En Avant: A Significant Film Work in Progress on the French presence in Minnesota

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

UPDATE: May 29, 2013: Here’s a 5-minute preview of the film. Note that it may take a bit of time to download, and that a password is required to access: the password is: enavant2013
French film producer and director Christine Loys has released this up-to-date precis about her project: Précis 130513
*
An important film on the French presence in Minnesota, En Avant, is being prepared for production and at some point in the future will be released in France and in Minnesota.
At a special event at Alliance Francaise Minneapolis, on October 10, 2012, explorer and environmental advocate Will Steger of Ely, made brief introductory remarks before a discussion about the En Avant project.
(click on photos to enlarge)

Will Steger at En Avant introduction at Alliance Francaise Minneapolis MN October 10, 2012


Why Will? The answer lies in one of those serendipity things some people call coincidences, but which to me have more of an “unseen hand” aspect to them. Christine: “Will Steger was there as my special guest because he was the first person to introduce me to Minnesota.”
Most Minnesotans know that back in April, 1986, Richfield native Will Steger led an intrepid group of adventurers on a trip by dogsled to the North Pole.
The adventure was successful, and back at home, on a chilly May day, I was among those who gathered outside the Minnesota state capitol for the welcome home. Theirs was a thrilling accomplishment.
At the time, there had been a small piece of news about a rather astonishing meetup on the Polar icecap on the 1986 adventure. It is best described by Jon Bowermaster, with this recollection by Will Steger:
“As I skied the last half mile [of the Antarctic crossing in 1989] I could not erase from my mind a picture of another time, another cold place. It was April 1986, the middle of the frozen Arctic Ocean, when [French doctor] Jean-Louis [Etienne] and I first met. He stepped to the top of a ridge of jumbled sea ice, seemingly out of nowhere, and we embraced, like brothers, though we’d never even been introduced. Everything that we’d done these past years evolved from that fated moment, from that embrace. We had turned our dreams – about adventure and cooperation, about preservation and the environment – into realities. We had the confidence to take risks, and the scene splayed in front of us now was our reward, our affirmation.
The Soviets had marked our entryway with red flags and made a Finish line. A gathering of one hundred, speaking a dozen different languages, swarmed around us as we came down the flag bedecked chute. As I called my dogs to a stop one last time and stepped out of my skis, Jean-Louis walked toward me. I lifted Sam onto my shoulder and Jean-Louis – completing the circle begun those years ago in the middle of the Arctic Ocean – wrapped us both in a bear hug.”
Back in France, Christine Loys, a photo journalist who initially was a friend of Dr. Etienne when he made his solo trek, became part of the Transantarctica expedition whose co-leaders were Will Steger and Dr Jean-Louis Etienne.

Will Steger, Christine Loys, Jean-Louis Etienne, 2009 in Paris, after Will had given a talk on climate change at the U.S. Embassy


Some time later, Ms Loys made a trip to this mysterious place called Minnesota, and in her journey through our state was startled to see French name after French name…towns, lakes, etc.
She learned that the motto of Minnesota is in French, L’Etoile du Nord; and that the motto of Minneapolis is En Avant, meaning “Forward”.
The French knew much about Quebec, and the French antecedents of Louisiana, but very little about this apparently French-drenched place called Minnesota, and Christine went to work.
The idea for a movie about the French in Minnesota was born, from the earliest days of people like Fr. Hennepin, to the present world-known Guthrie Theatre, designed by the French architect Atelier Jean Nouvel, which overlooks the very falls of St. Anthony which Frenchman Fr. Louis Hennepin saw and named in 1680.
Ms Loys hard work continues as she returns to France for some months, with plans to return to the Minnesota in 2013.
We wish her well.

Panelists at Alliance Francaise October 10, 2012


Panelists from left to right: Pierce McNally, attorney; Jérôme Chateau, CEP Normande Genetics, former President of the French American Chamber of Commerce (FACC) and today Vice President of FACC; François Fouquerel, Dean of “Les Voyageurs” at Concordia Language Villages; Robert Durant, Treasury/Secretary at the tribal Counsel of White Earth; Bob Perrizo, artist, journalist, writer, historian
Also speaking was Barbara Johnson, President of the City Council of Minneapolis who made the introduction. She is a descent of the French. Her maiden name is Rainville.
Dick Bernard was invited to make some remarks representing the 2012 Franco-Fete committee, of which five members were in attendance at the gathering.
This is also posted also here.

#649 Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #66. Your Thoughts about What November 6 means; and a memory of a long-ago and very significant political event in Minnesota.

