Sometimes it becomes comical, the happenings in the Great Puzzle Palace. Is it really okay to give the keys to the Ofice of Special Trustee to Donna Erwin? It seems like just yesterday that she was reprimanded for some less-than-favorable actions with some no-contest contractors at OST. And now she's in charge. I want to know if it should really be ok with Tribal Land Owners that the trustee's office is in the hands of the Fearsome-Foursome (see Office of Inspector General Memorandum, Fraud in New Mexico, and An Ugly History, and a related story on POGO Blog: Discipline Awaits for Indian Trust Officials Snagged in Corruptino Scandal)
The optimum Easter Bunny Present is that the Office of Special Trustee be swallowed up by some other agency who can run it through an industrial-strength shredder and we can forget the good idea ever was. "Sure it was a good idea at the time."
History, however, shows OST hasn't ever lived up to it's potential unless you're a contractor with friends in the Office of Special Trustee whom you can ply with golf outings. For the rest of us, well, we will have to once again hold our breath and see what happens when yet another group of Executive Level employees "Screw Up to Move Up."
In case you forgot, here are some reminders (below) of why the current situation is an important one and why the President of the United States needs to crack the whip over at the Interior so we can get some ethical, respectable, leadership in the Office of Special Trustee.
Here's How You Manage Leasing!
Two Cheers for Dirk Kempthorne!
Good Indians
An Administration's Task
The Poorest of the Poor
A Grand Contracted Mess
Return to the Scene of the Crime
A Penny For Your Appraisal
Showing posts with label Department of the Interior. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of the Interior. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Kimberly Teehee is actually the #2 position in Indian country
Jackie Johnson Pata said [Kim Teehee's] job was really going to hone in on those [domestic] policy issues. Pata also said, Kim's job was like the No. 1 position in Indian Country.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Well that was before Larry Echohawk's second [or were there more?] swearing in ceremony, after which Larry issued his first editorial declaring that "The historical Cherokee Nation as it existed in 1934 no longer exists as a distinct political entity."
Echo Hawk declared a new nation, a new government, a new-tribe-that-will-have-to-negotiate-a-treaty-because-they-didn't-exist-before, until now, when Larry says they do! Larry presented the "New and Improved" Cherokee Nation with two governments for the price of none! A drum roll should have played before he declared the C-N-O! The Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band!
Wow! Shiny enit?
So, I'm curious, if Kim Teehee is No.1, what does she do if an "underling" declares her tribe "moot?" If there is no Historical Cherokee Tribe, since he just dissolved it in his own mind, which tribe does Kim Teehee declare herself a part of? And how does Larry handle the real No.1 position in Indian Country from such a long distance from the President's desk?
Now I'm confused, is there a historical Cherokee Tribe and if it did "sunset" doesn't that mean that since it dissolved, they don't have trust status? If it dissolved, they don't have a government-to-government relationship with the Federal Government right? So, if it really did dissolve before our very eyes, Larry Echo Hawk just outran Congress in the race to dissolve a Tribe.....wow.......he's quick.
Didn't a past BIA employee declare plenary decision-making over tribal governments such as the Northern Cheyenne? Are we right back where we were trying to get away from? Wow, he does work quickly.
Have a "nice" day, and thank you for visiting the "historical" Cherokee Tribe formerly known as a sovereign nation, declared "moot" by a second and successive Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Larry Echo Hawk.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
What is sovereignty? The Hualapai Tribe has the correct answer
This is a case regarding the Hualapai Tribe's inherent assertion of sovereignty over its own airspace.
The Arizona Daily Sun has reported about an issue that is pertinent to the discussion about the current appointments to key Indian positions in the government. The story in the Feb 18 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun, Hualapai, pilot at stalemate is a prime example of what sovereignty should mean. This is where our key appointed officials work with the Federal Government to spell out what sovereignty means.
In this case a pilot flew through Hualapai Tribal airspace and was subsequently detained so he could be cited for trespassing.
Cyndy Cole reports that the FAA said that the FAA has not given the [Hualapai] tribe any airspace rights.
In 1871 the U.S. stopped making treaties. In 1874 they moved the Hualapai (one could argue illegally) for the benefit of the Santa Fe Railroad. In 1883 they created the Hualapai Reservation by Executive Order. The FAA has never been given rights from the Hualapai Tribe. If the Hualapai had not stipulated what rights the United States had by 1871, then basically the United States cannot come in and say what they "think" the Hualapai Tribe meant to bestow on the States. And since the U.S. Government gave up making treaties in 1871, we should assume that the United States were never given rights from the Hualapai Tribe.
Treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes, are stipulations for what rights the Tribes gave up, and what the United States gave to the Tribes in exchange. I seriously doubt that the Hualapai gave up the right to govern their airspace. In other words they have a reserved right to everything that they didn't give up. Right? Right? There are a few ways to express that concept but for purposes of this conversation, we'll keep it simple.
Bravo to the Hualapai Tribe for exercising Sovereignty. Let's hope the Federal Officials learn about sovereignty from the Hualapai action.
Just so it's clear, THE FAA has no airspace rights to give to anyone over the Hualapai Reservation because the Hualapai Tribe never gave up that right.
hmmmm......what's Spectrum?
The Arizona Daily Sun has reported about an issue that is pertinent to the discussion about the current appointments to key Indian positions in the government. The story in the Feb 18 issue of the Arizona Daily Sun, Hualapai, pilot at stalemate is a prime example of what sovereignty should mean. This is where our key appointed officials work with the Federal Government to spell out what sovereignty means.
In this case a pilot flew through Hualapai Tribal airspace and was subsequently detained so he could be cited for trespassing.
Cyndy Cole reports that the FAA said that the FAA has not given the [Hualapai] tribe any airspace rights.
In 1871 the U.S. stopped making treaties. In 1874 they moved the Hualapai (one could argue illegally) for the benefit of the Santa Fe Railroad. In 1883 they created the Hualapai Reservation by Executive Order. The FAA has never been given rights from the Hualapai Tribe. If the Hualapai had not stipulated what rights the United States had by 1871, then basically the United States cannot come in and say what they "think" the Hualapai Tribe meant to bestow on the States. And since the U.S. Government gave up making treaties in 1871, we should assume that the United States were never given rights from the Hualapai Tribe.
Treaties between the United States and Indian Tribes, are stipulations for what rights the Tribes gave up, and what the United States gave to the Tribes in exchange. I seriously doubt that the Hualapai gave up the right to govern their airspace. In other words they have a reserved right to everything that they didn't give up. Right? Right? There are a few ways to express that concept but for purposes of this conversation, we'll keep it simple.
Bravo to the Hualapai Tribe for exercising Sovereignty. Let's hope the Federal Officials learn about sovereignty from the Hualapai action.
Just so it's clear, THE FAA has no airspace rights to give to anyone over the Hualapai Reservation because the Hualapai Tribe never gave up that right.
hmmmm......what's Spectrum?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
President Obama's American Indian adviser on tribal policy
Any suggestions? There is still hope that despite whoever takes the BIA helm or the OST helm and is still subject to Federal Oversight and Federal Program Managers, we might still have a chance at an appointment who will be our voice. I believe that tribes would do well to assemble a top-to-bottom consensus for who we think might be a good choice.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
A nationally elected representative might be a good place to start. Those scholars who have visited our tribes preaching the gospel of sovereignty from our Universities might be a good choice. Some people who have the ground-level view of how Federal policies have affected us might be a good looking place.
The venerated warriors who have suffered through the indignities of our struggles to retain hunting and fishing rights may yield some cheers from throughout Indian Country. In the end, the person who has a personal stake in assuring Indian Country has a voice in how the Federal Government Policy is affecting us, who can both speak with and hear from the general Native American Populace is a good sure bet.
Some of our warriors who are elders may be the ones to listen and speak for us. Afterall, this position is an advisor. They are there to tell our side. In any population, the best ones to do that are the Elders who speak from several generations of experience. The re-hashing of an old trick will do no one well. The voice of experience has the most valid argument, not from what is thought to be happening, but from the trenches where sovereignty's dignified warriors presented themselves as obstacles to those who would have taken everything from Native Americans nation-wide.
In a cultural-reawakening it would be appropriate that the People begin to ask which elders among us can sit in the position best suited to mentor a government in its task to honor the treaties made by our ancestors.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes toward an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES (fifth in a series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009 ) Larry Echo Hawk told a Sovereignty Symposium (of all places!) that "Future intergovernmental agreements by Indian tribes will be conducted with individual states."
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Larry Echo Hawk urged Tribes to move to an Intergovernment relationship with...STATES.
