#86 – Dick Bernard: Two sides of "entitlement"

/in , , /by

Saturday, during President Obama’s time in Minneapolis, a friend of mine did a little experiment with the protestors outside.
Bruce explains it best: “At the Obama rally on Saturday, I approached several anti-reformers as a panhandler asking for a handout to help me pay my lapsing health insurance premiums,  Some told me to ask the people standing in line to see Obama.  Some said get on Medicaid (ironically, a government program).  Some stuck their hands in their pockets and asked me how much I needed and gave me $5 and $10.  I had the money in my hand and gave it back saying “I can’t take your money, you are a good person, and you put your money where your mouth is.”  Many of the anti-reformers are caring and generous people who truly believe what they are against, a government incursion on their freedom and liberty.  They should be taken for real, as people with substantive concerns.  The problem is how we bridge this gap and ease the fear of our fellow human beings so they can help ease ours.”
There is a lot of wisdom in what Bruce has to say.  At the same time, it reminded me of the simple distinction between “charity” and “justice”.  The people who gave the money to Bruce knew what he looked like and could judge him worthy or not for their money (charity).  (Bruce is a professional man ‘by day’ and would likely not be able to disguise his ‘responsible’ appearance and actions.  He probably looked like he “deserved” help.)
On the other hand, these same benefactors would likely not want their money to go to someone whose name they don’t know, in some place far away (even the next town), because they can’t personally judge the recipient who might be given the money.  He or she or might use the money, they say, for something they don’t approve. Their giving lacks justice.  Justice, it seems to me, is by its very nature less judgmental.  
Bruce’s comment reminds me of the frequent times when I see a handbill asking to help the family of someone whose house burned down, or one of whose members has a serious injury or disease, and no insurance to cover the costs.  In such circumstances, there is often a community outpouring of compassion and concern and even money, and spaghetti dinners become an important community event to help the afflicted.  But I wonder about what happens after the spaghetti dinner…people may toss a twenty in the kettle once; how about $20 a month for years till the debt is paid?
This is where “society” (a synonym is “government” in my opinion)  has to come in, to spread the risk.  The protestors want a very constricted view of what society is.  At least that’s my opinion.
But there is another side to this as well, not quite as comfortable to contend with.  And I’ll pick on someone who I’ll call “Jan” who runs in the circles that I do.
For awhile, Jan came to meetings of a group that I was part of.  She had no shortage of opinions and complaints.
Our $8 dues (per year) was pretty steep, she felt, but she thought that we should send our newsletters by mail to those who didn’t have e-mail, or take them to the libraries so that people like her could read them close to home.
We tend to empathize with the Jan’s of the world, but sometimes they really challenge our understanding.
Probably the last time I saw her at a meeting, was almost a year ago, after she had done her usual litany of complaints.  She told us she was buying a bus ticket – a couple of hundred dollars – to go to DC for the Presidential inauguration week activities.  As I listened, it didn’t sound like she felt it to be too pricey for her budget.
I couldn’t help think of that too pricey $8 dues she’d complained about, (and never did pay).
We can look outward; but as we look outward, we need to look inward as well.
Thanks, Bruce.
UPDATE from Bruce, after he read the above:
“At first I was disappointed with the compassionate response of those who gave money to me.  I wanted to see them as evil without compassion.  The first responses I received were what I expected, “get in line with the Obama people”.  That made more sense to me.  But after getting the hand in the pocket response a few times, it dawned on me that some of the anti-reformers are serious caring people.  Another side note, the women anti-reformers were the most militant and dismissive of my panhandling.”

#85 – Dick Bernard: A gathering of the news community

/in /by

Overnight I had a vivid dream, which usually means something has been on my mind.
This one was in a large room, filled with many people, many “mad as hell” about the descent of their local newspaper into (they felt) irrelevance.  In my case, the dream was about the newspaper we subscribe to and read every day, a metropolitan daily that still has a Sunday circulation of in excess of 600,000.
This was a rational, orderly kind of crowd, and the speakers were trying to make sense of the change that they were observing, as readers, employees, past employees…
Of course, one wakes up from these dreams, and what made so much sense while dreaming, no longer makes as much sense, if you can even remember what you dreamt.  But this one stuck with me.
I solicit brief opinions on this topic to be added to the body of this text. There is no deadline, though it is probably best to write it now rather than wait for several months.  I would hope that they be brief, and hopefully somewhat positive and solutions driven, but I won’t judge.  I will print the name of the writer.
These should be sent as e-mails to me dick_bernardATmsnDOTcom.
I know what my brief comment will be, but I won’t post it till there are ten other comments (so it may never be posted.)
If this is the only comment, so be it.    The topic is important.  I hope a few feed in.  
It’s now on line, and your turn.