/1 Comment/in , /by

Here is data about the November 6 elections, MN local and state and National.
(click on photos to enlarge)

At a Minnesota polling place November 6, 2012


If you wish, send me your brief comment about the meaning of yesterdays vote and I’ll post it here. Keep it very brief, perhaps a paragraph. Send to dick_bernardATmeDOTcom. Unless you specifically say otherwise, I’ll assume that I have permission to use your comment. I will include your full name and your state.
Working on another project on election day, yesterday, I had reason to look at a historic Minnesota document which likely very few have ever seen, from March 5, 1968 (See photo, click to enlarge). My thanks and credit to long-retired businessman Lynn Elling of Minneapolis for the major part he played in this long forgotten Declaration of World Citizenship that came to be only 44 years ago.

Minneapolis MN Declaration of World Citizenship March 5, 1968


Note especially the signatories on the Declaration*. They are of all the major Minneapolis and Minnesota political luminaries of the time, Republican and Democrat, religious leaders, etc. (The out of place signature you’ll see in the lower right hand corner is that of Marshall Tito of then-Yugoslavia, who the Ellings visited in person in then-Yugoslavia and who signed the document for them.)
Within the signature block was this statement: “This is the first American community that we know of to take such action. We hope that many other cities and counties will follow this example whch is a valuable step in building a world community and world peace.”
The story of this document can be found here. Scroll to the very end of the faqs and read the comment from former Minnesota Republican Governor Elmer L. Andersen in his book, I Trust to be Believed.
Look here for the Minnesota version of this Declaration, issued three years later. Again, note the signatories. And watch the made-in-Minnesota movie from 1972 that is archived there..
Yes, both documents came to be controversial in their time. But for a time in our own recent Minnesota history, there was true bipartisan political will by our leaders to work for a better world, one in which all of us were citizens.
We tend to forget that the term “politician” applies to each and every one of us. It is not “them”. Yes, political leaders try to move agendas, but over and over again I read comments from even the highest of the high and mighty that they do pay lots of attention to the will of the people.
The people simply have to work cooperatively for a goal.
Lynn Elling, retired WWII and Korea Naval officer, is still very much alive and willing to talk about the history of these declarations. Let me know, and I’ll see if a talk can be arranged.
The day after: outside Caribou Coffee, Woodbury, November 7, 2012
* – The Signers of the Minneapolis and Hennepin County Declaration of World Citizenship March 5, 1968:
Chair, Henn. Co Board of Commissioners Robert Janes; Mayor of Minneapolis Arthur Naftalin; President Minneapolis City Council Daniel Cohen; Gov. Harold Levander; Oscar Knutson, Chief Justice Minnesota Supreme Court; Eli Kahn, President Minnesota Rabbinical Association; Congressman Don Fraser; Chairs of Minnesota Republican and DFL parties, George Thiss and Warren Spannaus; Aux. Bishop of Catholic Archdiocese James Shannon; Irene Janski, President of MN League of Women Voters; President MN United World Federalists, Sidney Feinberg, Minnesota State Bar Assoc; Harold Greenwood Jr, United Nations Association of Minnesota.