This title should bug anybody. Tribes are sovereign entities as far as they practice sovereignty. Tribes made treaties with the Federal Government. That is the Intergovernmental Relationship that should continue. States are not on the same level (for lack of a better word) as Tribes. Our intergovernmental relationship is governed by Treaties with the United States Federal Government, Treaties being the supreme law of the land. That means that if the Federal Government takes an action contrary to a Treaty between the Federal Government and Tribes, the Treaty Trumps it.
States are sovereign and subordinate to the Federal Government. Why would tribes feel any necessity for dealing with a subordinate government that had nothing to do with our relationship with the United States Federal Government?
More to the point here, why would Larry Echo Hawk urge Tribes to begin dealing with States? Has he no notion for what sovereignty really means to Tribes? As reported in the Journal Record (Nancy Raiden Titus. "Echohawk Urges Indian Tribes to Work with State Governments." The Journal Record. Dolan Media Company MN. 1992. HighBeam Research. 26 Jan. 2009
Was he serious?
He went on further to say it was "possible to solve problems within the state system of government. In fact, I believe it is the way of the future." How did he equate solving Indian Problems with the State System of Government? Are we to believe that his "future" when he said he believed it was the way of the future is now, today, and that he honestly wants tribes to deal with States instead of the Federal Government? The problems that most Tribes have with States are because the states stepped in when they had no standing. Then it falls on the Federal Government to protect Indian Interests, I'm not saying they do all the time-just that it's their responsibility. Since when did it occur to Larry Echo Hawk that we should now deal with a subordinate government that has, in Idaho's case, a far younger relationship by several generations with tribes? Did we sign treaties with states? If we did, I think they were not fully recognized as legal to the Federal Government, and a review of some Native Issues in New York will back that up.
I cannot see Larry Echo Hawk as an option for fulfilling the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, when a principle duty is to ensure that the Trust Relationship and Fiduciary Duty of the United States Federal Government to Native Americans is being met.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Larry Echo Hawk's Record on Indian Casinos (4th in a Series)
[Click here for most Recent article on Larry Echo Hawk's (Re)Confirmation hearing...]
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
The confusion over the recent letter issued by the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribes cannot be allowed to continue. The stance taken by Larry Echo Hawk is well-documented. Larry Echo Hawk has opposed mechanisms to allow Indian Casinos. Larry Echo Hawk's opposition to Indian Casinos has opposed Tribes' sovereign processes to allow gambling on their reservations.
The following excerpts from the (current) Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council were taken from http://216.109.157.86/press_release/Statement%20in%20Support%20of%20Larry%20EchoHawk%20as%20Assistant%20Secretary%20of%20Indian%20Affairs%20012309.htm
- ..."Crowell’s statement also is misleading in that it suggests that Larry personally supported restricting Indian gaming or had a policy-making role in the matter."
- ..."EchoHawk clearly has a long and proven track record of advancing tribal sovereignty, his legal and ethical duty as Idaho’s attorney general was to provide legal advice to the governor and legislature. He did this according to his oath of office, and he did not advocate against Indian gaming specifically at any time."
This apparently was not obvious to the casual observer. A search for the specific minutes of the Idaho Legislature from 1992 cannot be accessed online simply because they have not been put online; they are probably available at any local library. In their absence, the general public should read Timothy Egan's article linked in an earlier BLOG entry here, and then take a glance at the following article Idaho House Reaffirms Anti-Gambling Stance, published on July 28, 1992, in the Deseret News (http://archive.deseretnews.com/archive/239375/IDAHO-HOUSE-REAFFIRMS-ANTI-GAMBLING-STANCE.html accessed at 12:52 a.m. January 25, 2009), where once again it is reported that Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed Indian Casino Gambling, although it was specifically as an opposition to Casino Gambling. The entire issue; however, was about the Tribes of Idaho attempting to negotiate gambling compacts. The issue was linked to a 1988 amendment allowing creation of a state lottery [which] also cleared the way for casino gambling on the state's Indian reservations. (Deseret News, Andrus Favors Holding Special Session on Casino Issue, June 5, 1992, accessed online at 1:02 a.m. 1-25-09)
And while the Current Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council members "may" have forgotton all that happened during this time, they would do well to note that in that same article:
"Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Enterprises Manager Nathan Small reacted quickly to the governor's statements, contending a special session would undermine any good-faith negotiations on a gaming compact.
"We feel it is an end run on Indian gaming," Small said in a statement. He also disputed Tribal Chairman Kesley Edmo's statement to Andrus that the tribes want to pursue "all types of gaming.""
