#74 – Bob Barkley: First do no harm

/in , , , /by

It is intriguing to observe our nation’s current on-going debate about medical care – a system that ostensibly follows the ethical principle of “first do no harm.”
It seems that medical care has now digressed to an un-American and unprofessional dictum of “first do not care for the unprofitable.”
How can we “first do no harm” when we have allowed medicine to denigrate into a profit motivated business rather than a basic human right?
When did not doing harm to a business take precedence over not doing harm to an individual’s health? Perhaps what seems so basically humane no longer applies to protecting our environment or caring for the sick.  Could I have missed that decision somewhere along the way?
When did we decide that corporations could tax us at will – through uncontrolled and outrageously escalating premiums – and do their taxing without representation of those being taxed?  Is this one of our great American values all of a sudden?
When did we decide that we could harm the poor by rationing medical care only to the wealthy and fortunate? Does “America the beautiful” pertain only to our scenery or should it apply equally to our compassion?
Isn’t one of the basic premises of government in a civilized society to protect its citizens against excesses?  How does allowing the continuation of a broken system of unconscionable medical care excesses in profit and privilege fit with being civilized?
When did we first decide that we could tolerate armed citizens behaving like terrorists in disrupting civil discourse?  What statute was it that slipped by us and sanctioned that sort of threat to our liberty?
Who was it that first proposed that America should slide to the bottom of the developed nations and allow so much harm to be continued? Why have those who call themselves American conservatives become so enamored with the existing evils of our medical care system that they fight so relentlessly not to change them?
What true American is it that would stand in the way of authentic and fundamental doctor-patient care rather than first fret over who might have coverage versus who will not be so lucky?
I don’t recall when we decided to let insurance companies govern our lives and determined that our democratic government should allow such harm to continue.  How is it that the huge bureaucratic waste that resides in these companies is somehow tolerable to those who lash out so vociferously at the mythical ineptitude of government?
“First do no harm!” is apparently the biggest myth of all.  Providing adequate and affordable medical care to all Americans is both necessary and feasible.  We will all need to share in its costs according to our means.  Providing for those costs are simply the dues true Americans have agreed to pay to be citizens of our great country and members of our great society.
I have excellent medical coverage – much of it well run by our government.  I would do just fine if nothing changed.  But “first do no harm” seems fundamentally American to me.  Consequently, the system that rewards me so well should be extended to all my neighbors alike. I thought that was what made our country so cherished.  Surely civility and rationality will prevail.  Surely we can do better. Surely we wish to do no harm. Am I wrong?  I guess I will know shortly.
 Robert Barkley, Jr., is a counselor in Systemic Education Reform, retired Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association, and began his career as a teacher and coach. He is the author of Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents.

#73 – Dick Bernard: Sen. Ted Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

