government money. This won't shut us down, though. We will find a way to stay open."

A nonprofit operating a car wash without a license (after all, it's nonprofit). What the license does, I don't know, other than restrict trade. Yes, you are correct, sir, in your view that Porterville is trying to "regulate businesses". The multi-multi-million dollar question is "Why?" To what end is regulation a benefit to Porterville or Fresno or any other city, other than benefitting a special interest? This group is functioning as best it can without its hand out to government officials, and this is the thanks they get? Godspeed to this organization as they try to move on without their car wash.

"I don't like the idea of the city shutting them down, but there is not much I can do."

The owner of the property allowing the nonprofit car wash to operate. Most of the time, there isn't much that can be done when elected officials are headstrong and focused in their regulatory zeal. Most elected officials want to do good, want to be reformers. Unfortunately, in weighing their options for reform, the best option is often the least considered option: DO NOTHING! The best way to avoid actions like those likely to happen to in Porterville? Elect libertarians!

"In a case such as a family trying to raise money for a funeral, they could ask a professional car wash business for help, and I think there are many in town who would do so. We're not trying to keep groups from raising money. We're just trying to make the situation fair for everyone."

Just more evidence that the concerns about pollution and runoff and traffic and safety, concerns that are either not real problems or are easily addressable problems on a individual basis, sublimate to the one concern that cannot be satisfied as long as these fundraising car washes are allowed to exist unregulated: competition.

A free marketplace IS a fair marketplace!

This week the City of Fresno and the law enforcement employee representatives have clashed over the utilization of numerical targets of performance. And today, we learn that the cameras installed at certain intersections to detect red-light runners are not paying for themselves and may possibly be taken down. In each case, the Fresno law enforcement community is financially rewarded for citing us citizens more for law violations.

The City wants police to show a 5% improvement in performance and is using the number of arrests and citations as the standard of measure. The mayor calls these standards goals; the employees call them quotas. Does a goal/quota of 105% of the present arrest/citation rate necessarily mean that the police are performing better? If crime goes up 10% or goes down 5%, is a 5% numerical citation/arrest rate increase fair to the employees or the general public?

What happens if police officers miss their goal/quota? If the targets are not quotas, why are they part of a performance standard proposal rather than part of an overall examination of policing in general? If an officer misses his/her targets without consequences, why have the targets as part of an employee's performance standard? If officers are to be penalized for missing their targets, are the officers going to go the extra mile to make arrests and citations, perhaps in a manner that is intrusive and/or discriminatory to the general public?

The red-light cameras may be eliminated because they are not bringing in the revenues that the City had predicted (desired?). Signal lights in other areas of the country were found to be tweaked in ways to artificially increase violations, thus revenues. Part of the reason for the lower revenues in Fresno is that the cameras don't work near optimum standards, with only 19% of violators being able to be identified to be cited. Although the question of the efficacies of the cameras are discussed, the effect of the cameras on the injury and death rate at intersections is not. That should be the predominant factor in installing or uninstalling the cameras, and clearly it is not.

Linkaging law enforcement activities with economic incentives heightens mistrust of the police by the citizens and encourages the least ethical in law enforcement to abuse his/her authority for personal gain. It is dangerous and should not be a policy of any police or military agency at any governmental level.

Larry Westerlund's defense of his vote for the Fresno City Council's purchase of the Barrister Building parcel downtown says a great deal about redevelopment in Fresno. While his explanation of the cost of the parcel may have some validity, it instructs us more why government should not be in the real estate or hotel business in the first place.

The involvement of the City of Fresno via the Redevelopment Agency appears to have artificially spiked the cost of the parcel. Indeed, that may be true for the entire downtown area since any real estate in a "project area," like downtown, can be confiscated by the City at what the City considers fair market value if the real estate owners don't play ball with the City by signing an owner participation agreement (OPA). In the case of the property adjacent to the Exhibit Hall expansion, the City tried to get it for much, much less eight years ago through eminent domain, but the Ophelia family stood its ground.