#84 – Dick Bernard: The 9-12ers

/in , /by

UPDATE at end of this post
A family wedding occupied our time on Saturday September 12; absent that I probably would have stood in line to try to get into the local Target Center in Minneapolis to hear President Obama on Health Care Reform.  As expected, he filled the house with more than 17,000 local citizens.  Also as expected, there were protestors, but as one of them pointed out to a Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter: “We didn’t have a big turnout.  We were outnumbered.”
I also missed the big goings-on in Washington D.C. on Saturday where a gaggle of protestors gathered, ostensibly for national unity as it existed on 9-12-01; but which in actuality were a collection of very bitter and angry people bearing assorted grudges against government in general and President Obama in particular.
I was interested in the true impact of this Washington event: specifically, how many people would show up for it.  
The two local Sunday newspapers had fairly long articles about the D.C. protest, but surprisingly there were no crowd estimates included in either article.  Tonight on a television news program, it was stated that there were 50-75,000 people on the National Mall for the demonstration on Saturday.  Whatever the actual numbers they seem to have been nothing to brag about.
As national protests go, that was, I would say, a small turnout.
I often wonder to myself how truly large (or small) a constituency this purportedly pro-national unity but anti-government group is.  The only way I can assess this is by looking at my normal environment which seems to be, essentially, a fairly conservative one.
For example, we live in a subdivision of about 100 dwelling units, in a prosperous suburban city that traditionally votes heavily Republican…but for the last two elections has elected Democrats to represent it in the State Legislature and has almost given a majority vote to Democrat candidates for national offices.  We must be a fairly moderate place, in other words.
Personally, I don’t know anyone who would fit the profile of the angry people I saw on the National Mall.  In my community of 100 homes, I can think of two who might fit the profile at least a little, but they would never think of demonstrating or speaking publicly.  Of the rest, doubtless there are some very conservative people, but mostly we are just a little town whose residents generally work and relate well together.
Similarly within my other circles.  I know there are family members – a very small number of them – who might actively relate to those protestors, and might even wish they could have been there, but by no means are they any more than a small percentage of the whole.  
Similarly, the same could be said about the other circles I am part of.
The U.S. is are not a country of extremes or extremists, and thankfully those folks on the National Mall on Saturday, and the vocal angry people at town meetings during August represent a tiny fraction of the U.S. population.  
50-75,000 people on the National Mall does not impress me as much as the residents of my subdivision and my community and my family who by and large see our country as a community, with differences of opinion to be negotiated in a civil manner.  
Incivility has become a visible canker sore on our otherwise reasonably healthy body politic.  
We need to keep in mind that we are, generally, a decent and civil society.
UPDATE from Paul R Sep 15, 2009
I read your post regarding the 9-12 rally in Washington, DC, and the estimated crowd size.  Apparently, the realistic crowd estimate wasn’t big enough to satisfy inflated egos.  or, they are just getting so accustomed to lying they can’t help but lie about everything that comes along.  Huffington Post has a story about the spreading of a photo of a massive crowd at the Washington Mall.  Those spreading the photo claim it shows that the attendance at this rally was many times greater than the actual 50-70,000 or so.  The post is titled: “9/12 Tea Party Photo: False Image Spread By Anti-Reform Activists.”  #mce_temp_url#  The photo was actually taken at least 5 years ago of some other large crowd.  It is pathetic but just too typical of the lack of facts thrown around by the corporatist right wing fanatics out there.
Moderator September 16, 2009:  The photo referred to, and in the link, was hurriedly withdrawn from many right-wing websites, but the wildly inflated estimates of the number of people attending the protest continue to be circulated.  Caveat emptor.

#83 – Dick Bernard: "I loved her first…."