/in , , /by

I awoke to a New York Times on-line headline “Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Stalwart, Dies at 77.”  He passed away late Tuesday night, August 25, coincidentally, my daughters 40th birthday.  He was a veteran U.S. Senator when she was born in 1969.
Today and following days, there will be endless commentary about this larger than life actor on the American political stage.  The comments will speak for themselves.  Everyone will have their own spin on this very public life.
The Times headline basically signalled what is to come. The headline continued:  “Gifted and Flawed Legislator, 77, From a Storied Family.”  Some will emphasize the gifts, others the flaws.  In Kennedy’s case, the entire family history will again become news fodder. 
The first “real person” e-mail about Sen. Kennedy’s death came from long-time friend Mary.  I resonate with what she has to say: “I am sad today with the loss of one Senator who stood for the poor and his convictions while respecting the other side.  Always feel I have that lesson to learn and it is a hard one  (respecting the other side).”
I tag in Martin Luther King, Jr., with Senator Kennedy in the subject line because in a political sense they were, in my opinion, very similar.   They knew politics.
Not everyone looks back to MLK with reverence.  Even today one can google his name and one of the first page references is to a website devoted to attempting to destroy his image and legacy, and promoting its materials for use in American classrooms.  This will happen with Senator Kennedy as well.
But there is another more important reason for include King’s name in this essay, and it goes to Mary’s comment .
In 1964, MLK wrote “Why We Can’t Wait”, a chronicle primarily of the watershed civil rights year of 1963.  King was 35 years old when he wrote his book.  Edward Kennedy was in his first year in the United States Senate.  President John F. Kennedy had, just a few months earlier, been assassinated. Now-U.S. President Barack Obama was two years old.
In the last chapter of “Why We Can’t Wait”, King talks politics.  I’m drawn to a particular section of the book (which is still in print) which I think is very pertinent and indeed instructive for today’s issue du jour and Ted Kennedy’s passion: Reform of Health Care in America.  Change the political names, and replace Civil Rights with Health Care Reform, and muse a bit about the present in context with the past….     
King:  “I have met and talked with three Presidents, and have grown increasingly aware of the play of their temperaments on their approach to civil rights, a cause that all three have espoused in principle.
No one could discuss racial justice with President Eisenhower without coming away with mixed emotions.  His personal sincerity on the issue was pronounced, and he had a magnificent capacity to communicate it to individuals.  However, he had no ability to translate it to the public, or to define the problems as a supreme domestic issue.  I have always felt that he failed because he knew that his colleagues and advisers did not share his views, and he had no disposition to fight even for cherished beliefs.  Moreover, President Eisenhower could not be committed to anything which involved a structural change in the architecture of American society.  His conservatism was fixed and rigid , and any evil defacing the nation had to be extracted bit by bit with a tweezer because the surgeon’s knife was an instrument too radical to touch this best of all possible societies.
President Kennedy was a strongly contrasted personality.  There were, in fact, two John Kennedys.  One presided in the first two years under pressure of the uncertainty caused by his razor-thin margin of victory.  He vacillated, trying to sense the direction his leadership could travel while retaining and building support for his administration.  However, in 1963, a new Kennedy had emerged.  He had found that public opinion was not in a rigid mold.  American political thought was not committed to conservatism, nor radicalism, nor moderation.  It was above all fluid.  As such it contained trends rather than hard lines, and affirmative leadership could guide it into constructive channels.
President Kennedy was not given to sentimental expressions of feeling.  He had, however, a deep grasp of the dynamic of and the necessity for social change.  His work for international amity was a bold effort on a world scale.  His last speech on race relations was the most earnest, human and profound appeal for understanding and justice that any President has uttered since the first days of the Republic.  Uniting his flair for leadership with a program of social progress, he was at his death undergoing a transformation from a hesitant leader with unsure goals to a strong figure with deeply appealing objectives….
I had been fortunate enough to meet Lyndon Johnson during his tenure as Vice-President.  He was not then a Presidential aspirant, and was searching for his role under a man who not only had a four-year term to complete but was confidently  expected to turn out yet another term  as Chief Executive.  Therefore, the essential issues were easier to reach, and were unclouded by political considerations.
His approach to the problems of civil rights was not identical with mine – nor had I expected it to be.  Yet his careful practicality  was nonetheless clearly no mask to conceal indifference.  His emotional and intellectual involvement were genuine and devoid of adornment.  It was conspicuous that he was searching for a solution to  a problem he knew to be a major short-coming in American life.  I came away strengthened in my conviction that an undifferentiated approach to a white southerner could be a grave error, all too easy for Negro leaders in the heat of bitterness.  Later, it was Vice-President Johnson I had in mind when I wrote in The Nation that the white South was splitting, and that progress could be furthered by driving a wedge between the rigid segregationists and the new white elements whose love of their land was stronger than the grip of old habits and customs….”
MLK had much more to say in this powerful book.  “Why We Can’t Wait” is a masterful primer in politics, as well as a window into a critical year in our nation’s history.  Buy a copy and read it.

#72 – Dick Bernard: Lindsay's 23rd birthday, and some other 23rds

/in , , , , /by

Today is my oldest grandchild’s 23rd birthday.  This birthday causes me to think back…and ahead. 
August 22, 1986, when Lindsay was born, means of communication differed from today.  There was no public access internet; public e-mail was several years in the future; cellular phones were just beginning to be talked about.  When I called to congratulate Lindsay’s Mom and Dad on August 22, 1986, I used a pay telephone in downtown St. Paul MN.  Pay phones?????  They are few and far between in this day of cell phones.

Calling Congratulation August 22, 1986

Calling Congratulation August 22, 1986


The number “23” doesn’t stop at 1986.
23 years earlier, in August of 1963, I was newly married, a soldier in the U.S. Army playing war with the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized).  We were on maneuvers in the state of South Carolina.  I would guess that few of us in that Division realized that we were helping prepare for the Vietnam War, which was then still cool (in more ways than one), but which would soon erupt into a twelve year conflagration in southeast Asia.  We lost that war; today efforts are being made to ‘rehabilitate’ that history, and make it seem as if we won.
While we were slogging through rural South Carolina, learning first-hand about what segregation really was, elsewhere preparations were being concluded for a massive civil rights demonstration on August 28, 1963.  It was on that date that a young Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech before a massive audience on the National Mall in Washington D.C. It was truly a watershed moment.  You can revisit that major event at http://tinyurl.com/5f46w9. 
1963 was an important year for the American Civil Rights Movement .  It was the year of Martin Luther King writing his famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”, and many other events.  He wrote about 1963 in his 1964 book, “Why We Can’t Wait”.  I wonder what Dr. King would be thinking and saying today.
Go 23 years further back, to 1940, and I made my appearance in the world, in the time right after the Great Depression, and right before the U.S. entered World War II.  People of my generation are called the “Silent Generation” – we were too young to impact on WWII, too young to have lived through the Great Depression.  But we were deeply impacted by those events through our parents, relatives and surroundings.  Those really hard times became part of our very beings.
I wonder, this day, what things will look like for Lindsay and her generation, and their children, 23 years from now. 
The odds are almost certain that I won’t be around to see 2032.  Without the very active engagement of Lindsay’s generation, the times ahead promise to be unsettling and uncertain.  I’d like to feel hopeful.  But we’ve made a big mess of things, generally, especially the future, and those following us have got to turn things around for themselves.
Whatever I can do to help Lindsay and her cohort, I will do.  But we need to work together.
Happy birthday to you, Lindsay.
Happy future to you and all now and tomorrow.
A car with a message: LaMoure ND August 18 2009

