#286 – Dick Bernard: Visiting the Fielding Garr Ranch and some thoughts about the past.

/in , /by


On our recent trip to Salt Lake City, we had an opportunity to visit the Fielding Garr Ranch on Antelope Island in the Great Salt Lake.
While the ranch, on the south end of the island, is only several miles west of Salt Lake City, the necessary driving trip is perhaps 50 miles or more, as the sole road entry to the island is over a long causeway on the north end.
It was a chilly late afternoon when we visited the ranch, and all of us probably wondered in various ways “why am I doing this?”, but I found the half-hour or so visit to be thought-provoking.
The story of the island and the ranch are told in the links (above).

Touring the ranch


I kept thinking, as I shivered, and our guide gave us a most personable ‘tour’ of the environs, about that time back in the 1840s and 1850s, especially, when the west was being settled by white settlers seeking land.
We learned (and kids probably still learn) the romanticized ‘Cowboys and Indians’ version of the story, but this was a rough-and-tumble time in our history. The Cowboys won, the Indians lost, and that was that.
What the cowboys won, were they Mormon, or any other settler, was an unforgiving land where laziness or mistakes were not rewarded. Simply put, it was a struggle to get there, and to survive once there. At Salt Lake City’s Temple Square is a sculpture that tends to capture the difficulty of the move west.

Pioneer Statue Temple Square Salt Lake City


We’re a nation of immigrants. In my case, my French-Canadian ancestors got a bit of a head start on this continent, attempting to eke out a living in the 16 and 1700s in what is now Quebec, and like the Mormons, came west beginning in the 1850s; my German ancestors arrived in Wisconsin in the 1850s and 1860s.
All of the things we now take for granted, they couldn’t even imagine. Food had to be processed to last through winter, and, often, parceled out carefully. One didn’t jump in a car to get anywhere, or start a gasoline engine to do the chores. It was all by hand, often backbreaking.
As we viewed that chilly but bucolic area I would call the ‘farmstead’, I could imagine how life might have been back then. We wouldn’t have been sitting in a golf cart, listening to an enthusiastic and pleasant guide telling us about this place at which he was a volunteer.

The Ranch house


(“Back then” in reality is not all that far back in time. I can remember my grandparents farm before rural electrification brought electric current to the farm in the late 1940s. The end of the “olden days” is really pretty recent.)
It was a different time, then; a time almost unimaginable to today’s kids.
Out on Antelope Island these days, successful attempts are being made to reintroduce buffalo who are as nearly as possible the direct genetic descendants of the buffalo we very nearly exterminated back then. In other ways, the ranch and the island have become places to help visitors become better aware of the need for careful stewardship of ever more scarce resources.
Near the end of the trip the guide pointed out a building in front of the main house which had been the pump house. For many, many years it had been the source of spring water for the farm. In recent years, the spring stopped running – the water table beneath had receded due to increasing use in Salt Lake City to the east. No one in Salt Lake City would notice this change….
Be aware. What is may not necessarily be forever.

Deer near the Fielding Garr ranch house


#280 – Virgil Benoit: On French-Canadians, English and the American Revolutionary War

/in , , , , /by

During an animated conversation on Sunday, some new friends, long-time residents of Long Island NY, and for a number of years residents in Salt Lake City UT, asked a question about an aspect of French-Canadian history, which I then rephrased for Dr. Virgil Benoit of the University of North Dakota, an expert on things Franco-American. His Initiatives in French – Midwest is a fledgling but important organization to celebrate the French heritage in the Midwest.

Dr. Benoit re-enacting an important French-Canadian trader at old St. Joseph (Walhalla) ND 2008