/in , , /by

At my age, it’s a given that I’ve been to many weddings over the years.  Yesterdays was a bit more special than most, even though I had no direct involvement with it, other than attending and participating as a guest (the bride-to-be was my wife’s niece).
Sometime after the wedding and the dinner, somebody mentioned the song they knew had been selected for the Father-Bride dance.  It was, they said, a tear-jerker.  I wasn’t aware of it, and waited for the appropriate moment, when Jeff and Megan took the dance floor by themselves, and the song began.  I got it…what they meant by “tear-jerker”… especially in context with a Dad who clearly loved his daughter, and a daughter who clearly loved her Dad.
This morning I went to YouTube to see if I could find the exact same song I heard last night, and I think I did.  Here’s the link: #mce_temp_url#.
The song was wonderful, and a ‘tear-jerker’ for some, listening, as it was for me. Sadly, as you’ll note if you read the sidebar as you listen to the song on YouTube, some folks can’t leave well enough alone, and apparently choose to argue about, and probably ridicule, feelings like this song so clearly expresses.  It takes all kinds….
Truth be told, I don’t do weddings really well: I’m not much of a glad-hander or small-talk person.  It’s just me.
But there could be much worse ways to start the travel that is marriage than a tear-jerker like “I loved her first”.  And I am very glad I was there to experience the moment.
Best wishes to yesterday’s loving couple, and best wishes to all who either are venturing into marriage, or are somewhere on the not always simple journey that can be marriage.

Jeff and Megan Sep 12 09001Jeff and daughter Megan September 12, 2009

#82 – Marion Brady: A message to students

/in , /by

#mce_temp_url#
NOTE FROM MODERATOR:  This YouTube video, produced by Marion Brady, is a simple very well done video message to today’s students, educators and policy makers.  I would highly recommend that educators and leaders and policy makers for public education be made aware of the video.
For 77 years Marion Brady has been immersed in public education in numerous roles, from student to teacher to text book author to informed commentator on public education.  His previous blog entries at this space appear at April 24 and May 27, 2009.  Marion lays out a very simple, but very essential prescription for necessary change in Public Education practice to fit the present day and future needs.  He contends that modern public education policy originated in the 1890s, and has inadequately changed in the well over 100 years since.     

#81 – Bob Barkley: The Growing Incivility of Public Discourse

/in , , /by



A reluctant churchgoer, some power pushed me there recently as the title of the sermon was particularly poignant.  It was, “When you open your mouth.”
On the same weekend there was an opinion piece in the local paper titled, “If you know you shouldn’t say it, then just don’t.”
Both the sermon and the editorial quote from the Bible’s New Testament book of James where it says, “No man can tame the tongue. It’s a restless evil, full of deadly poison.”
Here I was, in the midst of observing one of our nation’s more uncivil debates, about our nation’s antiquated medical care system, and I am confronted with these two experiences highlighting the unchristian nature of such behavior.  And yet, many of those engaging in this less than civil behavior, claim to be Christians.
What is it about our tongue that gives us so much trouble?  How can we “tame” this dangerous instrument – one that can also do so much good?  The sermon gave me the clue. It was this simple formula and it was not simply think before you speak.  It told me what to think about before I speak.  I am to ask 3 questions:
1)    Is what I am about to say true?
2)    Is what I am about to say necessary?
3)    Is what I am about to say kind?
It may be just that simple.  How come so few people, including yours truly, live by such a moral and ethical code?  Why does the media give credence to the tongues that are so out of control?  What attracts us to such uncivility?
When someone starts a comment to you with, “I shouldn’t say this, but…” we should quickly respond with, “Then don’t.”
But how do we control uncivil behavior in the public arena?  What is a well-meaning politician to do when confronted with uncivil behavior? Was Barney Frank right to ask, “What planet have you been living on?” to a rude, boisterous, and obviously uniformed citizen at one of his town meetings. Can we legislate civility?  I think not.  Then how do we establish a culture where incivility is unacceptable?
Not long ago I had a remarkably sobering experience as I joined about 60 educators in spending a day at a nearby prison.  It is not you usual prison.  It is a premier rehabilitation facility.  I learned much from the prisoners.  And a comment one of them made is particularly germane to the topic of civility.  He said, “All cultures depend upon imitation for their survival. Poverty and crime are cultures, and we tend to accept our destination within our particular culture.”  Apparently, if that is true, and I sense that it is, we have created a culture of imitation around incivility.  And one commenter on an earlier draft of this little essay even suggested, incorrectly I think, that those of us offended by the screaming and yelling, need to get over it and start doing it too – the ultimate in imitation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury gave a sermon on the power of silence.  It certainly countered the raucous approach now being so widely applied.  One cannot think and reason well in the midst of noise.  Maybe that is why those who have apparently neither engaged in thoughtful reflection not wish others to do so resort to using so much noise.
I fear for a society that tolerates what is occurring right now in our country.  It is, in fact, what occurred in Germany in the first half of the 20th century. On that note, it is interesting that there is a German proverb (offered by a reader of this essay) that goes, “Be silent, or say something better than silence.”
George Eliot said, “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” And the Bible, in Proverbs 17:28, tells us, “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”
What should civil discourse look like?  Perhaps the following quote from David Bohms “On Dialogue” offers up a good example:
 “From time to time, (the) tribe (gathered) in a circle.
They just talked and talked and talked, apparently to no purpose.  They made no decisions.  There was no leader.  And everybody could participate.
There may have been wise men or wise women who were listened to a bit more – the older ones – but everybody could talk.  The meeting went on, until it finally seemed to stop for no reason at all and the group dispersed.  Yet after that, everybody seemed to know what to do, because they understood each other so well.  Then they could get together in smaller groups and do something or decide things.”
In the interest of a civil society, where do we go from here? I don’t know. But imitation seems unacceptable, and somehow, despite all the very good advice above, silence does not seem an acceptable alternative either.  Can we once again simply gather in a circle and talk and listen?
Bob Barkley