A car with a message: LaMoure ND August 18 2009

#71 – Dick Bernard: Dixie Chicks, on the road…with fascism?

/in , , , , /by

Enroute to and from North Dakota last week, I listened, twice, to one of my favorite CDs, the Dixie Chicks 2006 release, “Taking the Long Way”.   I’ll listen to it again on Monday as I take the same trip back to my home state.
The CD is an inspirational one for me.
I knew of the Dixie Chicks before 2006, but barely.  I knew they were very big in country music circles. 
In mid-March, 2003, in London, “the top of the world came crashing down” on their career (quote from the title cut of the CD).
The George W. Bush administration was preparing to officially go to war against Iraq, and ten days before the bombs began to officially fall, lead singer Natalie Maines, a Texan, said “We don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
The Chicks “paid a price” for that simple expression of free speech alright (the quote is from another cut of Taking the Long Way.)
Almost instantly, the group went from hero to goat amongst many of its “fans”.  It was labelled unpatriotic.  My recollection of the time was that tour dates were cancelled, threats were made against their lives (“shut up and sing or your life will be over“), radio stations black-listed their recordings, “fans” burned their CDs in public….  It was an awesome display of suppression of free speech, by people who supposedly are the proponents of freedom and free speech and liberty.
“Taking the Long Way” is the Dixie Chicks response to what happened to them in 2003, simply because one of them expressed an opinion.  They were subjected to a collective act of bullying and it worked.
I have no problem with demonstrations.  I’ve been in plenty of them myself.  They’re a hallmark of democracy.  But somewhere a line must be drawn.  Are we to wink at the guy in New Hampshire who shows up at a demonstration against President Obama, wearing a fully visible loaded gun?  Are we to sit idly by while local protestors stay on message by trying to drown out others who might have a different point of view, or try to intimidate people into not participating in town hall forums.  Or are we to cheer on media that glorify small groups of protestors by giving them publicity they really don’t deserve?  “Fascism” (a word that is being tossed around by the radical right these days)?  We’re not there…yet…but we’ve gotten far too close for comfort. 
Surely the people who, in 2003,  did in the Dixie Chicks,- at least temporarily, as well as the current bunch of organized disrupters, will declare their right to do exactly what they are doing, and did.  But do they represent anything different than the hooligans who made fascism work in Italy, and the brownshirts who were boots on the ground stormtroopers in Nazi Germany, scaring local citizens into submission? 
In the end, things turned out mostly okay for the Dixie Chicks.  That CD I’ll play in the car today, “Taking the Long Way”, won five Grammy awards in 2007.  Nonetheless, the Chicks paid a very big price – and likely are still paying a price – for expressing a political opinion.
And the Iraq War, six years after March, 2003, still drones on….
Here’s more about the Dixie Chicks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_Long_Way.
As we need to take on playground bully’s, we need to take on public bully’s as well, including those nefarious groups that help organize and in other ways encourage them.
If you don’t have “Taking the Long Way” consider purchasing it.  Its 14 cuts tell a powerful story.  It’s last cut, “I Hope”, says it all for me.