I asked Dr. Benoit: “Is there a simple reason why the French did not support the Americans when, in the Revolutionary War period, the fledgling U.S. was interested in throwing the English out of power in Quebec?
I know nothing is simple, but perhaps there is a general answer.*”
Dr. Benoit responded almost immediately, and his succinct commentary is well worth sharing, and is shared with his permission.
Hi Dick,
“The Quebec Act of 1774 [Q Act] is often cited as the event which encouraged French-Canadians [F-Cs] to not revolt against the British in Canada in 1776. The Q Act gave F-Cs the freedom to practice their religion, customs and language.
The Q Act was a first in British governance towards its colonies. But the British were only a small minority in Quebec at the time. Maybe they felt they had to do it that way. They also knew they could lose the other thirteen colonies in North America and have no foothold in the New World. The F-C. also had no support from France by 1776. They also were afraid of being swallowed up by the neighboring anglo-saxon protestant culture, i.e. the new United States. As it were the Quebec Act gave them more protection as a defeated people than the unknown relationship with a nation-to-be.
With the defeat of 1760 [of France, by England at Quebec] the F-C society lost its upper class. Its leaders with political contacts went either back to France or had been lowered in status to common folk as far a political or social influence was concerned. The one class that rose quickly to exert influence in Quebec at this time was the clergy, which turned out to act very conciliatory toward the British. They [the clergy] interpreted the new situation stemming from the Quebec Act as one that guaranteed protection. They felt that as a conquered people the French-Canadians should be careful and appreciate that they had religious freedom as well as privileges to use French and customs as before the conquest in 1760. Over time, the clergy tied the privileges of religion and language together, saying that to keep French was also to be true to the Catholic faith.
These two “freedoms” became the clergy’s motto for keeping French-Canadians together, so to speak. The clergy fought migration to urban areas, such as Quebec City and Montreal which were very British and Protestant up until WWI. In short, the surrender of New France by France led to the seemingly paradoxical situation you are asking about. But the French of the former New France did not side with the Americans. It happened as you see because the common people of the former New France saw little hope, and their choice not to fight again was reinforced by the clergy. The common folk had fought the British invasion of 1760, but were in the end greatly outnumbered on the battle fields. They lost and along with the defeat, strategy (contacts with the homeland) and courage were also lost.
It would take the French Canadians until the 1970s to work their way back to a Quebec society that could be called contemporary to its counterparts in the world. Bravo. They did it. There was the Revolution of 1836 against British dominance in Quebec. It was stopped. There was the war’s act of Trudeau against Quebec in about 1968. It did not last. In all the rest of time and in all other arenas of civilized society the Quebec people have worked through parliament to regain equity with those who invaded and took their country away in 1760.
A final observation, invading armies can make war, but they can’t kill culture. It will surface and come back. In Quebec, not only has culture survived wars between gigantic superpowers and brutal scrimmages on the home front, but a rich government has been put into place and the country is dynamic today. Best to you.”
Virgil
* – At the time of the American Revolution, the French had already been established in what is now Quebec for 168 years. The founding of Quebec as a French Colony dates to 1608, with the major development beginning after 1630.

#277 – Dick Bernard: MinnSPRA Celebrates Its 50th anniversary

/in , , /by

Friday I went to a luncheon celebrating 50 years history of an organization for which I once served a one year term as President (2000-2001).
The group, Minnesota School Public Relations Association (MinnSPRA) has always been a small organization, probably never exceeding 150 members. It began in 1960, and affiliated with a national group, the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) which dates back to 1940. In each case, as in all cases of such grassroots organizations, some dedicated persons came together in a common interest to help each other and, in this case, public education.
I didn’t count, but it appeared that at least 20 of we former Presidents took the time to travel to this luncheon. It was an impressive turnout, a reunion for many of us, a renewal of some old esprit d’corps. A time to tell stories of the past.

MinnSPRA Alumni November 12, 2010


Small organizations like MinnSPRA come and go. When such a group endures for 50 years, it is a testimony to people of vision and persistence who ride the usually small waves, and often endure the cruel rip tides, which come with advocating for most anything in an organized fashion. For an organization to last 50 years is a testimony to the tenacity and dedication of many. A 50 year marriage is a great accomplishment for two people. A voluntary organization living for 50 years endures constant change every year, including in the “cast of characters” who come on ‘stage’ (like me). Survival is more than a small miracle, well worth celebrating!
At our tables we all were asked to discuss four questions about MinnSPRA: 1) Best memory; 2) Best Program All-time; 3) Person who embodies/embodied MinnSPRA; 4) why, in one particular year, we decided to change our name from M-NSPRA to MinnSPRA. (With respect to #4, I was involved, then, but I couldn’t recall exactly why – that’s what 20 years can do!)
With many tables, there came much rich feedback, bringing back long-forgotten memories of really very significant events that happened and passed into history.
I thought to myself that MinnSPRA’s history really was a series of small parts which when put together created a very substantial whole. In themselves, those small parts didn’t seem very important at the time. Those long years ago when I was sitting first on MinnSPRA’s Board, and then took a one-year turn as President, it often seemed that we weren’t accomplishing anything. But when added to all the other small accomplishments, we had accomplished a great deal. We had left a very substantial base from which to continue to build. The next generation chose to continue building.
Our Keynote speaker, Rich Bagin, Executive Director of NSPRA, took us through a very significant discussion of change in the past 50 years. In 15 segments he talked about things Public Relations (PR) people “used to believe” as contrasted to what they “now believe”. With a single exception, the reality of the other fifteen beliefs had changed very significantly in 50 years.
The essential message Mr. Bagin conveyed, it seemed to me, was “live in the past, die in the past”.
I went to the reunion today unsure what to expect.
I came home very happy that I had attended.
Best wishes to MinnSPRA for another 50 years even better than the first 50!