Lawn Sign Woodbury MN November 7, 2012


For previous Election 2012 entries, simply type the words Election 2012 in Search Box and click enter. See especially post for November 6.
My personal comment: I was an election judge in my community in 2010; and a voter in 2012. In 2010 I noticed the relatively small turnout and the palpable anger coming in the door of the polling place; yesterday, I noticed a very heavy turnout and a very serious demeanor of the voters when we voted at about 10:30 a.m.
Now, your turn. NOTE: there will also be responses included at the end of this post. Don’t miss them.
Will Shapira, Minnesota: You read it here first months ago: Romney himself was the guarantor of Obama’s re-election. In 2008, we voted for Obama and got Bush III. Now, with no re-election hanging over his head, Obama can rule with impunity and you can expect drones hanging over many heads, at home and abroad, and an entire new litany of oligarchical, plutocratic war crimes as well, executed in the name of hegemonic capitalism.
Those of you who campaigned for him, donated to him and voted for him are now responsible for him for the next four years. When you stop celebrating, you can begin calling him to account.
Sunday, Nov. 11, Veterans Day/Armistice Day would be the perfect time to begin by speaking out for PFC Bradley Manning who has embarrassed the Obama regime with his and Julian Assange’s historic, heroic Wikileaks revelations.
Since AG Holder serves at the pleasure of the President, do not expect anything from him, DOJ and war criminal Secretary Leon Panetta when it comes to advocating for fair treatment of Bradley Manning humanely when he soon will have has his day in what could well be an Obama-curated kangaroo court.
May I remind you to read the Nov. 11 Star Tribune’s special ad section for Veterans Day and when you see my ad on behalf of PFC Manning and perhaps others, do not hesitate to write letters to the editor in support of Bradley Manning opinion@startribune.com and demand fair treatment for him in prison now and soon in court.
And when my friends and colleagues in Twin Cities Chapter of 27 of Veterans for Peace orchestrate the ringing of the bells of peace next Sunday, also remember this from John Donne’s Meditation XVII:”…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Jeff Pricco, Minnesota:
Congratulations to Minnesotans on once again showing common sense in voting No and No twice!
Also on proving that 2010’s Republican state legislature “victory” was as I said then, a mile wide and an inch deep.
I enjoyed Lori Sturdevant’s comment that she looked forward to covering an undivided state govt for the next 2 years, and having to report on the usual squabbles of the DFL… the herding of cats!
Nationally I am not surprised , it went pretty much as I expected for Obama, although I was surprised in wins in VA and FL.
I expect to see (and hope they are not brain dead) the Dems pursue immigration reform and other legislative and regulatory reforms that speak to the Hispanic and general immigrant community, and as I said before I expect to see the GOP face a soul search on this issue… do they continue with the Tea Party and the Knuckledraggers and Limbaugh/Savage? Or do they also see the future in gaining a larger share of the Hispanic Vote? I believe the GOP has a good case to make , as many Hispanic voters often are sympathetic to the social stands of the GOP. It should be very interesting.
SAK, London England:
Congratulations of course.
And let us take a moment to remember an aspect of the presidency & times of LBJ – race was then a seriously divisive issue, hence his declaration:
“There is no Southern problem. There is no Northern problem. There is only an American problem. And we are met here tonight as Americans–not as Democrats or Republicans-we are met here as Americans to solve that problem.”
Let us hope that Obama in his second term will be as effective as LBJ undeniably was because what we have now is not a liberal problem; it is not a conservative problem; it is not a rich problem or a poor problem. It is a global problem.
Cheers,
Dick Bernard Nov. 9, 2012: I’ve been watching and reading quite a lot about the meaning of what happened on Tuesday night. A good summary is provided by my favorite blogger here. His ‘cut and paste’ from other commentators left and right reminds me of Nate Silver, who accurately predicts election, largely, it seems, by aggregating all of the polls to get a larger and thus far more accurate sample.
At some point, Silver will blow it, like Karl Rove did on Tuesday, but so far Silver manages to catch a wave of reality, where others dwell in wishful thinking.
When I put together the above piece the day after the election, I focused on two things:
1) as powerfully demonstrated by those 1968 and 1971 declarations – in times when we were intensely divided as a people over Vietnam – powerful people of very different points of view came together to suggest a different direction; a different path.
(I know a fair amount of the back-story of how those Declarations came to be. The key leaders were Republicans who were not at the time elected leaders, and thus were not signers, but were very much part of building the narrative that led to the Declarations.)
I think I see coming together in common cause happening again, most dramatically with former Republican Governor Arne Carlson and present Democrat Governor Mark Dayton appearing together in a brilliantly produced and timed ad urging that the Voter ID amendment be sent back to the legislature for a redo. The Governors didn’t defeat the amendment unilaterally, but their ad sure helped at a crucial moment.
(Though I’m liberal, I’ve long admired Arne Carlson. He is no stranger to courage. We first saw him maybe six years ago in the yard of Rebecca and Shawn Otto, standing with former Vice-President Walter Mondale, endorsing DFLer Otto for State Auditor – an office she still holds. He knew something about her, and he gave public witness. It was a ‘goosebump’ moment to see he and Walter Mondale standing together on that suburban lawn.)
The movers and shakers who worked together back in 1968 and 1971 are mostly dead now, but there is a new generation working quietly and effectively for a new course in how we are as a people. These quiet leaders – Democrat and Republican – are not publicly seen or heard very often, but they’re talking with each other about how to change our polarized and destructive course.
2) The other observation I made above, on November 7, was this: “I was an election judge in my community in 2010; and a voter in 2012. In 2010 I noticed the relatively small turnout and the palpable anger coming in the door of the polling place; yesterday, I noticed a very heavy turnout and a very serious demeanor of the voters when we voted at about 10:30 a.m.”
When we election judges huddled after the tallies were made in the precinct we knew – all of us, Republican and Democrat and Independent – what that small turnout and angry feeling meant.
The Republicans won that precinct easily, in every election of any consequence.
Too many Democrats had stayed home.
I have frequently observed, since that Tea Party near-sweep in 2010 (which will still be very much with us in the 2012 House of Representatives and many state Governorships and legislatures and even the Senate), that the angry conservative switch happened not because the Tea Party et al had such good ideas, but more so that the more liberal left first helped elect President Obama, thought voting him in was all they needed to do, thus making him responsible for outcomes that were impossible for him to achieve, and refusing to do much other than make demands and complain about how he wasn’t even liberal. Many were so terminally angry they did not vote at all in 2010.
Voting three days ago on Tuesday (if you did), was not a destination, it was a beginning of your – and our –day-to-day work for a better future for us all.
We are a changing country, and I’m still getting that stuff from the Angry Old White Men contingent that suggests they just don’t/won’t get it. But their influence is dwindling, and that terrifies them, and we can help find a better way.
There is a better future, but only if we are ALL engaged in building it.
Let’s not only get to work, but stay at work.