#80 – Dick Bernard: Eugenie Fellows, Au revoir to a classy lady

/in , , , /by



At 6:09 p.m. September 9 came a brief e-mail: “My mother slipped away this morning, after a rally the last couple of days.  I was with her and she was not in pain, so it was not as difficult as it might have been.  She hated hospitals and did not want any more procedures.”  
Eugenie Fellows, who I got to know as Gene, passed away a few days after a bad fall at her home in rural FL.  She was a young-at-heart woman, born December 20, 1913; closing in on her 96th birthday.  Until her fall, she was an active lady.  She would respond to virtually every e-mail I sent, usually with a terse “interesting”, sometimes with a paragraph or sometimes more if the topic brought back some memory or other.  It could be said that she and I “talked” almost every day.
Her daughter, Joy Lominska, who sent me the e-mail with the sad news last evening, described her Mom well.  
Here’s a photo I took of Gene (as she called herself to me), in her yard in Florida, in January, 2003.  She was, then, a mere 89.
Eugenie Fellows January 2003001
I got to know Gene in some circuitous unremembered way in about 1995.  At the time I was editor of a small newsletter for people of French-Canadian descent, and somehow or other Eugenie found out about the newsletter, and me, and she sent an inquiry, which I later posted in the newsletter.  That began our long friendship, which began when she was a young 82!
Except for the single in-person visit in 2003, we communicated by e-mail and, sometimes, letter.  I hope her daughter takes a photo of her old computer for me.  It was a cantankerous old buzzard which she insisted on keeping.  Sometimes, she said, a paperclip worked wonders getting it running again.  She wasn’t able to read this blog: her machine had decided it had no time for the internet or attachments.  Computers can be that way.  On occasion, “interesting” would arrive here as “omyrtrdyomh”.   No matter.  Type and send….
Ironically, the last piece of mail she received from me was a recent printout of all the blog pieces I had done about Health Care reform.  She would have received it near the time she fell.
She never tired of telling about her life, especially specific memorable events.  
Her mother, Mena Hoiland, was Norwegian-American, her Dad, Emile Leriger de la Plante, was French-Canadian.  They married in Crookston MN, and during her growing up years lived in many places.  They were lifelong Socialists, as was she, and they were proud of socialism.  If they were like she was, they weren’t pushy about their political beliefs; neither were they ashamed of them.  
She never tired of mentioning marching with her parents in the parade celebrating the ratification of Women’s Suffrage in 1920.  At the time they lived in Milwaukee. She was six.  Somewhere in those years a house guest was Eugene V. Debs.
She enrolled at the University of Washington at age 16, but the Great Depression came along at the same time and interfered with her plans.  She returned to university when her daughter began school, earning a degree in Social Work and later a Masters Degree in urban planning, both at Ohio State.  She worked as a planner for many years.
Her beloved husband, Erwin, preceded her in death by about eight years.  One of their children preceded them in death.  Along with his professional work, Erwin was an author of commentaries on the human condition, and he was a good one.  She loaned me a book he had written.  (I returned it!)
Gene mentioned often her long-time activity as a member of the League of Women Voters, and she was also a long-time member of Womens International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF).  A dominant memory when I visited her rural home was seeing bookshelves jam-packed with books.  She never stopped learning.   We walked the property and she pointed out this and that.  I sampled the fruit on the tree behind her in the photo: it looked benign, but it would give serious competition to a very tart lemon.   I’m guessing she was a bit amused at her visitors discovery.
Occasionally people come into to our lives who enrich us by their presence, even if at a distance.
Eugenie Hoiland LaPlante Fellows was such a person.
Au revoir, my friend.

