#268 – Dick Bernard: On BEING the Change YOU Can Believe In.

Quite frequently we have an 11-year old house guest – we’re his kid-sitter for, usually, a few hours.
He’s a nice kid. Invariably, though, at some early point in his visit he’ll make the declaration, “I’m bored“, with the direct implication that it is our responsibility to un-bore him.
I don’t take the bait. Life is too short to have to entertain a kid who’s apparently learned that he has no responsibility to entertain himself.
I think of this young person in context with the election upcoming in two days.
Even though President Barack Obama is not on any ballot, anywhere, it seems that he was made to assume, on election in 2008, the sole responsibility for accomplishing the “Change” 67,000,000 people elected him to achieve. His was by far the largest vote total for any President in United States history. (John McCain: 58,000,000)
The people who despise Obama for having the audacity to win the 2008 election are one thing. They are their own special breed.
It is harder to be understanding of the masses of people with infinite (and differing) priorities who, it seems, expected Obama to not only win the election, but to then do all of the heavy lifting required to accomplish even small increments of change in the last 21 months. This includes assorted Congresspersons and Senators and activists who first climbed on, then deserted, the bandwagon. If they lose, they will blame Obama, when it is they, themselves, who should share the blame, along with their oft-ill informed constituents.
Change is difficult. I’m old enough to have experienced – numerous times – the difficulties of change. But not changing is far, far more costly. And I don’t mean giving a new group not even half a chance to attempt to re-direct our nation from what was a self-destructive course.
But we seem to want change to happen instantly, painlessly, without any effort or discipline on our own part.
We want what we want. Period. That’s the lesson I think I’ve seen this election cycle. We’ll see on Wednesday,November 3, how this all plays out.
A week or so ago I saw President Obama in Minneapolis. As it happened, he appeared across the street, literally, from the University of Minnesota football stadium, where, at the exact same time, Minnesota was playing Penn State. While preparing to enter the Fieldhouse, I heard at least one roar of the crowd, which meant that Minnesota had done something good on the field a block away.
I don’t follow sports much, but I did ask a University Student when the new outdoor stadium had been built, and when the recently fired coach Tim Brewster had come to the University of Minnesota. Groundbreaking was 2006, occupancy 2009; Brewster hired in 2007.
A few days earlier Brewster had been fired as University head coach – he apparently hadn’t brought “change you can believe in” to the University. And on this day I saw the President, the Golden Gophers lost again, in their new stadium, now named for a bank, which was to bring pride back to the University of Minnesota again..
Change they could believe in didn’t happen right away. “Outa here, Brewster.”
Yesterday, the Golden Gophers were shellacked, this time by Ohio State, again at home.
At some point along the way there will be a new head football coach, and everyone will be saying we’ve found the man for the job. We’re back.
They said the same with Tim Brewster, too.
Will we ever learn?
Our “I’m bored” kid will hopefully learn early on that he is the primary cause in the matter of his own non-boredom.
So must we come to grips with our cause in the matter of our own success. Deserting Obama when he’s barely had an opportunity to begin needed Change is not a way to success.
Will the adult version of “I’m bored” prevail on Tuesday? We’ll see.
NOTE: There are many previous posts on Election 2010, at Sep 29 & 30, and Oct 5, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29 and 30.
Retrospective from late 2008:

#267 – Dick Bernard: A troubling juncture for our country.

I am overwhelmed with political information – it has to be like being overrun by a tsunami (without minimizing the latest tragedy in Indonesia). The instinct is not to master or control the incoming data, but how to survive it.
I won’t run and hide, but after the election, my guess is that I will go to the e-inbox, pick “select all”, then click “delete” and start over. Literally thousands of e-mails will bite the dust (oh, I have them all backed up, just in case…but it’s like most paper stuff I have around here. They will probably never be re-looked at. A post-election project.)
But there is something very, very troubling to me as we lurch towards the culmination of what is probably the most important election in our history: willful ignorance.
It is abundantly documented in valid surveys from very credible sources: massive numbers of people are clueless about basic facts about real things that are very important, but believe the untruths anyway. I see this over and over and over again.
Somebody forwards an item which easily and quickly can be debunked. They obviously believe it, otherwise they wouldn’t forward it in the first place.
Vicious stuff appears in the e-mailbox – it’s easy to distribute these days.
Surveys show an astonishing percentage of people have an upside down view of what is real. They do not have a clue about the simplest of political, economic or other facts.
When challenged with something supported by fact, they’ll say things like “I’ll believe what I want to believe”.