The councilmember explains the price of the parcel, but does not as deftly explain the value of the City's involvement. He says that the City needs "options". Well, what about those options? The build-out option for the Exhibit Hall is seen by scarcely anyone as a major factor in the convention center's fortunes. Government convention centers have been failures all over the country, and Fresno doesn't appear to be an exception. Government holding onto property for ownership sake is a counterproductive option, as the land is more productive when a private entity uses it for commerce or for philanthropy.

That leaves us with building a hotel. Why should the City do it? Lloyd Kennedy of the Convention and Visitors Bureau insists that downtown needs 50% more rooms for his agency to do its job of filling convention dates. But if a new hotel fills up only at convention time, does a public expenditure toward a that hotel in an economy of 30% present-day vacancies have value?
The interest in the property at the northern corner of Inyo and M is restricted to those who will deal with the City. The City has tried for at least two decades with exclusivity arrangements to find a suitor to build its hotel without success. Like Grizzlies Stadium, the assumption is made by the city leaders that if it is built in the manner and place that they say it should be built, they will come. Well, it may not get built and they may not come if it is built in a non-competitive environment. The truth is that a company that will have to spend $80 million to build a hotel, or anything else, does not want to be told where to build it or have the Redevelopment Agency nitpicking its operations.

The OPA ratchets up the cost of doing business in the City without enhancing the value of real estate or business opportunities. The threat of eminent domain, now heightened by last month's the Supreme Court ruling, is a greater disincentive than ever before.

The Redevelopment Agency is broken and can only be fixed by its abolition.

Some people argue that military defense (or offense) is not a local issue, but I could not disagree more. As long as there are local men and women serving in the military, it is a local issue. As long as we elect congress persons and senators to decided issues of defense in Washington, it is a local issue.

While I have nothing but praise for our soldiers, it is my opinion that our political leadership in Washington has made a grave mistake in invading Iraq. As a libertarian, I find that this foreign intervention in another country is unjustifiable by libertarian principles. By libertarian principles a foreign intervention is prima facie a questionable event. We believe that such military action must be in defense of the U.S. from aggression by another entity. Every justification floated by the Bush administration has been proven to be false. It is time that we withdraw from this quagmire in an orderly and expeditious manner.

The invasion of Iraq has not made us one bit safer from terrorists. In fact, the invasion has played right into the hands of the terrorists who had predicted just such an event. Terrorists do not have to defeat us to win! All they have to do is remain undefeated and take an occasional shot at our people. Armored divisions are made for defeating other military formations who will try to stand up to them. The U.S. military is not designed to fight terrorists. A much better weapon against terrorists would consist of local Iraqi old people and children with cell phones backed up by a few armed men.

It was announced in the paper on July 14th that Senator Clinton along with several of her fellow senators would support an increase in the army of 80,000 persons. When will we learn that the taxpayers are not a bottomless well of wealth that exists to fund the national budget including the military establishment. We do not need this kind of military force to fight terrorism. The Iraqi local people who look and act like the terrorists and speak the language must defend themselves from the terrorists in their midst. Sending more soldiers or allowing the ones we have there to remain is simply providing a ready supply of targets for terrorists.

It may be that the Iraq situation is winding down. We must certainly hope so, but the Bush Administration has set up a line of new enemies for us to vanquish when Iraq is completed, namely, No. Korea and Iran top the list. The dispute they are pushing is over non-proliferation of nuclear capacity which might lead to the production of weapons. The U.S. is reported to have 15,000 such weapons. Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel not to mention the Europeans have weapons. What justification do we have for preventing them from having nuclear capacity? By threatening them we merely increase their fears of us, and incite their resolve to have such weapons to defend themselves against us. Our own actions are creating a self fulfilling prophecy.

We should mind our own business at least militarily. We should reduce our military establishment to one that we can afford long term.

For Liberty, Jay Eckl

The Fresno Bee editors are continuing their relentless support for forcing all purchasers of taxable goods and services in Fresno County to give money to the Fresno County library system. The latest opinion is a "thumbs up" to the voters for supporting the continuance of the library tax in November 2004 so that a record number of people can use the Internet at county libraries in 2005.

Too bad this misses the point.