Janet Swiecichowski, MinnSPRA


Mary Ellen Marnholtz, North Central NSPRA V.P, Wausau WI


Rich Bagin, NSPRA

#275 – Dick Bernard: Armistice/Veterans Day. Remembering a Vet

/in , , , /by

The November 10 mail brought a newspaper column I had been expecting, a tribute to my brother-in-law Michael Lund, who died exactly three years earlier in Fargo ND.
The column, by Bob Lind in the Fargo (ND) Forum, Mike Lund Fargo Forum001 tells most of the story, and speaks profoundly for itself.
I had the honor of spending quality time with Mike as his life ended Nov. 10, 2007, at age 60, cancer.
A few hours before he died I was able to tell him a little about his Dad, whose death certificate came up in an internet search. I was lucky, and he was grateful: he never knew his Dad or anything about him.
This is Veteran’s Day, and Michael was an Army veteran. He was inducted 8 February 1971 and was honorably discharged 30 January 1973, with Good Conduct Medal and rank of Specialist 5th class – an unusual accomplishment for an enlisted man. Much of his service time was in Germany. It was an easy trip from base to the Munich Olympic Games of 1972, and he went.

Mike Lund, early 1973


As Mr. Lind relates, Michael’s early life was anything but easy. One wonders how he survived at all. His sister was my wife; his mother was my mother-in-law, a fine but very poor and disabled woman who did what she could.
A draftee, Mike once told me that he grew to like the Army. It brought stability to his life and he had thoughts of making it a career.
But as often happens, circumstances interfered. In Michael’s situation, the problems began sometime in the late winter of 1972 when someone unknown filed a complaint against him, very obviously concentrating on his short career as a school teacher in small town North Dakota. The 22-page military interrogatory transcript, of which he kept five copies for some reason, laid out the allegations against him. The primary complaint appeared to center on his allowing his high school students freedom of speech to protest against the then-raging War in Vietnam. Somebody didn’t like that. He was fired from his teaching job in mid-year, and then he was drafted.
He did well in the service, likely had a secret security clearance, and someone, probably a civilian back home, didn’t like that a person who allowed protests of the War was in an intelligence position. In the transcript, questions are asked about an apparently radical teacher at the college he attended. Was he in this teacher’s classes? Yes. He was dirt poor, and he was apparently behind on some small payments to stores and such, and that was on the tally sheet as well.
His Honorable Discharge is the only official record of his military service and there is not a single word on it that even suggests less than totally honorable service.
Still that 22-page interrogatory was his most important paper. For me it has become, in a sense, his biography.
Michael came home in the winter of 1973, his dream of an Army career apparently destroyed; his opportunities to get another teaching job probably destroyed as well. The rest of his life, which I witnessed from a distance, usually, did not reveal the tenacity of a kid who rose above all odds to not only graduate from high school but earn a B average in college. I am guessing there are things that went on in his post-Army life that I would rather not know. Nonetheless, when I make my list of heroes, he is near the top. He survived against all odds.
As life wound down for him – this began to accelerate with his mother’s death in 1999 – Michael lost his house. Winning the Minnesota Lottery or other sweepstakes had become his passion…. He mused about good places to be homeless. Becoming paralyzed from the waist down as a result of major surgery ended that idea.
It finally fell to me and a cousin of his to clear out the flotsam and jetsam of his life.
In a small chest in his room, by his bed, in a drawer by itself, was his crumpled up Army uniform, with a small box of medals. It was a mess, that uniform, but it was very important to him. Also there were his dog tags, and on their chain a little medallion he had purchased somewhere, sometime.
Then he died. One of the few people at his funeral was one of his high school teachers, Ann Haugaard. She spoke very positively of him.
This past summer I delivered that uniform and all of his important papers to the North Dakota State Historical Society in Bismarck. They accepted the gift.
Mike, I salute you.
Dick
U.S. Army, 1962-63

Mike Lund, May, 2007, Fargo ND




Related post here.