#79 – Dick Bernard: President Obama speaks to the nation on Health Care

/in , , , , /by

Since anyone and everyone is predicting what Pres. Obama will say tonight, and what he means by what he says, I have my right to my own opinion, which is, I would say, as informed (and uninformed) as that of anyone else.  
I am deliberately posting this before Obama’s speech, rather than after.
As time has gone on, I am more and more of the opinion that what is happening now in the debate on Health Care Reform is very similar to what happened as the tide turned against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s early 1970s.  There came a tipping point in that conflict when public opinion turned against the war.  Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972; by 1975 the last frantic refugees lifted off from the U.S. embassy in Saigon; Nixon was already history.  The turn started earlier, but reached a crescendo quite rapidly.  The end wasn’t perfect, and the future wasn’t either, but for certain, change began to occur.  The past began to end…and lasted till we got mired in our next war – Iraq/Afghanistan.
If I’m correct, the current divisive atmosphere is a very good omen for the beginning of long term and very substantive change.  The Health Care Reform debate is being waged in the Congress, but far more importantly, it is being waged in the public square.  By no means is Health Care Reform “dead on arrival”; nor will it get stuck in cement after the first round of legislation is passed this fall.  
(On August 31, I was among those senior citizens who spent some time in the DFL (Democratic party) booth at the Minnesota State Fair.  I have done this before.  This time we were concerned about being attacked by irate people, to the extent that we had a training session before hand.  The training was a waste of time.  If anything, the people were more polite and serious minded than in previous similar events.  Sen. Al Franken was very politely received.  The people, I think, get it.)
I am not particularly concerned about what finally ends up in this first Health Care Reform bill.  There never was, and there will likely never be, a massive sea change in the general attitude of the body politic. So many of us, and so much of our economy, is wrapped up in the business of medicine that it would be unrealistic that revolutionary change would occur (though I think such a change would ultimately be for the betterment of all of us.  Who would miss those endless television ads for this or that pharmaceutical or treatment – the true cost of “competition”.)
A friend predicted earlier today that Obama would throw the progressives “off the bus” tonight.  
I am certain that, whatever he says, he will be interpreted as having gone too far, or not far enough, or this, or that, or the other.   Whether he throws progressives off the bus or not is going to be strictly an item of interpretation by the viewer, and we will have an opportunity to hear and see lots of comments about what it all means afterwards.  I will take every comment with a grain of salt, particularly if it comes from someone with a particular vested interest in the outcome of the debate.
Personally, I hope the advocates for revolutionary change prepare themselves for some realistic response, and rather than saying “we were sold out”, treat whatever positive changes which end up being made as the positive changes that they are, and then redouble their efforts for more and better changes down the road.
The debate is being waged, and we can thank the President of the United States for this.  
If we want “change we can believe in”, we now have an opportunity to help make it happen, one small and difficult step at a time.
To those tempted to throw the President “off the bus”, I don’t wish you well.