I could send along the data, but I know that it won’t be read. People have shut down, mired in their own reality, probably trusting their closest friends or, worse, sole sources of information, which may be deliberately conveying untruths, or have similarly been duped by some invisible figures hundreds of generations up their e-mail chain.
I’m already over 300 words in this blog post and it is already too long for a letter to the editor, as letters to the editor are limited to, often, 150-250 words. One can’t even develop a thought in that length of letter – one has to spew sound bites that are interesting or provocative…and besides present a particular point of view. Common letter to the editors reflect the poles, not the middle.
A common limit for outside submissions for newspaper columns is 600, perhaps 700 words, unless you own the paper or the editor wants you to write a piece. I try to keep my blog posts under 600 words.
Facebook and Twitter? A sentence or two max….
Many of us will vote based on our fantasy on Tuesday.
Many of us will not vote at all because it’s too complicated, or, or, or….
One can only hope that after the barrage of advertising lies, some semblance of good, balanced government will come out the other end.
At this moment, I’m not very hopeful.
I sent in my ballot yesterday. It was preceded by a lot of hard work, trying to figure out the person behind the names, and the consequences of voting for him or her.
Please do the same.
Preceding posts on the topic of Election 2010: September 29, 30; October 5, 15, 18, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29. (Just click on the date in the calendar in the right hand column, or you can simply place the cursor there, and read the title of the post.)
557 words.

#266 – Dick Bernard: Moving towards Rationality, Civility and Dialogue…or mired in Contempt?

I walked away from a TV commentary show a few hours ago. The host is someone I like and respect; his guests were four leaders from a few of the infinite number of different organizations that claim to be of like minds, but really have very narrow, poorly thought out, and often opposing agendas.
The talk was about whether or not Social Security and Medicare were “socialist”. Three of the four guests had anti-socialism as a key tenet of their anti-government rant. Of course, none would touch Social Security or Medicare, always going back to their tried and true ‘talking points’. It ended with the usual result, which I first saw in the old “Crossfire” days of the 1990s, where NO ONE was LISTENING to ANYONE ELSE, DEFENSIVE and TRYING TO SHOUT EACH OTHER DOWN. The good idea of debate ended up very badly. Personally, I learned nothing.
Life is far too short….
Right before that, Cathy and I had been to an Interfaith Forum on the topic of denominational beliefs on Life after Death. Five panelists, friends and clergy all, took on the topic. They were Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Lutheran and Congregational. It was a great pre-Halloween topic and it seemed there were about 200 of us in attendance. The Pastors talked, then there was opportunity for table talk, then then there was Q&A from audience to panelists. If I was to boil it down to its essence, it was respect personified. We all have our beliefs; we are sitting together seeking to understand; we were not throwing rocks at each other, as would have been the case in those vaunted “good old days” before tolerance was cool.
Two days earlier, nine of us had gathered at an office conference room in suburban Maplewood MN to watch a recent film about Haiti, and then to discuss what we’d seen.
The film, Poto Mitan, has five narrators. With a single, brief, exception, they are the only ones who speak, and they speak one at a time, telling their powerful stories. They are “Poto Mitans”, all poor women in Port-au-Prince who talk of survival against all odds. They speak in Kreyol, subtitled into English. The segments are separated by brief but beautiful and powerful prose read in English by Haitian author Edwidge Danticat, backgrounded by film of a woman braiding another woman’s hair.
Poto Mitan is a powerful film which our discussion leader, Jacqueline Regis, said brought her to tears when she first saw it. It was so mindful of her own mother and her own growing up years in Duvalier’s Haiti.
After the film we viewers dialogued with each other about what this film meant to us. There was nothing profound said, but the evening was profound. There was lots of respect among we diverse folks whose only commonality was an interest in Haiti. Our conversation reached no conclusion: it didn’t need to. When we walked out the door, the conversation was our conclusion: food for thought. Out of the gathering did come a proposal to a larger institution to use the film as centerpiece for a program on the first anniversary of the January 12, 2010, earthquake in Haiti, but that was just a proposal for someone else to implement, or not.
Oh if only we could re-learn the almost disappeared skill of dialogue.
So…What is “dialogue”?
I often go back to a great quote I found in Joseph Jaworsky’s 1996 book, “Synchronicity, the Inner Path of Leadership“. Preceding the chapter on “Dialogue: The Power of Collective Thinking“, Jaworsky includes the following from David Bohms “On Dialogue”:
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.