Is it surprising that people flock to free internet services? The fact that a record number of people are using the internet at the library is simply evidence that the internet is more popular than ever. There are also record numbers of internet hosts (domain names and IP addresses) on the internet, only a tiny fraction of which come from public libraries. So what is the point? There are dozens of private sellers of computers and internet cafes around town who would love to have more business and create more jobs selling internet services that the libraries are providing free through the forcible taxation of their neighbors against the will of many of those neighbors.

Last fall, the editors played the do-it-for-the-children card to justify the tax, but now they are claiming that it is great that adults are using the internet at the library as well. Should it be a source of pride that many middle class adults are using free library services paid for forcibly by someone else who may be even less wealthy than they?

Then, the editors seem proud of the fact that Home Depot used the library to recruit new employees for its upcoming Selma store. You mean Home Depot could not afford a tent and a bank of computers to sign up applicants on their own dime (or is their owner, also owner of the NFL Atlanta Falcons, paying way to much for quarterback Michael Vick)? Is the next Bee library story going to applaud the Woodward Park branch for hosting Central Valley Coyotes' Arena Football games (no doubt it could be done; there's enough room!)?

I feel no pride in contributing to the continued fostering of a dependency ethic in our county. The LPFC opposition to the library tax was NOT about the value of the internet or of education or of books or of an informed citizenry, as the Bee and other tried to couch the debate. Our opposition was about the dependency of some citizens on the forced contribution of other citizens and the damage that dependency causes. A library system that is totally funded by private donations and user fees and memberships would elicit no opposition from our organization.

Riverside County has used outsourcing to great advantage for their taxpayers (of course, the Bee could not see its way to report on this success, even though I alerted a Bee reporter to the Riverside case, because the Bee was in campaign mode). And Salinas, a poorer city one-sixth the size of Fresno County, has raised nearly $600,000 for its library in less than a year. If indeed the Fresno community values its libraries and the benefits they offer, there is no reason why the library cannot be funded without the un-neighborly act of taxation.

Unfortunately, we are going to be treated to eight more years of cute, but misleading library stories.

The LPFC calls on the City of Fresno to obey the letter of the law, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, and the spirit of the law by instituting utility rate cuts and returning the revenues of at least one year derived from overcharging utility customers. We applaud the actions of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Valley Taxpayers Coalition in suing the city for charging utility customers at a rate higher than necessary to deliver the utility services.

It appears from all indications from Mayor Alan Autry, his appointed staff, and some city councilmembers that not only do they have no intention of rebating overcharges, but they additionally intend to maintain the present rate structure by changing the budget rules to redefine the overcharges to meet legal scrutiny. Former Fresno State athletic director Al Bohl was stewed in very warm water for subverting budget rules to make appearances of a balanced budget, for which he was awarded a salary bonus. In-lieu of returning money to taxpayers and reducing future charges to match actual expenses, the city appears ready to either have the police and fire departments charge the public works department for services rendered (what services are they talking about and do they do that with other departments?) or ask us taxpayers to agree to a(nother) tax increase in a city-wide ballot measure.

The LPFC rejects both of these in-lieu ideas to substitute for in-lieu fees. The in-lieu charge itself is a practice that should be banned. The idea of taxing something that doesn't exist is the most outrageous of taxes. Why not have the city charge an in-lieu bus fee because, after all, there is no private bus system to tax? Or an in-lieu stadium fee to counteract the lack of private professional sports venues? Should we have a senior golfer's in-lieu fee to make up for the revenue from the alleged lack of cheap private facilities for senior golfers, the apparent justification for run-down, city-owned Palm Lakes golf course?

The local elected (and pundit-ocratic) Republicans were very vocal (correctly) about ending the Democratic-imposed car tax last year and about granting the citizenry a rebate. Why are they not being equally irate about ending these equally illegal and unwise in-lieu fees and granting the citizens of Fresno a rebate? Is it because the mayor is not a Democrat?

In-lieu of in-lieu fees, the city should charge for what it delivers, nothing more. In-lieu of increasing our taxes, the city should look to cut services that don't involve the legitimate role of the City of Fresno -- the equitable enforcement of each Fresnan's right to sole dominion over his/her person and property. In-lieu of budgetary trickery, the city should be straight forward about its fiscal practices.

Otherwise, Fresnans should actively prepare some in-lieu choices in its elected officials.

