One thing I have noticed is that "friends" of Steve's keep coming on here saying "Have you ever met him and actually talked to him?".
I'd like to address that here. When someone hears "rumors" about another person, it is absolutely appropriate to go to that person directly to ask them about the rumors and to give them a chance to explain their version of the story, or to explain why people would feel motivated to spread said rumors in the first place (are they jeslous, was it a friendship gone bad, was it a business venture gone bad, etc...). HOWEVER, when someone is giving interviews, and their own statements are being recorded (audibly and in writing), they are already speaking out on their behalf. So when evidence comes up contradicting what that person said (or when that person later contradicts himself), such as the widow of the person he claims taught him this and that and gave him rights to this and that saying that it simply is not true, or someone claiming to be of a particular Native American Nation, and the people of that nation saying they don't recognize him as one of their own (or later saying that they are not Native American at all), or claiming to be teaching Lakota tradition and ceremony when the Lakota people as a whole (not just a few scattered individuals here and there who also have questionable standing in the Lakota community) do not recognize him as one of thier own and specifically go further to state that he does NOT have the right to perform or sell THEIR ceremonies, what reason could you have for needing to talk directly to him before forming an opinion that it's just not right?
Take the current political speeches. It is very easy to find clips of speeches where a candidate says one thing, then find a clip of another speech where the same person says something totally different. It is not necessary for me to speak to a politician directly to know he/she speaks from both sides of his/her mouth.
It's like a family, living together in one house. If one family member invites you into the house, but then the rest of the family stands up and says you're not welcome there, why stamp your foot and insist that you belong there because the one person said so, when it is obvious that the views of that one person are not shared with the majority in the household? I'll tell you why. Because of a false sense of entitlement.
I watched the news and there were friends of OJ Simpson's on there talking about how gentle and kind he was, how he was the most wonderful guy on earth. Forgive me if I don't take thier biased words for truth... i heard his voice on the tapes. I prefer to form my opinion regarding someone based on thier own words and mannerisms, and I don't need personal contact with them to form an opinion, especially when they are out in the limelight giving interviews and making statements.
When my kids are in trouble for something they have done that they know and I know is wrong, there is little point to talking to them about it because all they can do is offer their excuses or explanations as to why they did what they did, and no matter what they say, it doesn't change the fact that what they did is wrong. Even if they tell me that someone else gave them permission, I'm still going to say, who has the right to give that permission? ME!
So even when someone says, "Chief So-and-So told me I am allowed to do this"... if the majority of the people to whom that ceremony belongs don't approve, that person should have enough common decency and respect to let it go.
Remember... these ceremonies do not belong to any one individual, and they are for the PEOPLE, so without the support and approval from the PEOPLE, there is nothing.