#265 – Dick Bernard: What's at stake next Tuesday

I vote absentee as I’m an election judge next Tuesday.
This morning I was looking at my absentee ballot for November 2. There are 109 candidates for 42 positions. It is a daunting, impossible task to know everything about everyone. A group of us are collaborating to find out who might know something about some of the more obscure races in our area, like for city council. One can’t research everything. But being as well informed as possible IS everything. Few take the time to be informed, and it is a danger to our democracy.
There are candidate names that ‘play’ better than others: they are short, have warmth to them, like the name of somebodies nice little boy or little girl. In our area, if they have a Scandinavian sounding name, they have a head start on candidates with suspicious names, like obviously foreign names that are hard to pronounce. One prominent politician, with a Norwegian maiden name, was married to somebody who had a Middle Eastern sounding name. When she ran for office, she dropped the Middle East married name like a hot potato. It didn’t change her, but for the lazy voter the name was important.
She’s running again, as a Norwegian.
When I send in my ballot, probably today, I’ll have a pretty good notion of who I voted for – and what they stand for.
I hope I’m typical.
The people that have the greatest and most selfish interest in the outcome next Tuesday will be looking for Power and Control.
These power brokers – prime players in this and all major elections – are only interested in the top of the ticket people: President, Governor, Congress and Senate, State Legislature. Get the proper people in place – I’ll vote for four candidates in those races – and you can effectively control the national and state policy agenda.
I happen to have an incumbent Congresswoman who could care less about her own district, but will be hard to beat – she is extremely well-funded and a darling of the national radical right wing. She is fervently anti-anything Obama. Some people like that. Some people will vote for her because she’s cute, or mouthy…some people like that, too.
Going by the ads, our three candidates for Governor are really a half-dozen people: you wouldn’t recognize the person as he is viewed by the oppositions ads. Political ads these days are more intended to disrupt and confuse than to enlighten. Everybody hates them, but they work, and “pigs will fly” before the industry that is political campaign advertising is called to heel. There’s a lot of money to be made by the media in advertising.
What is at issue in this election is very simple, and well worth noting by anybody who casts a vote based on simple emotion, or chooses to vote ‘holding their nose’, or not to vote at all.
In my opinion, the only positions that matter in next Tuesday’s election are the people who will end up as the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States. And the Governors. Control these offices and you can control the agenda. (Yes, the Presidency is crucial too, but that is not in play this year.) The bewildered Freshmen and women who win office will be manipulated and controlled by hand-picked staff advisers in DC. They will learn rapidly that their only value was to have been elected to serve the interests of those more powerful than they.
There has never been as clear a distinction between the Democrat and Republican ‘sides’ of the aisle as there is in this years election.
We choose one of two directions next Tuesday: to go back to the olden days of the early 2000s; or we choose to slog ahead, making necessary changes so that we can survive, and more importantly that our children and grandchildren can survive. I choose working towards positive change, rather than a repeat of the disastrous years of 2001-2009.
Your choice.
Vote, and vote informed, next Tuesday.

Related item here.

#264 – Dick Bernard: One Week to Go. My opinion.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the U.S. Senate, has confirmed that the GOPs major objective is to make President Obama a one-term President. So, if the GOP prevails next week, the gridlock of the first two years of the Obama administration will only intensify. The GOP leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have received huge political contributions from big recipients of the Fall 2008 TARP money.
Karl Rove and his ilk view political campaigns as War, as mortal combat, with voters as soldiers and media and words and images as deadly weapons used to kill opponents. “Sniper fire” attack ads funded by contributors to Super Pacs who do not need to identify themselves will fill the media the next seven days in targeted races nationwide. The overwhelming majority of this money will go in behalf of Republican candidates or against Democrats. It will be a very nasty week compared against an already nasty season. It applies to state (such as Governors) as well as national candidates.
The ultimate paradox, to me, is that the Middle Class – those who vote and pay the taxes – has been successfully recruited to kill itself: a sort of class suicide.
Voters still rule in this country. In my opinion, informed voting is our most important civic duty. Next Tuesday, November 2, most everybody in the United States will vote. (I include as “voters” those who can but won’t show up at the polls; those who vote with little or no knowledge of who or what they are voting for, and those who do not consider the short and long term implications of their vote for any office.)
So be it. It’s a free country. All I have is my opinion. I will vote Democrat on Tuesday, November 2, with no hesitation whatsoever. November 3 we’ll have an idea what we’re in for in the next two years – what fork in the national road we’ve decided to take.
*
We’re leaving a ‘fast and loose’ first decade of the 21st Century. Luckily we survived it somewhat intact. From 2001-2009 we could imagine that the good times were a-rollin’. It was party time. War and Prosperity were purchased on our National Credit Card; tax cuts were enacted that we didn’t need and couldn’t afford. All of this has truly left us with a national ‘hangover’ which first manifested itself, officially, in mid-September, 2008, when the big banking world nearly crashed and burned. (The first to be rehabilitated (TARP) from that huge crisis were the biggest bankers themselves. This happened at the request, and at the end, of the Bush era, before a new President was even elected.)
We’ve been in the painful stage of recovery the last two years and regardless of who wins next Tuesday, the economic struggle is far from over. This is hard medicine to take, but it is essential if we are to leave a country and world worth leaving to our grandkids. We need adults in charge as we continue – people who recognize actions have consequences. We can’t go back to those ‘good old days’.
*
The Democrats have been the majority party in the House, Senate and White House for less than two years, and have done a great deal to begin the process of reform which is so desperately needed in so many areas. They deserve more time.
The Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 1995-2007; controlled the White House, House and Senate from 2001-2007; and controlled the White House from 2001-2009. (Here’s the data: Congress and Presidency001). It was during the many years of the long Republican watch that we nearly lost everything. It makes little sense to me that we seek to go back to that style again, but we might.
The most dangerous period in American History since the Great Depression, happened in 2008 and early 2009.
It has been a difficult two years since.
Those who pray for big Republican gains in this election should consider carefully what they pray for. If they win, this time they will not have the Presidency as an ally.
*
Among the many issues facing Congress is the issue of the tax “cut” much bandied about: should it go to everyone, or to the bottom 98% of the people in this country? First, the debate is not about a tax “cut” at all. Rather it is whether to continue a tax cut that ends by Law at the end of this year. If agreement is not reached, in 2011 no one will have the tax cut enacted ten years ago; if agreement is reached that everyone should have the tax cut continue, the economic implications for the long term will be horrible. Either we save money for the wealthiest among us (continue their tax cut), or we continue the recovery: this is the choice.
If the Republicans regain control, not only will our national legislative house be a divided one, but the new house members will in large part be people with no experience and no seniority in the rough and tumble environment of Washington DC. It is one thing to campaign promise to beat back “Washington”; entirely another thing to have an impact, even within your own party.
We are at a watershed moment: either we will re-attempt the false prosperity of the early 2000s; or endure the discomfort that comes with change and recovery – never a rapid or easy process under the best of circumstances.
Americans are not a patient people nor are we accustomed to discipline. But we have no choice but patience and self-control in the next few years. The problem is not someone else; it is each one of us.
I will proudly and confidently vote Democrat next Tuesday. I see more thoughtful and reasoned approaches to government at all levels and more attention to the concerns of the common people – the Middle Class – from the Democrats, than I see from the Republican Party which has very openly become the party of Corporate Influence and Wealth.
When you vote, and I hope you do, vote with with full awareness of the implications of your vote.
WE, not THEM, are the government we will see in 2011 and 2012. It is OUR country we are making or breaking.
Related posts accessible here, and here.