The LPFC joins the national and state Libertarian parties in their stern oppositions to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling yesterday, giving federal drug enforcement agencies authority to prosecute medical marijuana patients in states that have passed medical marijuana laws, including California. This ruling is judicial activism at its highest by ignoring the Tenth Amendment restriction of the federal government to constitutionally enumerated powers and grossly expanding the Constitution's interstate commerce clause to authorize federal action on patients and vendors who grow or purchase or consume marijuana from the same state.

Equally as despicable is the Bush (and Clinton's before it) administration's zeal in closing down cannabis cooperatives and depriving sick Americans of a proven means of alleviating much of the pain of their illnesses. A regional Drug Enforcement Agency spokeman said that they are not going after sick patients. Tell that to Steve Kubby or the family of Peter McWilliams or Angel Raich, who brought the suit to make this obtuse ruling possible.

The only way to clean up the mess the justices have just created is for Congress to pass a law, such as the Hinchey-Rohrabacher bill, which would de-authorize the federal government from acting against medical marijuana patients in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. The LPFC calls on valley Congressmen George Radanovich, Devin Nunes, Jim Costa, and Dennis Cardoza to support this bill.

We also note that the local lawmakers have not been helpful to medical marijuana patients, either. They've allowed the sheriff, their police chiefs, and their own compassion deficits to advise them to pass minimalist ordinances that make it extremely difficult for patients to be able to find medical marijuana providers without excessive hardship. The LPFC calls on the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the eleven city councils in the county to pass realistic ordinances that give sick patients a reasonable means of obtaining the medical marijuana they need to ease their discomfort.

This is the first of several commentaries on the 2005 report of the Fresno mayor to his constituents.

Mayor Alan Autry proposed a two-year moratorium on immigration. He was also a guest on Lou Dobbs' CNN show, which daily blasts free market government policies. As an aside, it is interesting to have the mayor comment on immigration, a constitutionally national duty, given the controversy over Fresno's Human Relations Commission, which is slowly being decommissioned because it crossed the line, according to some, by taking a stand on a national issue, the war in Iraq.

I would suggest to the mayor and all of you to read the what the Cato Institute says about immigration control in its Cato Handbook for Congress. It summarizes the evidence that immigration is a net economic asset, that immigration is NOT a drain of government budgets, that current immigration is NOT out of proportion to historic immigration levels, that immigration is NOT the cause of urban sprawl or "overpopulation", that immigration does NOT reduce the employment or wage levels of American citizens, and that immigration is NOT a risk to national security.

Immigration adds new ideas in technology and culture that keep America dynamic and a forever-young nation in outlook and vitality. Immigration is a critical component of a free market system because readily accessible labor is as important as readily accessible capital or readily accessible natural resources.

A secure America is based on a just and non-interventionist foreign policy, a strong national DEFENSE (not OFFENSE), and a focus on REAL terrorist threats. Libertarians see no problem whatsoever in investigating and thwarting those who are TRULY threatening America. The widespread assumption that hindering the activities of innocent Americans and immigrants is necessary to thwart the activities of terror threats is bogus and needs to be overturned.

"Illegal" immigrants are "criminals". So are those who have unregistered guns or carry them in their cars, those who make sports bets for others online, those who smoke marijuana to relieve the pain of their illnesses, and those who protest unjust laws by violating them. Criminalizing an individual's peaceful and consensual activities (especially those done to make life better for him/her self and family) is one of our society's cruelest and most self-defeating habits.

The migration from the Bay Area and Southern California is far greater and will use far more local services than any migration from Mexico or Canada. A better migration reform might be to close the Fresno County border or to ask Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona to close their southern and western borders to prevent more jobs and citizens tired of big-sky-high taxes from fleeing.

Bass Pro Shops is a $1.5-billion company. That means that they have very smart people running the business. My guess is that someone in the higher levels of the company has heard of Fresno, California and, perhaps, even knows of its relative size and location in comparison to other California and western cities. Someone at Bass Pro may even know something about the economics of the area and its suitability for a Bass Pro Shop. So why did the Fresno City Council need to come dangerously close to violating the Brown act in order to lobby Bass Pro? And why did Bass Pro entertain such lobbying when it's going to base its decisions on financial considerations, and not how hospitably and/or desperately the councilmembers approach them?