#272 – Dick Bernard: War, and Peace

/in , , , , /by

A few days ago we finished the biennial reenactment of the Civil War – the 2010 elections. While this is a supposedly bloodless sport, the biennial result is “a house divided” where one side “wins” and the other “loses”. The aim, especially strong today, is to kill the opposing point of view, relevant though it may be.
The instant this political Civil War ended, the next one began. It’s a wonder our country survives. One wonders what our community, national and global landscape would look like if we didn’t insist on dissipating our energy and resources to fight constantly against each other, and, rather, try to work towards agreement on things.
Oh, it’s a dream.
In the election just past, one candidate for a Minnesota Congressional seat defeated the 35-year incumbent U.S. Representative who had a great record of representing the interests of the district. The challenger had no previous experience in government outside of military service. He was described as applying “a military theme to his campaign. His battered motor home was called the “war wagon”. Campaign staffers and volunteers were given military titles – commanders, captains lieutenants.” (Minneapolis Star Tribune, page A12, November 4, 2010). The district loses a representative with great seniority who effectively represented its interests. It gets a new representative with no seniority or experience who campaigned against the very things which led to his opponents many re-elections. The elder statesman was a casualty of a ‘throw ’em out’ mentality.
Destructive as it is to us, we love war, especially as a spectator sport.
(In 1860 the U.S. population was about 31 million, one-tenth of today’s. There were over 365,000 Civil War deaths in 1861-65, and 282,000 more wounded. In today’s political combat, there are no rotting corpses on assorted political battlefields, but there is residual and permanent damage to our effectiveness as a nation. The political goal is to render impotent the opposition. Back and forth we go….)
It was very good for me and many others to be able to shift gear at the end of election week, to move away from combat for awhile.
Friday night I attended a collaborative event of the Hawkinson Foundation and the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers, “Building Generations Together: Creating a Culture of Peace“.
This was a tremendously inspiring event.
During the Awards section of the program, several younger people from many cultures received awards for their grassroots work on building community through working together. (Their bios and accomplishments are outlined at the aforementioned Hawkinson Foundation website).
At the end of the evening, the award winners joined in a dialogue with five elders (their profiles also at the website) in the Twin Cities Peace and Justice Community, to give their views on a number of different questions. The elders were Carol and Ken Masters, Rev Verlyn Smith, Rev. James Siefkes and Mary Lou Nelson. It was greatly refreshing to see the elders and youngers dialoguing together, while those of us in the audience, primarily elders, listened and learned.

Elder and Younger dialogue November 5, 2010


Everyone listened respectfully to the presentations and the dialogue.
I can only speak for myself: I left the evening tired but energized, with a couple of new insights, which for me made the time expended completely worthwhile.
In a few days we commemorate Armistice Day, November 11, the day “the war to end all wars”, WWI, ended in 1918.
Of course, the end of WWI didn’t end war; it just ensured a subsequent and even more awful war. That is the normal consequence of combat as a resolution to differences.
Peace may not be quite as fun as contemporary political combat, but it is certainly more productive.
Give Peace a chance.
Related post here.

#262 – Dick Bernard: A reflective moment

/in , , /by

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.

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

/in , , , , /by

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"?

/in , , /by

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.

#246 – Dick Bernard: Down and Dirty Political Advertising

/in , /by

The lead letter in yesterday’s Woodbury Bulletin was mine*:
“The Woodbury Bulletin’s Aug. 25 “Our View” (“Hoopla over YouTube video on local GOP website…”) causes me to think back a few years.
I had written a letter, published in the Bulletin, which criticized a local legislator. It was, as are all letters I write, signed with my real name and town. I was a Woodbury resident, [then as now], listed in the phone book.
Your paper came out on Wednesday. About 3 a.m. the next morning our doorbell rang twice in rapid succession. I went down, turned on the light, and on landing was what the Woodbury Police Report later referred to as fresh “feces”.
Happenings like that tend to shake one. They say “I know where you live. Shut up.”
That had never happened to me before, nor has it since. But I remember.
That incident happened in the good old days (or so it seems) of political conversation in this community, state and country.
Now we’re facing over two months of political advertising everywhere whose intention is either to canonize one candidate or crucify his or her opponent. Anyone who believes any of this stuff is a fool.
But the makers of the ads really don’t care. And they know the slickly prepared pieces are essential to “win”.
Cost for this “feces” is probably way up in the billions of dollars each season.
It comes to our mailboxes, over our radios and through our televisions.
As is well known, all that is necessary is to plant the impression of good or evil in a potential voters mind.
You do this very simply: by constant repetition.
It isn’t funny, and it certainly isn’t productive for our community, state and country.”