#263 – Dick Bernard: President Obama comes to the Twin Cities

NOTE: The video of the entire speech by President Obama in Minneapolis on October 23 is accessible at the end of this post.

Sometimes I hear talk of Democrats and Republicans being the same: “they’re both alike“; “they’re all liars”; “Democrats are only the lesser of two evils“. This kind of rhetoric comes from both left and right. It is an excuse to vote Republican, or to not vote at all.
I beg to differ. There is a big difference, crucial at this time in our history.
In my life I’ve had a few ‘close calls’ with sitting Presidents of the United States.
The first was about 1953 when we saw President Eisenhower in a motorcade in Minot ND. We lived in an area town, I was 13 or 14, and he made a big impression. He was in an open convertible, personable and waving. He was likely there to inspect the site then being considered for the major Minot Air Force Base.
In the summer of 1975, I was within arms length of President Gerald Ford when he visited Bloomington MN. My kids, a couple of neighbors and I were on the other side of a rope line, which was all that separated the President from the onlookers. He was very engaging. The Secret Service was nervous.
In January, 1980, I was at a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the Carter White House. The President wasn’t in, but it was a heady experience nonetheless.
I’ve had other close brushes: Jimmy Carter’s Plains GA in 1977; the Eisenhower library in KS; a couple of tours of Harry and Bess Truman’s home in Independence MO, and the Truman Library; the Bill Clinton Library in Little Rock; Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson’s home in Texas…plus the house where LBJ grew up; Abe Lincolns home, tomb and environment in IL several times and his KY birthplace; George and Laura Bush’s Crawford TX. Perhaps I’m missing one or two….
June 20, 2003, I traveled out to suburban Minneapolis to perhaps catch a glimpse of President George W. Bush as he came to a meeting at a small manufacturing facility. The meeting was so closed, and Bush was so elusive, that even his supporters who wanted to at least see the limo didn’t know he had arrived and gone in a back way…and they were irritated, to put it mildly. The only way any of us knew GWB was inside was when a cheer came through the walls of the building he was in. To get into a Bush event, you needed to be vetted and ticketed: it was invitation only. The common scrum? Forget it, even if you were a loyal Republican.
Then came Saturday, October 23, 2010. President Barack Obama came to town to stump for Minnesota Democratic Party candidates (DFL), especially for gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton. What a day. (Some photos at the end of this post.) No ticketing. Come as you are, first come, first admitted.