The Fresno Bee reports that Councilmember Jerry Duncan and Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Marlene Murphey said that the reportage of the council's wooing of Bass Pro may clue in other cities to do the same thing (as if reportage of what government officials, especially elected ones, are doing is a bad thing). Guys, the cat is out of the bag. Take a gander at this article from Oklahoma City. It appears that Bass Pro's modus operandi is to get cities to fight over each other to get the best package of tax cuts (a good thing because they keep their own money) and tax subsidies (a bad thing because they get their hands on OUR money). The $6 million Macon GA deal reported in the Bee is just peanuts! The article also cites some of the failures of Bass Pro deals in other cities.

Bass Pro would probably have found its own way to Fresno like most of the other commonly seen big-boxes. But, of course, Bass Pro wants to use other people's money to pay for the store if they can get away with it, and the council does not want Bass Pro to end up in River Park or Clovis (who had their own dog and pony show in Lost Taxes ... er ... Las Vegas). They want Bass Pro to be the crown jewel of its efforts at redevelopment of downtown Fresno south of that other crown jewel that has been so successful in enriching downtown businesses, Grizzlies Stadium (I really do need that audio laugh tract on this blog). It is a disservice to us as consumers and, more importantly, constituents that our elected public officials would work to force a private business into a position where the business cannot offer its customers the best deal possible.

There's hope, however, on the horizon as far as redevelopment reform is concerned. It is commonly known that the federal government owns obscenely huge chunks of most western states. But what about city government ownership of large chunks of land within a city's limits? This California Supreme Court case involving San Jose may bring about unprecedented reform of redevelopment activities.

We at the LPFC understand and share the desire to raise the economic profiles of indigent citizens and blighted areas. We are frustrated, though, that despite the overwhelming evidence of the power of free market principles and the numerous failures of governmental activities, especially "redevelopment", our public officials in Fresno County continue ad nauseum to turn to economically coercive policies rather than economically consensual policies. Our only choice as concerned citizens is to continue to bring to the public's attention the best information and reasoning available for libertarian reforms in this geographically wonderful valley.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously two days ago to draft an ordinance to partially ban wood-burning fireplaces in new homes in unincorporated Fresno County. They are additionally urging the other incorporated cities of the county to follow the trail they and the Fresno City Council have blazed with fireplace bans. That blaze will cause far more pollution than the fireplace bans will eliminate.

When the Fresno City Council passed its ban over two years ago, the LPFC issued a press release condemning the ban. They, like the Fresno Bee editors, see such a ban as leadership on the critical air pollution issue. Unfortunately, leadership that targets innocent people is failed leadership. Polluters should pay for pollution problems.

Besides, the wood-burning pollution local governments are reacting to is a small part of a problem that is being solved by technology. Research done by the Reason Public Policy Institute shows that particulate matter, the primary pollutant of fireplaces, has been falling consistently in all parts of the San Joaquin Valley since 1985. Furthermore, Dr. Adrian Moore of the institute says that there is no correlation between asthma incidence and air pollution levels. Many California cities and counties with increasing asthma incidences have declining particulate matter and/or ozone levels. He adds that a small percentage of older cars cause a majority of the vehicular air pollution, and that the air is being cleaned as these oldest cars are gradually being taken off the valley's roadways.

Newer technologies are also being made available for fireplaces. Additionally, greater daily air quality alertness through the media (including the Bee; thanks) makes for more efficient and effective voluntary compliance.

The fireplace bans are overkill. Enacting policies that punish innocent people is more dangerous to the valley than the present-day levels of air pollution.

So far, my research has not found many blogs about Fresno and the San Joaquin Valley. I don't mind being a near monopoly, but (hopefully) as a service to my neighbors who may be interested in blogging in the future, I strongly suggest visiting this Mudville Gazette post. It has been enormously helpful to me in getting Liberty559 started. Plus the blog itself is pretty interesting. I hope to have one as popular and as well-done some day. Thank you, Greyhawk.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Man, I hate to keep picking on the editors of the Fresno Bee, but like Art Linkletter's kids in the '50s and '60s, they say the darndest things.