#648 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #65. Where we citizens fit in this political mess.

/0 Comments/in /by

This is written to you, and to everyone, including myself, who considers themselves an eligible voter in the United States of America.
Thank you for opening this post.
Perhaps most of us who can have already voted, or will vote today. Perhaps most who vote will have taken at least a little bit of time to think about why they are voting for the candidates they support, and the long term implications of their vote.
Wednesday November 7 it will all be over, and we’ll know what we decided for the next two years. Two years from now will be another election….
Our democracy is, however, at grave risk, far worse than most of us would like to imagine. This takes many forms.
Here’s an at-home example.
Yesterday, in preparing #64, I had occasion to refer back to a letter I had written to family, colleagues and friends on October 24, 2000 about the upcoming presidential election then. The entire text of the letter, which I either hand-delivered or sent U.S. mail, is here: Election 2000001
Near the end of that letter I said this: “A while ago, a piece of information came across public radio that in 1996 $150 million was contributed for political campaigns; this went up to $300 million in 1998; and is expected to top $750 million this year. Most of this came from organized “special interests”, and most of these are the rich or those who have access to a great deal of money for political influence.”
Last night, on CBS evening news, it was estimated that $2 billion has been spent on the 2012 campaign for President. I have heard an estimate of $6 billion being spent for all races in all places in 2012. It is a financial bonanza for businesses like TV stations, etc.
Candidates cannot unilaterally disarm. They must raise and spend money.
We all know how this looks. It differs from town to town. But in many ways it’s the same everywhere.
In my own state legislative district, population approximately 70,000 or so, an incumbent candidate for state Senate did not send out a single piece of political advertising (the kind of information that we receive in our mailbox) through his own committee .
OK, you say?
For that same candidate, from the State Republican Party, came five pieces of literature either promoting his candidacy, or slamming his opponent. Another 17 mailers, all similar in content to those mailed by the Republicans, came from six assorted independent expenditure outfits, all with positive sounding names, all very difficult to trace as to source of funding.
There was also a very expensive billboard paid for by independent expenditures, and some television advertising, all paid for by these independent expenditures.
If you’re counting, that’s 22 “independent” pieces mailed to thousands of mail boxes in my town.
It was obvious that the independent expenditures were in some way coordinated.
The Democrat opponent sent out her own mailing through her own committees funds. There were two outside mailers from the state Democratic party, promoting her, and slamming the opponent.
Is this how democracy is supposed to look? And if it looks like this today, what will it look like in two years, or four?
Will there be an end to elections period? Why not just take opinion polls in the 121 crucial swing counties (or is it 106 or some other number) of the 3077 counties in the United States, and winner take all. Don’t bother even having elections.
That leads to the entire question of voter suppression, happening in many ways in many places this year, including our own MN constitutional amendment proposal.
The democracy we take for granted is in peril, and no one but ourselves can fix it.
We individuals ARE the politicians we like to blame for the mess that we are in. Here’s something to help generate some thought:
Last week a friend sent along a recent sixteen minute video from a TEDx talk given in Florida by professor Peter T. Coleman of Columbia University. The video doesn’t mention one time the name of any political party or candidate. It summarizes the problem, and doesn’t give the solution.
The solution is up to us.
Take the time to watch it, think about it, and take action yourself, where you are, to halt our slide down the slippery slope to totalitarianism.
For all other related posts, enter/click on Election 2012 in the search box above. The entire list with topic heading will come up.

#647 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #64. Why I worry about a "President Mitt Romney"