I don’t know how large the crowd was Saturday, but it certainly filled the University of Minnesota fieldhouse (capacity 7000) to the brim, and apparently there was closed circuit television outside for those who could not get in. It was a responsive, yet very polite group. It appeared that at least a majority were students, perhaps a large majority. And they were enthusiastic. There was no comparison with the 2003 Bush event.
In these still-charged days of paranoia around ‘terrorists’, going to yesterday’s gathering was a breath of fresh air. Security was crisp and quick but non-intrusive: clear rules, but a welcoming place. This I also experienced a while back at another event featuring Vice-President Joe Biden.
Having a Press Pass gave me an excellent vantage point, and much more freedom of movement than those who patiently stood in line for at least a couple of hours to get inside the Fieldhouse.
President Obama made his entrance, and his exit, in close proximity to, and engaged with the people in the hall. His stump speech, even with the terrible acoustics of the Fieldhouse, was powerful, and elicited a very loud and positive response. (Originally the event had been planned for outdoors, but they weren’t sure of the weather and moved inside.)
A few protestors were outside, but no heckling indoors. A couple of people fainted…those were the only tense moments.
An appearance by the President of the United States does not decide an election, but one gets an impression of leadership and without a doubt the assembled group left highly energized and ready to work.

Part of the long line on the Northrop Mall waiting for the doors to open.


A view of the crowd, President Obama at right.


The President speaking to the crowd


There might be some pessimism in some quarters, and some glee in others, that Obama and the Democrats have lost their competitive edge – that they’re just “Republican lite”.
That certainly wasn’t in evidence at the University of Minnesota Saturday.
As for the Republicans vs Democrats: the Democrats are working very hard and in a positive direction; there are two Republican parties currently at war with each other, and the one currently in control is one which inspires much more fear than it does confidence. Today’s Republican Party is not the party of Dwight Eisenhower.
Related, here.
Video of President Obama’s remarks in Minneapolis here.

#262 – Dick Bernard: A reflective moment

Earlier this morning I was at my daily hangout, the Caribou Coffee in Woodbury MN. It’s been my daily day-opener for ten years now. I like the place and the people – regulars and staff. I guess it could be considered part of my daily ritual.
One of the staff came by this morning, noting I seemed deep in thought. I was.
Indeed, thinking is an important part of every day for me, legal pad in front of me, newspaper, oft-times other things. Most every day, Caribou is where I gear up for the day ahead.
Today is an unusual day.
President Obama is in town, and I plan to go. I decided, somewhat on spur of the moment earlier this week, to request a Press Pass, and an e-mail late last night confirmed I am on the approved list. My “street creds” are 262 blog postings at this site. That’s it. This is the first time I’ve ever been part of the Press Pool, so to speak. I’ll report on that experience tomorrow.
Earlier this morning I had read the entirety of the opinion page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, specifically three commentaries generally on the upcoming election by J. Brian Atwood, Syl Jones and Johnathan Gurwitz. Brian Atwood and Syl Jones know me – I hope positively; I’ve met them both; Johnathan Gurwitz is off my radar. All three columns are well worth the time to read.
I was most interested in the Gurwitz commentary, which distressingly reflects today’s American electorate, and I fixed mostly on this quotation which led his column “When workers in the former East Germany had the temerity to rise up against their Marxist masters in 1953, members of the communist Writers Union distributed leaflets demanding that the workers labor twice as hard to win back the confidence of the government.”
I’ll take Gurwitz at his word – that his quote accurately reflects the history.
When the Caribou staffer walked by this morning, I was thinking specifically about the Gurwitz commentary, and I had hen-scratched onto my note pad a few random thoughts:
1. East Germany workers and others did indeed tear down the Berlin wall, but it took 36 years after 1953 to accomplish this, and it was not the mythological Ronald Reagan who hurried the deed by saying “tear down this wall” in 1987; it was the East Germans themselves (late 1989). The East German regime in 1953 outlasted 23 years of Republican U.S. Presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan; and 13 years of Democrat Presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter.
“Power to the People” is not a spectator sport. “Throw the bums out”, a common contemporary narrative of the “populists” and their spokespeople and backers, is more than angrily marking a ballot in the passion of the moment.
2. There is a distressing – and exploited – tendency for people to make decisions based on Anger. Anger is not a good emotion on which to make short or long-term decisions. Prisons are full of people who killed somebody in Anger, and felt good about it afterward – only waking up later to the consequences of their deed. Making decisions based on National Anger is unproductive and dangerous. (The root of “Decide”, is the same root as for words like “suicide”, “homicide”….)
3. We are a society full of people who are, at best, half-empty on essential information on which to make informed decisions. Too many don’t know the other side of the story, and furthermore, don’t want to know. Worse, we often focus on our own side of our own single issue, as if it is the only thing that matters. Then we associate only with people who agree with our point of view. This is not healthy. Neither is it healthy to take an anti-intellectual position. We need people who are able to think things through and make wise decisions based on complex data.
Shortly I’ll leave to see the President. If past is prelude: it is an investment of an entire afternoon, mostly waiting. He will probably speak for 20 minutes or so, which will then be distilled down into perhaps a maximum of a minute max of sound bites for television, two minute total segment, and summary reports in tomorrows papers.
More tomorrow.
More personal thoughts on Election 2010 here.