#78 – Dick Bernard: Back to school with the President

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Under ordinary circumstances I may not have heard that President Obama was going to give a televised talk to America’s school children at 11 a.m. today.  I’m long retired with no direct ties to public schools.
But these are no ordinary circumstances.  Last Friday morning, I got an e-mail, later withdrawn, in which the sender wanted to alert one of my mailing lists about her complaint about the President of the United States wanting to communicate with children, including her own, about their upcoming school year.  The speech was scheduled for today, September 8.  At the time of the e-mail, I had no context whatsoever.  
(The entire speech will likely be archived at the White House website  www.whitehouse.gov for anyone who is interested.)
The subsequent days were inundated with rhetoric.  For most school districts in my state, today is the first day of the school year.  It is an open guess as to what percent of the nation’s tens of millions of students will be allowed to see the talk live today, if at all.  When it comes to freedom of speech, apparently the President of the United States is, for some, off-limits, at least according to some who wish to shield their children from his thoughts (and in the process deprive the vast majority of the opportunity to hear what he has to say.)  
I spent an entire career in public education, so I know a bit about the reality of the public schools. 
A career public elementary school teacher, now retired several years, commented on the general situation on Saturday: “When I was teaching I would have been so happy to have the President reinforce my job by speaking to students.”  As to disrupting regular events on the first day of school, she said “The first day of school was always full of twists and turns.  Some kids haven’t slept all night because they are scared, some wish they were back home, some are worrying about their bus number, some wish they had a different teacher, some little ones are crying, some are hot (no air conditioning) some are very excited for a new year, etc.  I think it would be reassuring to have the President speak to them.” 
Of course, none of this matters to those who wish to shut down the opportunity for the President to communicate a positive lesson.  
Last Friday, after the e-mail brought the matter to my attention, I wrote to the heads of all of the major public education organizations in Minnesota, saying this:  “What I see is a flagrant adult example of bullying behavior, and you can rest assured that if the organizers of this nationwide protest feel they were successful in this campaign, you can anticipate much more aggressive moves on other fronts as time goes on.  This is not a constituency that will be satisfied with half-a-loaf.  Any sign of weakness you and your members show will be exploited and the problem will get much worse.
It is very ironic to me that this same President Obama, who some people apparently fear will influence their kids, is the same President who not-so-liberal Bill O’Reilly of Fox News wrote about in a cover story in the August 9, 2009, Parade Magazine, included in the St. Paul Pioneer press.  The article, very positive, is entitled “What Children can learn from President Obama”.  Read it.  It’s all very positive…about President Obama.  But now some folks don’t want their children to hear [that same President] speak, and are willing to sabotage the opportunities of other children to hear this message.”
What we are seeing goes far beyond mere hypocrisy.  
This story won’t end with today.
Now to watch the President’s talk to America’s students….
UPDATE: 11:23 A.M.
The ones who needed to watch this speech – the ones who campaigned against its being shown – probably will refuse to tune it in.  I hope they change their mind.

#77 – Dick Bernard: The political execution of Van Jones (and a possibility or two)

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Van Jones is now history, at least insofar as an office in the White House is concerned.
I heard Van Jones speak in person twice.  The last time, in March, 2009, was apparently his last public speech before joining the Obama administration.  I bought his book, “The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems” (HarperOne 2008).  It comes with an all-star list of endorsers.  It’s well worth reading.  He is a phenomenal person.
Of course, Mr. Jones has now been publicly executed, resigning from his post within the Obama administration for what appears to have been two ‘sins’: signing a petition, and using colorful language about Republicans.  I’m quite certain I signed the same petition some time (questioning the truth of 9-11*); and as for colorful language, my guess is that Jones ‘executioners’ were at least equally colorful in their description of him in their private meetings.  But that is now simply history.  Jones would be a distraction if he remained on the White House staff.  Life goes on.
Jones ‘demise’ is just the latest example of a contemporary political reality: anyone aspiring politically is fair game for anything, whether true or not.  There is no such thing as a truly personal life for a political figure.  We are all quite literally surrounded by our past, remembered or not.  This is a matter of consequence for our version of democracy.  We need gifted people in government; many gifted people say “no thanks” to public life, and not only because they can make more money elsewhere.  The ‘costs’ of the job are simply too high.
Van Jones is a gifted speaker and visionary.  That was obvious the first time we heard him in June, 2008, at the National Media Reform Conference, and the second in March, 2009. At the conclusion of the 2009 speech (at the University of Minnesota) we were told that he would likely not be doing more public speaking. There was another assignment in the offing, we were told.  It was not hard to put two and two together.  Not long after we saw him, he appeared on the White House roster.
Now, presumably, Van Jones can again speak as an individual.
But I really hope that persons interested in nurturing and development of a “Green Economy” don’t sit back and expect Van Jones to do the heavy lifting.  There is a real danger that could happen; perhaps it already had.  After all, one can reason, he’s in the White House, we don’t have to do anything more.  Not true.  In fact, the opposite is true.  With the opportunity comes the work.    
What better a development than have a million or more advocates for the change that Van Jones sought doubling their personal efforts to make his dream not only stay alive, but grow more quickly?
Personally, I don’t need to hear him speak again, and I doubt many others do either.
What is needed are “boots on the ground” doing what needs to be done; putting in place the multitude of ideas he so well articulated for the future of this nation.
Perhaps the Republicans have done the movement a favor – if we make it so.
* – This reminded me of a 9-11 project I need to do: check the July 23 posting at this blog for details.  You may wish to participate as well.