/0 Comments/in /by

I’ve tried to be clear in my support for President Obama for reelection. Here and here are two independent and supportive views about President Obama.
October 15, 2012, my post about Mitt Romney included the following: “In the early months of this 2012 campaign season, I was really very neutral about Willard “Mitt” Romney…he seemed like a decent sort of moderate guy…To me, he seemed pretty reasonable compared with the others…As time has gone on, it has become impossible to divine where Mitt Romney stands on anything.”
He has been essentially totally opaque on what he really plans to do as President (he “has a plan”, he says); and has stone-walled reasonable requests for financial disclosure that all other candidates have granted. He has many things to hide, and he is brazenly announcing that he is hiding them. We’ll learn too late what they are.
Romney has been immensely successful in making money for himself, so plausibly his entire governing mindset will be that of an ultra wealthy businessman.
There is plenty of information around that should make the 98% (income under $250,000 a year) very concerned about Mitt Romney as President.
One of the best, very recent, came from President Clinton’s Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on November 3. It is short, and you can read it here.
There are many in the 98% (under $250,000 a year) who think they are the exception to the rule, and they merit the wealth they will surely attain in a Romney-America.
It just won’t happen.
Romney-land is for the very few elect.
There is another reason to be deeply concerned about a Romney Presidency.
As President Obama’s experience has demonstrated, while the President has some independent power, the real driving force in American policy is that single Congressperson you’ll elect tomorrow, and the two Senators you also elect from your state. They can work together with the President and with each other and keep the ship of state sailing relatively smoothly.
Or they can obstruct everything – working for the Presidents failure as they did the last four years.
Perhaps, tomorrow, Romney will be elected, and, let’s say, that the Republicans hold their majority in the House, and become a majority in the Senate.
Add Republican Governors and state legislatures controlled by Republicans, and the problem compounds.
Ah, Republican control will make for good times again, you say?
Not so fast.
Two sides can play by the same rules. There is no reason for the defeated Democrats to cooperate with the victorious Republicans. I am quite certain that this is a main reason why the Democrats, when they could have done so, did not change the cloture (filibuster) rule of 60 votes to end debate in the U.S. Senate. They were wisely thinking ahead to the possibility that they might be in the minority in 2013.
Even if Romney turns out to be moderate (I’ve seen no evidence that he will be other than a wealthy businessman who additionally learned the rules/roles as a bishop in a male-dominated authoritarian church), and even if he has comfortable majorities in House and Senate, Romney will be on a very, very short leash.
The win will have been achieved by Grover Norquist, Karl Rove and the others for whom Power has always been the only objective.
Of course, the win will only be temporary – nothing like this is ever permanent – and we’ll be miserable as it proceeds, but we’ll be stuck with what we chose, Tuesday, November 6.
Be wary. Choose wisely.
(For other related posts, enter/click Election 2012 in search box, and the list/topics will come up. There will be a followup post on ourselves and political reform election day.)
END NOTE: If you’re partisan, you can challenge my claim to be “moderate, pragmatic Democrat”. Fair enough. If you are interested in my personal mindset, pretty long term, here’s the letter I wrote October 24, 2000, to family and colleagues and friends about the soon-to-happen 2000 election. It speaks for itself. Election 2000001

#646 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #63. Your future is completely in your hands, now.

/3 Comments/in , , , , /by

The American people – of which you are one – decide their future on Tuesday, November 6.
The choice has never been more stark, at all levels, in all states.
If you are an ordinary person, as I am, and 98% or more of the American people are ordinary like me, you are well advised to vote your personal interest and vote straight ticket Democrat on Tuesday, November 6.
In my entire life, I have never been as partisan as I am right now.
I believe in a multi-party democracy; in the value of differences of opinion. I am as I’ve said publicly since I began this blog in 2009: a “moderate pragmatic Democrat….”
But today’s Republican party – indeed since at least 1995 – has become ever more radical, extreme, “take no prisoners”, win-at-any-cost. The objective is permanent control of government at all levels by a tiny fringe of amoral partisans. Their fantasy is no more permanently attainable than was Hitler’s Thousand-year Reich.
If you are looking for old-line moderate Republicans, you will be hard-pressed to find them in todays Republican party. They’ve been purged, or resigned, or relegated to minority status.
The Democrats are the party of moderation now, the reasonable party.
You’ll vote (or not vote at all). Maybe you’ve voted already.
Be careful. Your vote has consequences.
*
Tomorrow: What led to my decision to recommend a one-party vote this year?
Tuesday: We’re all responsible for this mess. What now?
(If you wonder what that #63 in the subject line means, simply put Election 2012 in the search box, click, and you’ll find a list of all the posts I’ve done on Election 2012, beginning 6 months ago. #1, March 18, 2012, is here.)
Check back Monday and Tuesday for #64 and #65.
Twice before, in 2011, I did extended series on political issues: 18 posts from Feb 17-March 20, 2011 on the Wisconsin Government shutdown; many posts from June 29 – August 8, 2011 on the Government shutdown crises both in Minnesota and the United States Government.
COMMENTS (note possible additional comments at the end of the blogpost itself):
From Bob in Ohio, Nov 4: What worries me most in this election is the level of general ignorance that pervades the electorate.
And I have little confidence in the voting system as we have learned all too well here in Ohio. The pressure on elected officials in the controlling party of the state to behave unethically to influence the elections is disgraceful.
I will be absolutely amazed if this election does not turn on some quirk in the system that most of us will not believe.
From Will, Minnesota, Nov. 4: The Republicans probably have the voting machines fixed in key states, Karl Rove is smarter than any Dems, any organization such as ACLU, CCR and we will enter the Second Dark Ages, for how long, who knows?