Today, the editors say that California Supreme Court Associate Justice Janice Rogers Brown is unfit for the U.S. Court of Appeals because of her "19th century economic theories". The theories they abhor are those that move Judge Rogers Brown to be, as the Bee characterizes, "willing to use judicial power to reverse government's role in the economic life of the nation." Sounds like my kind of gal.

The judge has the belief in the inverse proportionality between economic health and government intervention, which is as close a theory to fact as Newton's law. The Bee seems to believe more fervently in another set of 19th century economic theories that promote government intervention. So, it seems that their beef is not so much with the age of the theory.

The Bee editors also seem to believe that the Constitution, born in the 18th century, must be interpreted in a way that embraces the 21st century. Not Newton's nor Ohm's nor Boyle's nor any other scientific law is going to change because of the millenium celebration. The economic laws of supply and demand do not change because we are more modern. The "problems of the 21st century" are not going to be solved any more effectively by violating core economic principles that are ageless.

Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, also adopted in the 18th century, is still there. The federal government has no authority to act unless the Constitution explicitly says it can. The Amendment has not changed, so why should our judicial treatment of it change?

While I don't think that anti-Christian bigotry is as prevalent as the judge does, her clearly libertarian outlook in economic matters and police authority (the latter supported by the Bee editors rightfully) makes her not only qualified for the DC Circuit Appeals Court, but the most qualified jurist for a Supreme Court nomination in decades. As a fellow African-American, early-seventies, Sacramento high school graduate, I am proud of her and hope she is able to go the distance.

Meanwhile, Ray Appleton and the conservative audience on KMJ is bemoaning the fourteen senators who have seized the initiative in the judicial nomination process. They are really fuming over the seven Republicans, calling them some pretty mean names. Some Rs have called in to say that they are changing into Is because the Rs are too wimpish. We never heard any of these Rs as pundits or callers or politicians upset about Clinton's judicial nominees not getting up-or-down votes because of Senate Republican tactics. You have to have an inexhaustable store of righteous indignation to waste some of it on this blatantly hypocritical judicial campaign.

The Libertarian Party of California supported Proposition 1A to give Native American tribes the authority to have Nevada-style gambling on tribal lands. We believed then and now that tribes should have sovereignty over their lands and the level of autonomy they the tribes choose to have, whether they choose national, state, or county status. Gaming has shown to be the economic engine that has been previously elusive for Native American people. Tribes should be able to generate and keep revenue with minimal interference from outside governments.

We also believe that tribal governments are just that, governments. They have a duty to behave as governments. As Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters suggested on May 6, tribes have alternatively asserted governmental sovereignty and the rights of private citizens, depending on which serves them best. As governments, tribal organizations should act with transparency, equity, and respect for the rights of citizens inside and outside the tribe.

The Fresno Bee chronicled today a gathering in Temecula, home of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, and the home of the Pechanga Resort and Casino, one of California's largest. Over one hundred Native Americans were organizing to overturn disenrollments -- expulsions from tribes -- served upon them by tribal governments. There have been an estimated 1000 disenrollments in California alone, most taking place since the passage of Proposition 1A. It is highly likely that at least one of the one hundred who met yesterday was one of those disenrolled from the Chukchansi tribe in the months preceeding the opening of the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino.

The Fresno Bee editors also opined that the North Fork Indians and Station Casinos should not be allowed to build a casino on Highway 99, forty miles away from their tribal neighborhood. The political process throughout the state and the nation has led to tribes being allowed to build off-reservation casinos or allow landless tribes to build casinos hundreds of miles from ancestral homelands. These maneuverings belie the spirit of Proposition 1A. The Bee got this one right (broken clocks once a day do).

The relationships between local, state, and national governments and native tribes needs reform. Tribes should be granted the authority to be sovereign, but should also be expected to heed the duties of sovereignty. No county or state can decide who is a citizen and who isn't, and neither should tribal governments. Casino ownership, if it is to be a monopoly, should be linked to geography, not ethnicity. If tribes can build casinos off tribal land, so should everyone else be allowed that right.