#70 – Dick Bernard: Health Care and Government in LaMoure

/in , , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,7,10
See Update at end of post.
Friday I was in LaMoure (county seat of LaMoure County, ND, pop. 900). 
As is usual on my visits there, I was an early customer for coffee at the gas station on the east edge of town.  I got my coffee, picked up the daily Fargo Forum and the weekly LaMoure Chronicle.  The Forum front page was dominated by a large photo and headline “Conservatives rally in Fargo for ‘Tea Party’.  Speaker Hennen says ‘freedom is under attack’.”  (That phrase,’freedom is under attack’, would be amusing, were it not so tragically wrong.) 
As I paid for my small purchases, I noticed on the counter a newsletter, “Recovery Times”, put out by FEMA, the natural disaster section of the Department of Homeland Security.  A few months earlier LaMoure had indeed been ‘under attack’ by a near catastrophic spring flood, and at that time,  ‘government’ in the form of outside assistance was very, very welcome in LaMoure, North Dakota.  Indeed, Fargo, where the Tea Partiers were conclaving, had also had great need for FEMA in its own disaster a few months earlier. 
When in LaMoure, I always pick up the LaMoure Chronicle because I’m  a fan of publisher Gerald Harris’ Comments column.  He always seems to call it like he sees it, whatever the topic, and I enjoy his passion even though, I would guess, we are not ideological twins.  He seems to have no problem with disagreement, and has printed my letters in response to something or other he’s written.  If I’m correct, I like it that he’s willing to consider and even publicize other ideas.  Maybe, even, he can accept other points of view, and maybe even change his mind…not at all a bad trait.
Harris’ August 12 ‘Comments’ column was on Health Care.  I’ve retyped it in its entirety at the end of this column.  It speaks for itself. 
No question, the Health Care debate has taken on the cast of ‘government’ versus the people…and I always find that odd.  The people are, after all, the government.  Whatever the final results of the Health Care debate, the private sector will continue to reap the benefits.  Even if we went socialist (not a swear word to me), the government would be the health care industries biggest customer.
(Come to think of it, in the area of military expenditures, we are already ‘socialist’ – without huge government expenditures for ‘defense’, the massive defense industry would be treading water.  There’s apparently good socialism and there’s bad socialism, and it’s all around us.  Indeed, little LaMoure has a small operating military facility just outside of town.  It’s a piece of pork that goes way back to the time when a local boy was United States Senator from North Dakota.  There’s an old rocket on display right beside the motel I stay in when I visit….)
So, the Health Care debate rages on, as well it should, given the immense size and complexity of the entire Health care complex.  It is not an easy debate.  A couple of days before LaMoure, I was sitting with a group of 14 “birds of a feather” (Mr. Harris would likely observe we all were like thinkers), but what was striking when we talked about Health Care was that there were, even among ourselves, many points of view about what needed fixing, and how it should be fixed. 
What seems clear is that a fix is desperately needed, and continuing to deny reality is like putting off the operation for a cancer until next year, when we know more about the specific disease.  By then it’s too late for the patient.
What’s needed in this debate is not only ideas, but an ability on all sides to really listen, rather than getting stuck in some ideological cement. 
I appreciate Gerald Harris’ point of view.  I hope he appreciates mine, too.
COMMENTS by Gerald Harris, Aug 12, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle
The health care business is becoming a contentious issue in this country today.  There are those that think health care is a right and there are those that think if you can’t pay for it you have no right to it.  I happen to be one that thinks that children and those incapacitated should be taken care of no matter what parents and others can afford to do.  What I don’t think is a solution is for the federal government or state government stepping in to turn our private health care industry into a government controlled industry.  The thing that will do is take away the incentive to improve health care because there will be no reason to do so.  The reason people keep looking for ways to improve things, whether in the health care field or any other field, is they have a monetary or other incentive that drives them.  There has to be something that a person gains from improving things or they won’t do it.  For the most part people don’t look for better ways to do things just for the fun of it.
This is a nation that spends upwards of $3 trillion a year on medical care and that may indicate that we are a nation of hypochondriacs.  It may also mean that we are becoming an aging population has has never taken good care of itself physically.  There are many reasons for poor health and some can be prevented and some can’t and it is up to us to prevent as much of it through diet, exercise and sleep as we possibly can.  This in itself would lower our health care expenditures.
The problem that we face now is that all of our energy to solve the health care problem is focused on health insurance.  The federal government’s efforts are aimed at getting everyone insured through some sort of health insurance policy whether they can pay for it or not.  As I see it this is entirely the wrong approach.  If government wants to get involved at all, and they sure seem to, they should look at making health care available to all citizens young and old through a two or three tier system.  The Number one effort should be protecting those who can’t protect themselves and that is, for the most part, the young and the mentally and or physically infirm.  The country should see to it that all children age 0-18 have free health care.  The second thing is to leave the private health care industry, including the insurance industry, alone to provide health care as they see fit.  The third thing would be to provide a public health care system by expanding on the Veterans Administration health care system to include all those that can’t or won’t afford the private system paid by insurance or by the individual without using insurance.
Ths would provide competing health care systems that the federal government seems to want and it would provide health care to all.  The details of this could easily be worked out and it would be interesting to see what the general populace would do.
By providing for children we have solved the problem of seeing to it that most of those that have no choices have a chance at growing up healthy.
What the government is proposing will eventually cost a lot more money than it does now and probably be no more effective than what we have now.
**
“As I see it, every day you do one of two things: build health or produce disease in yourself.”  Adelle Davis, 1904-1974.
Moderator Comment:  I certainly don’t carte blanche agree, or disagree, with Mr. Harris.  But the suggestion that the government is the problem brings back the comment about FEMA in LaMoure.  When there was a threatened flood, FEMA was there, even though it may well have been smarter for the town of LaMoure, and particularly the farms in the James River Valley, to be built on higher ground.   Government Health care (i.e. Veterans Administration) IS efficient…probably too efficient…it cuts into profits….
Letter to the editor published in August 19, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle:
I’m in and out of LaMoure from time to time, and when in town I always look for and appreciate Gerald Harris’ Comments in the Chronicle.  They make me think, even though I don’t always agree with them.
The August 12 column on Health Care is no exception.
I have a lot of experience with Health Care over many years; luckily I’ve been pretty health, personally.  Were it as simple as Mr. Harris and others assert.  As currently organized, medicine is extremely complicated and inefficient.
“Government” which seems to be, often, a hate-word, is all of us…not some sinister “them”.  Anyone on Medicare or who has ever been in a VA Hospital or in any way has been visited by catastrophe (your flood a few months ago) knows and appreciates the good side of “government” in Health Care.
The massive middle class – most of us, from lower to higher income – is the group that desperately needs reform of Health Care, and protection from the whims of private enterprise and economic downs.  Ironically, it is that same middle class that is mobilized to defeat the very reform that is needed.
So, you have insurance?  You can lose that job which has the insurance, or the rates or the coverage can change, or you move somewhere else.  What stability is there for the common citizen in our current system?  Precious little, I would submit.
I type this letter on an old computer that needs replacing due to innumerable upgrades, etc., over the years.  It was top of the line when I bought it, but no more.  In many ways, American Health Care policy is like this old computer.  It has patches on top of patches.  It needs, badly, “reform” (replacement).
The bottom line mitigating against reform is, I feel, the preoccupation with profits.  That is the main reason for the blizzard of misinformation about keeping what should be public, private.  There’s lots of money to be made from keeping the current system, and the prime beneficiaries are people living a life style that we cannot imagine.
Thanks, Gerald.  I have my own blog, and have written quite a lot about this topic in the last month. www.thoughtstowardsabetterworld.org is the address.  Start with August 15, where I write about the visit to LaMoure last week.
Dick Bernard