#645 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #62. Vote No on the so-called Marriage Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution.

/0 Comments/in , , /by

(click to enlarge)

Nov. 3, 2012 Woodbury MN


Recently, after Sunday Mass at my Catholic Church in Minneapolis, I was visiting with a fellow usher, and the visiting Priest came by for a donut and coffee.
My friend, like me a retired long-married man with children, asked the visiting Priest about the biblical history of the apparent injunction against homosexual relationships. The Priest said that this law was in prohibition of the reprehensible practice in war, then, where the victor took license to rape the vanquished.
Of course, this rape was usually imposed victorious male warrior on vanquished male warrior.
It certainly had nothing to do with love.
In asking my friend to verify my recollection of the conversation, he mentioned this in addition: “You are totally correct. My Lutheran minister neighbor also told me the Bible orders women who are menstruating to sit on the roof until clean. Further, the Good Book says that if a woman’s husband dies, the man’s brother is to marry her.
Same sex marriage issues are also on the ballot in Washington state, Maryland and Maine. If same sex marriages win in these states Minnesota will be at a competitive disadvantage in attracting and keeping talented people who are gay or lesbian. These people will have a reason, a mighty big reason to settle in any of these other states.”
Of course, this small story will not convince the true believers, led by the hierarchy of my own Catholic Church, that their interpretation is flawed. Today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune had an excellent column about the abuse of the term “natural law” when talking about things authoritatively.
Personally, I have long been engaged in family history study, and back in the 1990s a genealogist in Montreal sent me a copy of the marriage contract for my first Bernard ancestors in Quebec, in the year 1730.
Of course, at the time, if you came to Quebec you were Catholic, and thus, if you entered into a civil marriage contract – which was required by the state prior to the church nuptials – you were required to be married in the Roman Catholic Church. The necessary Civil Contract fulfilled Civil needs; the religious banns were separate and subsequent.
In the case of my ancestors, the Church matrimony came two weeks after their Civil Contract of Marriage.
I have long been intrigued by this civil contract, and rather than interpreting it, here is the contract in its entirety (the first page is a sample of the handwriting of the notary – just scroll to the translation which begins on page two): Quebec Marriage Cont001
At the very least, it is an interesting commentary of the relationship between Church and State in a place where there was only one sanctioned Church, and thus a single official belief.
Of course, 2012 Minnesota is not 1730 Quebec (nor is 2012 Quebec anything like its predecessor 182 years ago.)
I urge a no vote on this and the other amendment on Tuesday.

I’ve expressed my opinion to my Church leadership, that regardless of how the vote goes on Tuesday, the Catholic Church has been irrevocably damaged by the actions of its mean-spirited authoritarian leaders.
I won’t drop out of the Church, but it has certainly changed me, and I won’t be quiet.
UPDATE: November 7, 2012

Seen on a Woodbury Lawn, November 7, 2012

#644 – Dick Bernard: Election 2012 #61. The Personal Suicidal Decision of "Me" "Now" on the Voter Suppression Amendment.

/0 Comments/in /by

(click to enlarge)

Nov. 3, 2012 Woodbury MN


Playing frequently the last few days has been a 30 second commercial featuring seven supposed Minnesotans*, a grizzled military veteran, a farmer, a young mother, a young African American, a construction worker, an apparent homemaker, an apparent young voter…all urging an affirmative vote on the Voter Suppression amendment Nov. 6.
How short-sighted these wholesome looking folks are, I think.
They are being played for fools.
The website for the ad says that the group sponsoring it is “the official ballot committee established to pass the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment. Our founders have been leading the charge for Voter ID in Minnesota for the past 4 years”. There is no “ID” at the website about who those “founders” might happen to be. Nothing.
This is how well-funded stealth campaigns go.
Trick people into making bad and irreversible decisions that are suicidal later.
The “Vote No” side on this voter suppression issue, “Our Vote, Our Future“, is very transparent.
The “vote yes” actors and actresses – each of them in the long run – has pretty high odds of being caught in the buzzsaw which they now want to construct and turn on.
Their own right to vote doesn’t seem in jeopardy now, but it won’t last. Something WILL happen that will nudge them off the voting rolls; something they do not at this moment anticipate will ever happen.
The odds of their disenfranchising themselves is off-the-charts higher than the odds of “cheating” or “fraud” by someone else.
Here’s a personal example of how this amendment will likely work for those who naively think “it won’t happen to me”:
November 6 is the 26th biennial general election in which I’ve been eligible to vote.
The first, in 1962, I was 22 and in the United States Army (back then, you had to be 21 to vote.)
Personally, I’ve lived the last twelve years at the same address; I’m an ordinary individual; I haven’t had to deal with unplanned things, like hospitalizations and the like, near the time of an election.
But as I recalled those 26 elections, and where I was, then, in eight of the twenty-six – almost a third – I might have found myself outside the door, or provisionally voting, and by mistake or frustration simply not completing my vote.
And during those years I was just an ordinary individual, healthy, working, moving from place to place, etc.
In those 26 years, I only lived in my home state (my birth certificate state) one year, and in that year, I had been back for only three months, still a non-resident.
It takes time, effort and money to get a certified copy of one’s birth certificate.
For 36 of the years I lived in only four towns; but I lived in five other places as well in other years.
I relocated as most anyone else would relocate: job, marriage, new home or apartment, etc.
Those who think that suppressing someone else’s voting privileges will not some day adversely affect them are fools.
Vote NO on the voter suppression amendment, November 6.