As noted above, I was responding to an earlier editorial over a piece of offensive website content that had become national news. It turned out to be the local website for the local Republican party.
The website featured, for a time, a “funny” piece of video, produced somewhere, that compared “hot” Republican women, with “dog” Democrat women. You had to have a sick sense of humor to get any “laughs” out of the caricatures particularly of the Democrat women – real photos, probably, not even photo-shopped, but in this digital age when a minute or two “on camera”, particularly if you don’t know you’re being filmed, can yield (charitably) less than flattering images.
The editorial had no time for the offensive website. Of course, the editorial had to be “fair and balanced”, thus criticizing my own favorite news program which, I would admit, at times can be edgy and, while accurate, over the top. While I think there is a huge distinction between the “hot” and “dog” web production, and what I watch every evening, there is a point well taken: the sinning doesn’t stop at party lines.
Shedding light on it won’t stop it. About all that can be said is that old standard: “caveat emptor” – “let the buyer beware”.
If something, particularly political advertising, is too good, or too bad, to be true, the odds are certain that it isn’t “true”. All one can be is aware.
Caveat Emptor.
* – For whatever reason, the editor of the paper doesn’t include my name at the end of this letter in the on-line version. I hadn’t requested anonymity, but the earlier incident – which indirectly involved the paper – must have impacted….

#245 – Dick Bernard: A Painting Project in the Garage

/in , /by

For the last ten years I have been driving into An American Garage that had never been painted. Yes, there was 20 year old dry wall which had been taped when it was built but it was, you know, a garage.
We don’t live in the garage.
I finally reached the ‘tipping point’ – got sick of it looking as it did when I drove in – and several days ago got down to the disagreeable business of painting it.
Today I’ll finish the job.
Of course, being an American Garage, ours is a repository of the assorted flotsam and jetsam of family history, and that had to be moved, first. Moving that junk around was a major impediment for me. That junk was really what made the task “disagreeable”.
Into the junk I dove, and amongst the treasures unearthed was this:

It was a hastily made sign for a memorial march on October 25, 2002, the day U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila and several others were killed in a tragic plane crash ten days before the 2002 election. I was one of tens of thousands of marchers in a massive memorial that October evening. (The scrawled text: “To Paul and Sheila, You’ve passed the torch of Peace and Justice to all of us. Rest in Peace.”)
Sen. Wellstone was a favorite of mine. I had watched his career evolve since the 1980s. He was cast as a radical liberal, the way “politicians” are labeled, but if one looked at the totality of his record, he was a very reasonable fellow, and he was odds on favorite to win his third term the coming election day. Though he had finally voted against the controversial Iraq War Resolution a scant two weeks earlier, he was a favorite of veterans groups. Sheila was a champion of causes for “we, the people” as well. But their lives ended in the woods near Eveleth MN that Friday morning in October.
The next week former U.S. Senator and Vice-President Walter Mondale agreed to take Mr. Wellstone’s place on the ballot, but it was too late in the game.
Politics being what it is, politics was played like a fiddle around the Memorial service for the Senator a week before the election. There, the Senator was only a memory (we were in attendance). Republican Norm Coleman won a very narrow victory.
It is appropriate that I found, this week, that sign I carried in Mr. Wellstone’s memory eight years ago.
Politics is raging in this country like an out-of-control forest fire, and some “Tea Party”-like candidates around the country are very scary. If they win, and govern as they promise, the American people will have genuine reason to regret the short-sighted decision to elect them.
We need, collectively, much more adult behavior from ourselves than I have been seeing in the last year. We can pretend we can have it all, without the commensurate responsibility, but such has never worked, ever. We will pay the piper, ultimately.
The Wellstone’s do live on in training people for political engagement. I have never had reason to think of attending “Camp Wellstone”, but I know some wonderful legislators who have, and in fact met with one of them during a break in my garage painting duties on Monday of this week.
Today, I’ll finish the last part of my project in the garage.
I’m glad I started it.
Some of the stuff I discovered will be tossed; others will be ‘garage sale’d’.
But that placard from October 25, 2002, will go back with my memorabilia.