#69 – Dick Bernard: Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Heather, and "…the land of the free, and the home of the" Rave!

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

Note comments following this posting.
Yesterday afternoon, August 11, enroute home from a meeting, I listened to a portion of a public radio talk show about the death of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, she of the Kennedy family, and founder of the International Special Olympics.   http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/
An hour after I got home, we headed out to suburban Lakeville to see the final festivities of the season for my daughter and the Rave softball team.  Heather is, as described on the Shriver tribute, “intellectually disabled”, and the Rave is part of a league of similarly situated adults in suburban Minneapolis.  The three hours in Lakeville was a delightful end to a long and tiring day.  The Rave lost, but they won fourth place in the final game.  Heather had one at bat and struck out (unusual for her), but it was exciting, nonetheless, to watch these special adults and their extra-special coaches have fun together.  (Three photos from the game at end of this post.)
The juxtaposition, on the same day, of Eunice Shriver’s death and Heather’s final game of the season, with all the trappings: the Star Spangled Banner, a fried chicken dinner, and genuine 4th place ribbons for everyone on the team, presented personally to each of the players, on the field! , made for a nostalgia filled day for me. 
Eighteen years ago, in July, 1991, the International Special Olympics came to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and I made the very lucky decision to take a few days of my vacation and volunteer with whatever for a state delegation.  (There were delegations from around the world at this event.) 
It was a hugely inspiring few days, going here and there with the team, running errands, generally just getting next to the participants and the coaches as they were involved in their activities.
There were many high points in those few days, but nothing higher than the closing ceremony at the Minneapolis Metrodome.  I was among the sea of folks, partcipants, coaches and volunteers, who waited for what seemed like hours for the opportunity to walk into the Metrodome to what was a tumultuous welcome.  Even as I write, 18 years later, I get teary-eyed remembering that extraordinary evening to honor not only the competitors, but the entire “intellectually disabled” community worldwide.   The below photo I took that 1991 evening catches the mood for me.  I am sure, that night, that Mrs. Shriver personally and powerfully declared her signature phrase, “you have earned it“, to each and everyone surrounding me on the field, and to those in the stands and in the greater world as well.  It was awesome. 

Closing Ceremony, International Special Olympics, Minneapolis Metrodome, July, 1991.

Closing Ceremony, International Special Olympics, Minneapolis Metrodome, July, 1991.