* – I choose not to identify this website. Any Minnesotan who sees the TV ad will see the disclaimer, and can easily find it on the internet.
For other Election 2012 posts, simply enter Election 2012 in the search box and click. A list of the others will come up.
Next post: the Marriage Amendment.

#643 – Jack Burgess: Election 2012 #61. About The Office of President of the United States "I feel it's my duty to share what I've learned in 75 years."

/0 Comments/in , /by

Jack Burgess is a friend, and in retirement a regular columnist. His self-description: “Jack Burgess is a retired Chillicothe [Ohio] teacher and former Executive Director of the Columbus [Ohio] Education Assn., as well as Chief of Arbitration Services in Ohio’s Office of Collective Bargaining.”
The following commentary is long, but worth the time to read.
Dear Friend, October 31, 2012
If you haven’t voted yet, and you haven’t made up your mind who you will vote for, I hope you’ll read this letter. If you have a different point of view, and you want to write me back, I will read your views, but I won’t respond unless you ask for a response. I’m not looking for an argument. [4burgessATroadrunnerDOTcom]
Why am I writing? As I said in a letter like this in 2008, I was raised to take my citizenship seriously. It may sound corny, but I’m an old fashioned, patriotic guy. We fly the flag at our house almost every day. I call myself a “recovering” history and government teacher, meaning, I can’t quite break the habit of giving unsolicited advice—because I feel it’s my professional and patriotic duty to share what I’ve learned in my 75 years of living and 20 plus years of teaching.
I also write as a senior citizen, a dad, and a veteran. I come from a “mixed” family. My grandparents, with whom I lived for awhile, were Republicans. My dad and mom were Democrats. I, myself, like a lot of you I imagine, have voted for both Democrats and Republicans over the years. Not being on the payroll of either party or candidate, my opinions are my own. And, being a teacher, I would never say something I didn’t believe was true.
Some of you probably received a letter like this from me in 2008, when I said, in part:
…our country is in quite a predicament. Our economy is collapsing, not just right now because of wall street, but also because we have had policies—like trade deals supported by politicians of both parties—that have undercut our economic base. We don’t make as many things in the States anymore, we get most of our oil—which runs everything—from other countries, and our government is in debt to a potentially dangerous level, to countries like China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, we’ve gotten into two wars in the Middle East that don’t seem to have an end. They’ve lasted longer than our part in World War II!
And…I think it is time to wind down those wars and to begin to spend our money on creating jobs here in the U.S. We can combine a move away from oil dependency and toward a stronger economy by investing in alternative forms of energy here in the states. Windmills, solar panels, hybrid cars, and so on. We might think we can’t afford it, but if we’re not spending so much on foreign wars, we would have more to spend here. Anyway, it’s a start.
As everybody knows, in 2008 we elected Senator Barack Obama to take over the job of President, in that very difficult time, to try to do some things to improve the economy and wind down the wars in the Middle East.
Being an old history-government guy, I remember Presidents all the way back to when FDR died and Harry Truman took over. All of them had some achievements and all had their critics. We heard rumors about all of them—and Bill Clinton was nearly removed because of his private life. However, Clinton presided over the only economy since the 1960’s which produced a balanced budget and rising income for all income groups, top to bottom.
But I’ve never seen a President so unfairly vilified and obstructed as our current one. He has been called a Muslim, a foreign-born, and a socialist—none of which is true. In fact, if we compare him to our previous Presidents, he comes off looking pretty good. I don’t agree with everything Obama’s done or how he’s done it, but he did bring Bin Laden to justice and end the war in Iraq. He plans to bring most of our troops out of Afghanistan in 2014. He got the economy going again, with unemployment coming down, the auto industry back on its feet, housing construction doing well, and the stock market mostly up. We are now producing more oil than ever, but we are also seeing rapid growth in solar and wind energy technology. Gas prices in Ohio and most places have remained well below the $4.00 a gallon his critics predicted, and new EPA standards are going to provide us with cars and trucks that get better mileage—all of which will help us and the environment. Obama has also appointed more women to key positions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, and the first bill he signed was one helping women in their struggle for equal pay. He ended “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Right now, as we watch the news, we can see President Obama giving strong leadership in dealing with superstorm Sandy—drawing praise even from the Republican governor of New Jersey, who called Obama’s work “outstanding.” This super storm makes us wonder if climate change isn’t a reality. As the President and the Federal Emergency Assistance people provide critical aid, we are reminded that however much we may criticize government, we need it. We need it to work well in crises and all the time. In a time like this, we need a steady hand and a cool head in charge.