#261 – Dick Bernard: Honor and Respect for those of the GLBT Community

Today came an unexpected video featuring Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (There may be an annoying ad for a few seconds prior to the 2 1/2 minute clip. Just let it play through.)
The video speaks profoundly for itself.
It reminded me of a copy of a letter which came into my possession some years ago, and which I again came across recently while sorting assorted papers.
The letter was dated July 26, 1991, and was written anonymously to a prominent Catholic Pastor in a major city. The Pastor has long been dead, and the letter was found among his papers. I know the name of the Priest and his Parish, but in this post nothing which identifies either will be included. It is the content which is important. It is not known if the writer was male or female, or if the meeting suggested in the second to last sentence was ever held.
The letter is intended solely to encourage personal reflection and action to change hearts and minds and policies, too. It is from one person to another. It has application to us all.
July 26, 1991
Dear ___:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1991, [church bulletin column] which has left me deeply saddened. I am referring to the News Item about the Presbyterians rejecting the ordination of Gays, etc., and the fact that you found this rejection “especially encouraging” and “The ___ Plain Talk – nice sounding words that are used to hide the real nature of sodomy…alternative life style, sexual preference, and so on….”
There are many things I would wish to say about the Church – about power and authoritarianism, about narrow sexual boundaries, about celibates speaking to conjugal love. But I fear it “would fall on deaf ears”. So I shall just speak to you from my heart.
I am Gay – as are 10% of all the parishioners’ you gaze out upon on a Sunday morning (or any other day). You shake our hands and wish us “Peace”, but you do not know us because we are invisible. Gay people who belong to [our church] are not ordinarily out marching in Gay Pride parades. We do not belong to Act Up which recently came to [the church] and embarrassed you and us by their radical rabble rousing. They represent the tiniest minuscule part of the Gay Community; they do not speak for anyone but themselves, anymore than Bishop LeFebvre spoke for all Catholics.
We are lawyers and doctors and librarians and brick layers and computer operators and musicians (and, yes, we are also Priests and Religious in the broad community). We sit quietly in the pews and listen to sermons (good ones!) about loving one another and how much God loves us. In the [parish hall] we shake your hand and say how glad we are to see you (and we are!) and receive your ebullient greeting in return. But you don’t know us.
We are proud to have our own [names recognized for accomplishments] up for all to see in little bronze plaques. We belong to [this church] and are thrilled to be a part of your visionary and splendid building program. But you do not know us and do not love us in Christ.
We sing in the Choir, serve on your Boards, are Eucharistic Ministers and Lectors, are enthusiastic members of the Youth Group and support [this church] financially. But you do not know who we are. You do not know us or love us.
We do not choose to be Gay. Why on earth would anyone choose to be Gay? Why would anyone choose to be a member of a despised minority, to be isolated, maligned, rejected, hated, outcasts in our own Church or even in our own parish? No, we have not chosen to be Gay anymore than you have chosen the color of your eyes.
The Lord God made us just as we are – Gay and straight. He did not say we are “intrinsically evil” (though the official Church does). He said “I have loved you with an everlasting love,” and “I have written you on the palm of my hand and you are mine.” He did not say anywhere that He meant only straight people.
Homophobia is a horrid word. Often it is overt and blatantly ugly. But more often it can be subtle and hidden: Love the Gay person and hate his/her lifestyle. We are all of a piece, [Father], just as you are. Our actions, our loves and loving flow out of who we are, just as yours do. To compartmentalize us and say we are human beings made in the image of God, intelligent, caring, passionate – and then to say we must not ever show anyone that love, and sometimes show it physically, seems nothing short of ludicrous. it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
Hypocrisy is ugly, too, particularly when it thunders down from the highest places in the Church. Gentle shepherds have cried out against it in anguish (the Hunthausens and Weaklands and McNeils and Currans and Callahans), but they are quickly overpowered and forced into submission and silence.
And where is Christ in all of this?
I beg you to go into the chapel in a quiet time – to sit in the very presence of Jesus Christ. Ask Him to tell you how He feels about us. he did say, “I want to gather them under my wings as a mother hen gathers the chicks and you would not.”
I honor you, [Father] as a pastor of great vision, but I weep for you and the Church when true Christ-like qualities of compassion, mercy, understanding, acceptance, and unqualified love are crushed by allegiance to the narrow boundaries of the power structure of the Church. Perhaps when you sit before the Christ, He too will be weeping.
I go on loving this Church and staying in it because it is Jesus Christ. You must not try to drive me out when it is He who invited me in.
I do not sign this (though I deplore anonymous letters) because I fear subtle retaliation. Before you go, I will come to you and tell you who I am. In the meantime, you do indeed know me, but you do not love me
.”
Related post is here.

#260 – Dick Bernard: The Honeymoon Trip; and "I hope he fails."