It used to be that persons like Heather would be relegated to places like the “School for the Feeble Minded” we used to see when we visited our grandparents in North Dakota years ago.  Until yesterday, I had not heard the term “intellectually disabled” attached to this very special group of citizens. 
It has not been an easy transition from the good old days to today, but legions of people in very small and very large ways have, indeed, effected change in how special persons like Heather are treated by society.  They – the special people and their helpers – are all around us.  In Heather’s case, special recognition goes to her sisters Joni and Lauri, and her Mom, Diane.  “Thank you” does not suffice, but its the best I can do.
At the “Field of Dreams”, Aronson Park in Lakeville MN, I felt the same thrill, last night, that I felt at the Metrodome eighteen years ago.
I am grateful to Eunice Kennedy Shriver, but most especially grateful to the very special people, parents, coaches, staff, who make life a whole lot better for people like Heather, and bring lots of personal satisfaction to people like me.
Thanks, especially, Coach Pricco!
Heather being introduced to the spectators at the game

Heather being introduced to the spectators at the game


The Rave August 11, 2009

The Rave August 11, 2009


Emily on first, Dad first base coach

Emily on first, Dad first base coach


Comment on a phrase used in this post from a reader:
Just a personal pet peeve:
Not to discount the wonderful work of Shriver, but I really dislike the term “intellectually disabled.”  In fact, I very much detest the word “disabled” as applied to people.  It defines us by what we can’t do.  It’s negative.  I’d much prefer the term “differently abled” as cumbersome as it is.
We are all in a sense “disabled” in some ways, whether by age or ability or aptitude.  Setting people apart by what they cannot do does not bring all the various wonderful people, like Heather, into the mainstream to be appreciated for who they are and for what they can do and what they can be in our lives.
Words are powerful and convey messages, intended or not.
On a more positive note, it’s wonderful that Heather can have such a wonderful time with others who can watch and appreciate them.  Certainly not like “the old days.”  Carol Ashley
Brief Response:  I simply repeated the words I heard several times on the MPR program.  It was an interesting exercise to search the internet for the words “intellectually disabled”, and see the points of view there.  I agree, words are very important.  There are differing interpretations of their significance, I suppose.  Dick Bernard

#68: Dick Bernard: Putting the "n" back in "commuity"

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: Jul 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,7,15.
There is no such word as “commuity”, but that is what effectively happens when you remove the “n”, as in “negotiate”, or “neighborly” or “nice”.  Put the “n” back in, and you have, again, “community”.
We all have a pretty clear sense of “community”, and how a good “community” works.  Most of us live in such environments.  People may not know each other well, but when chips are down, they chip in and help each other.  Reluctant as they sometimes might be, ordinarily there is some kind of negotiations to make changes for the greater good of everyone. 
There are efforts to define “community” in very narrow ways.  Community, really, is all of us, together.  We are not isolated homes, villages or farms, and if honest about our history, we’ve never been able to exist on our own.  This is especially true today.    
This thought comes to mind as a well orchestrated and small, (and very well publicized) group of very ordinary appearing “thugs” are out and about attempting to make it seem like the current debate over health care reform will result in riots and chaos if such reform is passed. 
It is tempting to think that the situation is nearly out of control.  This is what we are led to believe, especially by media accounts.
But, I would ask, stop for a moment, and take a look around in all of the “circles” that you personally identify with: the people on your block and the few surrounding blocks; the neighbors down the road; the people who go to your church, or who you work with, or see frequently, whether they are friends are not.  Just ordinary people, like you.
What percent of these folks are likely to become a fascist militia to run riot if some law is passed which will improve they and their families lives? But that is exactly what this mis-named “debate” is about: inculcating Fear and Loathing.
I have done this little circle of communities exercise with myself.  I have a lot of circles I’m  one way or another part of.  Most of these circles are not full of people who think exactly like I do.
I would submit that the “thugs in waiting” in these circles are very few and far between – I guess less than 5% and that’s guessing very high. 
If we don’t capitulate (by inaction), and keep letting lawmakers know that we support the need for change, the likelihood is that the sense of crisis will dissipate…mostly because we are not talking, here, about radical changes (except, perhaps, as seen by some of the key ring-leaders against change who want chaos, but prefer to stay hidden in the shadows, and send out their own volunteer militias to attempt to make trouble.) 
I grew up with many sayings.  One which comes to mind, now, is that “quitters never win, winners never quit”. 
Well over 70% of the U.S. population wants change in Health policy.
Are we going to let some folks well inoculated with Fear derail progress in this area?
Seriously, look at your own “community circle census”.  It’ll restore hope.
Then get back to work.  Dealing with change is not a spectator sport.