We see a lot of high-paid nonsense in the TV commercials, and we hear a lot of back and forth. But Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, has said he thinks emergency assistance should be handled by the states or by the private sector. Most states don’t have the funds to handle big emergencies like this, and I can’t imagine businesses stepping in to give aid to victims of natural disasters. Churches don’t have that kind of money either. I am not going to attack Mitt Romney personally, though I have to say, in all my years I’ve never seen a Presidential candidate change his positions so often. And I guess I should point out that I once served on the Ohio steering committee of Romney for President—George Romney, Mitt’s father, in 1967-8.
But Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan do offer a choice on a number of things. If you believe abortion is always murder and should be treated as a crime, that is the position of the Republican party this year. (Though they don’t say how we would enforce such a position). On the other hand, if you believe whether to carry a child to term is a woman’s decision, not the government’s or the church’s, you might not want to vote for candidates that will probably appoint several judges to the Supreme Court, where such decisions are made. If you believe we should leave our troops in Afghanistan after 2014 and maybe in Iraq, that has been Romney’s position. He wants to spend even more on the military—which is already by far the world’s largest and most successful military. He also said the government should not help out the auto industry, just let it go bankrupt. The auto assistance program which President Obama developed saved and created over a million jobs, many of them in Ohio. (Even Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal points this out). Private assistance, as Romney suggested, was not forthcoming.
Strangest of all, Mitt Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, signed into law a health care bill which was the model for Obama’s health care law—which Romney now opposes. He says he will repeal “Obamacare” on “day one.” What a shame that would be. For all the silliness about “death panels,” and “socialism,” and “government takeover,” Obamacare is doing a lot of good things for millions of people. It allows our son to remain on his mom’s insurance a couple more years. It means that I and my wife can’t be denied insurance if we have to change plans when she retires. She has a number of pre-existing conditions, as do I—including bouts with heart disease and cancer. Also, Obamacare plugs the “donut hole” in Medicare drug coverage and doesn’t allow insurance companies to place a lifetime limit on our coverage. Quite a few of us got money back on drugs and when the new law required the insurance companies to spend at least 80% on coverage instead of advertising and high salaries for executives. Obama pledges not to try to privatize Medicare. If that would happen, as Romney and Ryan want, it would take away the guarantee now there for everyone, and undermine the funding even for those of us who are older. Do we really want to trust our health care and our pensions to the uncertainties of the stock market?
Romney and Ryan are promising big tax cuts for everybody, and cuts in government programs—such as FEMA, education, public broadcasting, environmental protection, and so forth. If that were done, not only would we lose the services of those programs, but the deficit, which they say they want to close, could only grow a lot bigger because they can’t cut enough to balance the budget. They promise their tax cuts and government program cuts will produce 12 million new jobs, but history doesn’t support that idea, whether you look at the Great Depression which FDR inherited and ended, or the current “Great Recession,” which Obama inherited. George Bush’s tax cuts and unfunded wars, as well as bank deregulation, caused our current financial problems, and there’s no support anywhere for the idea that big tax cuts produce a lot of jobs. Obama’s stimulus programs brought the turnaround, and his jobs program for next year, which includes assistance to students, small business, and infrastructure, promises to extend the economic recovery. Obama wants to ask folks earning more than $250,000 to pay a little more, to help balance the budget and to help us invest in new energies, education, and government programs—like FEMA—that we need. A healthy economy, as President Clinton proved, is the best way to balance the budget and bring down the deficit.
I think President Obama has done a good job under tough circumstances. I don’t feel sure what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would do, but I don’t really trust them. As Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of Republican President Dwight Eisenhower said this week:
“As a result of this campaign, I am more confused than ever about what Mitt Romney stands for. I know little about his core beliefs, if he even has any. No one seems to agree on what they are, and that is why I do not want to take a chance on finding out.”
If you agree with Susan Eisenhower or with me, I hope you’ll vote to re-elect President Obama. He deserves it—but more important, so do we. So do our children and grandchildren, especially our daughters and granddaughters, whose rights he has defended and will continue to protect.
Thanks for reading this far, and best wishes in all you do!
Yours truly,
Jack Burgess
Chillicothe, Ohio
You can read more of Eisenhower’s views at her website.
Feel free to circulate this letter.