This post is about American politics. I have made it a practice to be well informed politically, and this has been a practice for many years.
This post – in two segments – is considerably longer than most items I write (several typewritten pages). Please don’t let that deter you. Some things cannot be summarized in a few words. (While my ‘base’ is in Minnesota – I’ve lived here for the last 45 of my 70 years – I know enough about the national scene to be aware that what is happening in my state is happening in varied ways in other places as well.)
My point of reference: since the beginning of this blog a year and a half ago, I’ve identified myself as a “moderate, pragmatic Democrat“. I’m comfortable with that label. Please don’t let that deter you. A trait I share with most liberals I know is a basic and very positive conservatism. We are not reckless. We seem more ‘conservative’ than most of those who proudly label themselves ‘conservative’. My best political friend till his passing several years ago was a retired Republican Governor of MN. Were he alive today, I’d likely be very favorable to Dwight D. Eisenhower as President. He was President in my high school and college years. I am active on the local level in the Democratic party. I care deeply about where our country is headed.
*
Part I: The Honeymoon Trip:
October 30, 2000, my wife Cathy and I flew to Washington D.C. to begin a short trip after our marriage.
We had planned this honeymoon trip for some time, and divided the week into two segments: the first in Washington, D.C.; the second in Concord, MA.
This happened to be a Presidential election year. A bit earlier in October I had sent my personal ‘campaign’ letter regarding the 2000 Presidential election to family, friends and colleagues. (If interested, here it is:family letter oct 2000001.)
Among our stops in Washington were tours of the White House and U.S. Capitol, as well as a few other ‘high spots’ of tourist DC.
At the Capitol, we learned that the U.S. House of Representatives was having an unexpected evening session on Halloween, October 31, so we contacted our local Congressman’s office, and got gallery tickets.