#67 – Dick Bernard: Communicating Health Care Reform

/in , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,10,15
Early in this round of emotional overkill on Health Care Reform debate, someone sent me the link to a draft bill on Health Care Reform, and put the spotlight on three “sections” of the bill.   I opened the document, which turned out to have 1,018 pages, and looked for the cited sections, but they didn’t exist.  I wrote back, reporting this to the sender.  The response from my correspondent was that he was referring to “pages”, (not “sections”, as he had mentioned).  I likely couldn’t have given him a satisfactory response to his question anyway – his mind seemed to be made up.  This seems to  be how it goes:  “Don’t bother me with alternative thoughts.  My mind is made up.”
The exchange I describe was with someone I really value knowing and with whom I’ve had a lifelong relationship.  Now, how would this go with some stranger I’ve never seen in my life, and will likely never see again?  I’m trying to prepare myself mentally for this reality.  Each year I volunteer at the DFL (Democrat) booth at the State Fair on Senior Day, and each year some “flamethrower” will wander in, unannounced, among all the very nice other people, and attempt to disrupt and confuse.  What to do?  There are many thoughts.  There is no adequate preparation that can be made.
The quandary: a half-dozen of us met for almost two hours earlier this week, trying to decide on a handout piece for the State Fair – one that people would at least look at, possibly carry home, and perhaps even use.  The meeting was important, and useful, and even so, we’ve done only one side – a simple listing of our state’s federal lawmakers and their office phone numbers including an encouragement to simply make a phone call when they get home. 
Unfortunately, we can’t go home with the people, actually pick up their phone, dial it for them and convey their message, whatever that message is.  That’s a reality, and the lawmakers know that far better than we.
(A year or two ago, I participated in a sit-in at a local Congresswomans office.  I volunteered for a certain hour for a number of weeks, and was there each time.  This was during duty hours.  The receptionists desk was across the floor from us, and what struck me during that duty was that the telephone almost never rang at the receptionists desk – and he had a genuine old-fashioned telephone that actually made a sound.  Simply, there weren’t incoming phone calls.  That is odd, given Congressional districts comprise more than a half-million population, most of whom are potential callers….)
Then there are The Louts:  I’ve been noticing that all of the news media have given an inordinate amount of attention to a tiny number of incidents of truly outrageous (in my opinion) behavior by a few louts in assorted town halls around the country.  The Louts are some real “LuLu’s” – I can imagine a neighborhood conversation with them.  NOT.
I keep wondering to myself: how much good are these Louts doing for their cause, even amongst the other people in the crowded meeting rooms.  I’ve been in these meeting rooms from time to time in my life, and the vast majority of the people who attend such meetings are there to learn something.  The Louts are teaching the participants a lesson about Loutish behavior.  They aren’t helping their cause.
A simple exercise: I think of my own little “town” – our homeowners association of 96 homes.  We’re mostly senior, all middle class, very moderate income, probably a reasonable mix of conservative and liberal. 
I can think of only two in this association, where I’ve lived for ten years, who are probably cheering on the Louts.  I doubt that many of the others would resonate with the Louts shrill and obstructive message….  There is no ‘town crier’ going up and down our streets….
Whatever your view, stay in positive action.

#66 – Dick Bernard: The practice of the viral lie.

/1 Comment/in , , , /by

Note comment following this post.
Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,7,10,15.
In #60, posted July 29th, I commented on an e-list I somehow found myself on.  The list sends what could only be described as hysterical fear-mongering, mostly against Health Care Reform, and offers to send faxes to all 535 members of Congress for members for only $25 a month.  July 29, I reported having received six e-mails from this source.  This morning it is up to 15.  I am keeping them all in my ‘junk’ file.  Each e-mail includes a disclaimer at the end.  The disclaimer is reprinted in full at the end of this post.  The outfit works out of a PO Box in Orange CA.
July 25, in the morning, I received the first more-or-less “normal” salvo in the Health Care Reform lie campaign of 2009.  It was a YouTube segment of an undated, apparently recent, radio talk show.  The audio had, helpfully, a cover gallery of Nazi photos as wallpaper background on the YouTube screen, doubtless to remind the viewer/listener where we were headed if we didn’t stop this Health Care Reform business.  I didn’t know who the talk show host was – it turned out to be former Senator Fred Thompson.  The guest was identified as Betsy McCaughey, purporting to give the truth about the Health Care Reform proposals, especially about euthanasia for old people. 
The e-mail came to me and two others; the sender of the e-mail had been one of four who had received it the previous evening.  It came with a note “shocking if true”.  The subject line said “A warrior for Health Care”.  It was a viral e-mail.
At the time I viewed the YouTube segment it had been watched 36000 times. 
In between July 25 and today, McCaughey’s arguments have been outed as more than dishonest – well, let’s call them what they are: lies.  No less than an editorial in USA Today commented on their dishonesty.  Yes, they are carefully worded lies, but if one intends to deceive, it is a lie nonetheless, and that is what McCaughey, and her ilk, are doing. 
When I last looked, today, 11 days after the initial mailing, the YouTube segment has been viewed 180,000 times – about 10,000 per day.  One of those viewers is me.   I also sent it to my own e-list.  Perhaps some of them watched it as well.
Many (but by no means all) of those forwarding and watching the video will accept it as the truth, even though it is untrue. 
That is how it goes in the land of the viral lie.
So, what to do?
I simply pointed out the dishonest facts about the segment to the person who sent it on to me, actually sending additional documentation about the dishonesty in past days.
Beyond doing that, I don’t know that there is much more that can be done.
You hope, hopefully not in vain, that the recipient of the corrected information will pass it back on up the line as these are people who he/she knows in person, and they have no idea who I am. 
Assuming the worst – that there will be no clarifying going back up the line – (the most likely scenario), the only thing I think we can do is to continue to slog on, doing our best to be truth tellers in a time when truth is an extraordinarily scarce, and even despised, virtue.   
If polls are at all accurate, the vast majority of Americans believe there are very serious problems with our current system of Health Care delivery.  Most people know the system is broke and they its current or potential victims.  The vast majority of Americans are perhaps sufficiently skeptical to not “buy the [dishonest] kool-aid” of the outrageous claims made by the enemies of reform.  But lies are enticing, and can be made believable.
I will keep checking in on that YouTube segment to see how the numbers grow over the coming weeks (occasionally I’ll post updates).  It would be reasonable to expect that it will go over 1,000,000 – by no means will all of those who watch it, believe it.  And even if everyone who watches it believes it, they remain a tiny drop-in-a-bucket of the total U.S. population, and they are the type who’ll be on that other e-list I described at the beginning of this post, and trying to shout out dialogue at town hall forums.  It is important to keep that fact in mind. 
Meanwhile, I know that for anyone who has even the tiniest bit of interest, there are multitudes of sources out there which respond to all of the charges which have been made.  With sophisticated search engines, and a tiny bit of care in what search words one uses, truth-telling information is available, particularly on the internet.
Here’s the disclaimer referred to in the first paragraph of this post: “This mail cannot be considered spam as long as we include contact information and remove instructions.  This message is being sent to you in compliance with the current Federal Legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R. 4176 – SECTION 101 Paragraph (e)(1)(a) AND Bill s. 1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th Congress.”