And is there anything to show Larry Echo Hawk personally opposed the idea of Indian Casinos, that he was opposed allowing the mechanism for Tribal Casinos on Indian Reservations?
If you look at the July 28 1992 article in the Deseret news, and look at the 11th paragraph you see:"Earlier, Attorney General Larry EchoHawk urged the Legislature to pass the amendment, predicting that without it, Idaho probably couldn't avoid statewide casino gambling."
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed personally support the legislation which would in effect ban Indian Casinos.
Larry Echo Hawk did indeed advocate against allowing Indian Casinos to operate on Indian Reservations.
I stand behind the reports issued by Deseret News which is a for-profit business holdings company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially known as the Mormon or LDS Church). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_News accessed at 12: 55 a.m. 1-25-09.
I stand behind the report by Timothy Egan in the New York Times on Sept 5, 1994. I stand behind the Tribes and Tribal members here in the Pacific Northwest who do remember Larry Echo Hawk as an obstacle to Sovereign Indian Intent to operate Casinos on Indian Reservations.
I would hope that as this possible appointment of Larry Echo Hawk to Assistant Secretary for Bureau of Indian affairs is discussed, Department of the Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, would take note of history, and like Scott Crowell intends for all of us to do, avoid revising it.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD NEWS!
I think Ted Baxter said it best when he said those kind words. It was a rather simplistic mantra. Sometimes it comes true. Indianz.com reports that George Skibine will take the helm, although it will a quasi-super-secret-squirrel event. George Skibine will fill the top post as Bureau of Indian Affairs Secretary but not in an "acting" position.
"He is not acting," said Nedra Darling. Well, I should hope he is taking it seriously! But seriously, I don't want to take just one sentence out of context, so I should not make light of it.
But, ("but" cancels everything out you just said you know) I have to wonder why others weren't chosen to take the helm. I do not question George, I question the fact that we have many people in the top seats (echelons above god) who can't seem to assume the leadership according to the chain of command. Isn't that why there is a chain of command?
I am happy that in this case the chain of command wasn't followed. What continues to be my problem is that we have a bunch of weak links in the chain.
It should be self-evident that if they're not man (or woman) enough to step up when the next level up leaves, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Right? Right?
I kind of think of Bureau of Indian Affairs much like I used to remember the antics of the Mary Tyler Moore Show right now. And that is why the Ted Baxter quotes appear today.
Mary Richards: Ted, do you trust me?
Ted Baxter: Well, sure I do.
Mary Richards: Okay, take off your left shoe.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now take off your left sock.
Ted Baxter: Mary...
Mary Richards: Do you trust me, Ted?
Ted Baxter: Sure.
Mary Richards: Take off your left sock.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now, the next time I'm talking to someone and you think of a comment you just have to add to the conversation, I want you to take that sock, and stuff it down your throat.
Ted Baxter: What about the shoe?
"don't tempt me"
So who is Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Or how many people get to play Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Good night and good news to you too George Skibine. May the good news be all of ours.
"He is not acting," said Nedra Darling. Well, I should hope he is taking it seriously! But seriously, I don't want to take just one sentence out of context, so I should not make light of it.
But, ("but" cancels everything out you just said you know) I have to wonder why others weren't chosen to take the helm. I do not question George, I question the fact that we have many people in the top seats (echelons above god) who can't seem to assume the leadership according to the chain of command. Isn't that why there is a chain of command?
I am happy that in this case the chain of command wasn't followed. What continues to be my problem is that we have a bunch of weak links in the chain.
It should be self-evident that if they're not man (or woman) enough to step up when the next level up leaves, they shouldn't be there in the first place. Right? Right?
I kind of think of Bureau of Indian Affairs much like I used to remember the antics of the Mary Tyler Moore Show right now. And that is why the Ted Baxter quotes appear today.
Mary Richards: Ted, do you trust me?
Ted Baxter: Well, sure I do.
Mary Richards: Okay, take off your left shoe.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now take off your left sock.
Ted Baxter: Mary...
Mary Richards: Do you trust me, Ted?
Ted Baxter: Sure.
Mary Richards: Take off your left sock.
[Ted does so]
Mary Richards: Now, the next time I'm talking to someone and you think of a comment you just have to add to the conversation, I want you to take that sock, and stuff it down your throat.
Ted Baxter: What about the shoe?
"don't tempt me"
So who is Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Or how many people get to play Ted Baxter this week at the Bureau of Indian Affairs?
Good night and good news to you too George Skibine. May the good news be all of ours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