U.S. Capitol October 31, 2000


There were about a dozen of us in the gallery that evening, strangers all. It was against the rules to take photographs, so I had to leave my camera with the guards. What we witnessed ten years ago was at the same time fascinating and deeply troubling.
Down on the floor of the House, the issue was Ergonomics legislation. Congresspeople were speaking to the C-SPAN camera, while to their left and to their right were two gaggles of Representatives, with only a few people actually sitting down. The gaggles were not paying any attention to the debate, and were clearly of opposing political parties. (That evening, and for the previous five years, the U.S. House of Representatives was dominated by the radical right wing of the Republican party, as was the U.S. Senate.Congress and Presidency001).
The scene that Halloween was sufficiently odd so that a Congressman came up to the gallery to visit with us. He introduced himself as a Republican Congressman from Illinois and he was a very nice man. He was there to apologize, personally, to us for what we were witnessing below – essentially, the obvious division and lack of decorum in the House of Representatives of which he was a member.
I would give you the Congressman’s name, but I don’t recall it. Rules didn’t allow us to record the proceedings in the House. He wasn’t running for reelection, and besides, his House district was to be reconfigured as a result of the 2000 census. All I recall was that he was a very decent individual, embarrassed by the spectacle we were seeing in his and our “House”. I often wonder where he is today, and what he really thinks about today’s polarized politics.
Evening session concluded, and another day or so in Washington on vacation, and we left for Concord MA to visit our friend, Catherine. Concord is home, of course, to great names of history: Louisa May Alcott, Henry David Thoreau; Ralph Waldo Emerson; the Concord Bridge…. Historic Concord even today is a relatively small town, but a tour of the cemetery is a tour through the riches of American history from near the beginning of the United States. We saw the sites. Concord is an ancient epicenter that modern “Patriots” seem to like to imagine might be “the good old days.” We walked the Concord bridge, and we walked from downtown Concord to the famous Walden Pond.
We arrived back home in time to vote in the 2000 election. As all will still remember, the Presidency was decided that year by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, ‘and the rest is history’.
None of us had any way of knowing what was ahead of us then.
Now, ten years later, we have a better idea of acts and their consequences, and we’re about to cast our votes again, this time in an ‘off-year’ election for every one of our Congresspeople, many Senators and Governors, to say nothing at all about other offices. In many ways, this years election is more important than the Presidential election in 2000.
*
Part II: “I hope he fails.”
2010 is a year where our vote will matter and matter immensely, perhaps more so than any time in American history. We are at a fork in the national road. (Karl Rove’s bunch has chosen to call this “fork” an “American Crossroads”. They’re working for a restoration of radical control of government. There is an ideological war in progress in which we may already be victims, regardless of ‘side’. This is not about “Republican” or “conservative”. Be very careful what you hope for.
What Cathy and I witnessed on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives October 31, 2000, was juvenile and small-time compared with what is happening today, only two weeks till the 2010 election. What was in the open in 2000, is now covert and thus far more dangerous to our republic and democratic form of government.
Back in January, 2009, even before President Obama was sworn into office, Rush Limbaugh made what many thought was an outrageous statement about the incoming President: I hope he [Obama] fails.” How could any citizen of this country want their President to fail, much less crow about it? But Limbaugh did publicly make that declaration, and in the entirety of Obama’s term, now 21 months old, and that of the Democrat Congress and Senate that came in with him, every effort has been made by the opposition to make sure essential reforms fail. “Throw it out and start over.” For them, “success” is “failure”, or as near as possible to failure. This has played out through a Republican minority in Congress and Senate that are virtually unanimous in voting against or dismissing anything, however watered down it might be, which might be considered major reform initiatives. In my state (and doubtless most others with Republican Governors and Attorneys General) there have been similar actions against “Obamacare”, economic stimulus, etc.
There is a logical piece of rationale for rejoicing over failure: if the people can be made to despise their ‘government’, then it is easier to campaign against that government, and it facilitates taking control of that very government we have learned to despise. It is counter-productive to the functioning of a free society, but it works well politically – “throw ’em out”.
Big business is a big part of the current problem. It has had, it has been reliably reported for some months, piles of unused money, which could create tens of thousands of jobs and help with the economic recovery, but they are cynically sitting on their bankrolls. The very wealthy and the very powerful feel threatened, and use the tools at their disposal to convince the vast majority of us to give in to their demands.
President Obama and the Democrats have been blamed for the economic crisis and debt that they inherited less than two years ago, which came from eight years of spending on a national credit card between 2001 and 2009.
The facts to substantiate all of this are easily accessible to anyone who cares to look. Most do not care to look. Some celebrate the alleged failure of reform, and keep working to make sure that failure continues. Some demand instant and unqualified success, which is equally unrealistic. Those who celebrate failure are celebrating their own failure.
We are dealing, this year, with Corporations which have won the legal right to present themselves as “citizens” with full rights and privileges to spend tens to most likely hundreds of millions of dollars on well disguised attack advertising, most of which is anonymously funded and innocuously named. This is new and unique in recent U.S. history. The floodgates opened with the Citizens United case a few months ago. Major players like the big-business centered U.S. Chamber of Commerce are effectively orchestrating the campaign, largely in advertising.
We have a supposedly populist and individualistic Tea Party movement which apparently, without most of its members knowledge, was organized and is tied together with and has been largely funded by the the wealthiest among us. Wealth effectively calls the shots, stirring up anger, and really could care less about the Tea Party members populist concerns or long term interests; but cynically uses these anti-government types as its ‘base’. (The Tea Partiers do not own exclusively concerns about their national government. But overthrow is not reform.)
In my own state, the Archbishop of my own Church recently accepted an acknowledged immense contribution from an anonymous donor who may or may not even be from my state to attempt to influence the vote on MN political races through hundreds of thousands of DVDs mailed to all Catholics in Minnesota. The anonymous donation is likely tax deductible, and the donors anonymity is protected, and the separation of Church and State is difficult to effectively challenge: the Church has good lawyers and public relations people too, and they can find the loopholes and develop the public relations ‘cover’ that ordinary people cannot. This is a matter of great concern to me. It should be of great concern to everyone, even those who might agree with the position taken or the politicians effectively supported by this free and anonymous political advertising.
The Congresswoman who (unfortunately, in my opinion) represents me in my Congressional District has raised over $10 million in campaign contributions – a record in the entire United States, I understand. Most of this funding comes from outside her district, and probably most of that from outside the state of Minnesota as well. Money buys those offensive attack ads. She is a national spokesperson of the Tea Party fringe, and revels in that designation…and could care less about her constituents in our 6th Congressional District. I’m one whose policy question, respectfully and properly submitted to her office a year ago, which was a simple question to answer, was ignored not once, but five times. The question was never answered, even though it related to a position the Congresswoman was on record about.
It wasn’t as if she was far away or too busy. She and I live in the same community, she has a large staff, and one of her offices is in this community as well.
Bluntly, at stake in this election in every place in this country is power and control by interests who do not care about the well-being of the vast majority of the citizens of this country.
We are well advised to be very careful what we listen to and who we ultimately vote for November 2, 2010.
If you wish to see needed reform continue, now is definitely NOT the time for a change. If we wish to assure catastrophic results, put the radical faction of Republicans back in charge of House and Senate November 2, and effectively derail reform and eliminate reforms made in the last two years. It is as simple as that.

Other recent posts on this general issue: here, here and here.
Other recent posts on other topics: here, here and here.

#259 – Dick Bernard: "Capitalism saved the day in Chile"?

Previous post on the rescue of the Chilean miners here.
Saturday’s Minneapolis-Star Tribune carried a column by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) entitled “Capitalism saved the day in Chile”. The column is here, though WSJ rules say it is available for only seven days from the October 14, 2010, publication date.
The column speaks for itself, as does a critical analysis of the column by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in the Media).
Personally, the WSJ column, predictable as it is, in companion with another point of view, from FAIR, is that single dimension arguments are effective only when they are conveyed in an ‘echo chamber’ accepting only a single point of view. There is always another side to the story. As FAIR points out, Henninger focuses on a single contribution of Capitalism to the rescue, essentially without comment on anything else.