#65 – Dick Bernard: The latest Poll…and the "protests".

/in , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27.29,30,31,August 1,2,6,7,10,15
The latest Poll.
Towards the end of last week news reports were that the public was becoming disenchanted with President Obama’s performance on the Health Care Reform issue. 
His poll numbers had dropped to the point that as many people disapproved of his performance, as approved: 46% to 46%.  He had gone from superhuman to merely mortal.  Basically, that was where the visible coverage (the coverage people notice because that’s what the media intend) ended. 
I decided to look up the specific poll.  It seems to have been a TIME Poll for July 27-28.  1002 people participated in the poll, with the results + or – 3%.  In other words it was a statistically valid poll.
You can probably still see the complete results of the poll, if you wish, at the  website pollingreport.com, then go to the surveys on health.
The TIME poll appears to have been one of those mind-numbing polls to answer, with Health Care Reform only one portion of the poll, and the Health Care portion having as many as 21 questions.  Whoever agreed to participate spent a long time on the phone, hopefully at a time they weren’t busy with something else. 
The specific question whose responses led to the headlines was apparently the first one in the Health Care Reform category: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in each of these areas…handling health care policy.”   
The questions all appear to have been forced choice, rather than graded response (“on a scale of 1 to 10, etc.).  Judging from my own very limited experience in responding to such phone polls – I can recall one seemingly interminable one some years ago – there is no room for reflection, or changing one’s mind.  It is a test of first impressions given to a sample of about a thousand people nationwide.  Valid?  Sure.  But truly useful information?  Probably not, unless you want to find some way to formulate the questions and then interpret the information to fit your own bias.
Down the road in the 21 poll questions is this one: “Who do you trust more?”  Obama 46%, Republicans 32%, Unsure 14%.  Error + or – 3%.
The “Protests”
“The days of rage” have apparently returned, NOT.
I put the word “protests” in quotes because the assorted expressions of anger at the back-home meetings, all breathlessly reported, are not protests at all…they are scripted, orchestrated and probably rehearsed street theatre. 
Personally, I think these “protests” will backfire on the organizers – most people want to hear rational discussion of the issues – and my guess is that as the month goes on the “protests”, while they will not disappear, will become less visible, including in their local areas.  I doubt that any of the politicians being targeted are befuddled by the protests.  Stay tuned.
“Protests” are not an exclusive province of the Right, of course.  Neither is the long term tactic of “P. R everything – disrupt – confuse – display anger” something new and innovative.  I put those words in quotes because they were part of an organizing strategy used against an organization I was part of in 1974, 35 years ago.  Years later I became a colleague of one of the organizers who had used those and other organizing tactics against us, and he gave me a copy of the notes he had taken at a training session he had attended in another state.
So, the protests we are seeing are really very old (and very tired) tactics.
Were I to be in a position to plan counter-“Protest” strategy, I would organize things to dissipate the energy/effectiveness of the protestors, without making the “protestors” seem like victims.  There are things that can be done.  I’ll feed in some suggestions….