#99 – Dick Bernard: "Capitalism: a Love Story"

/in , , , , , /by

(As you see this film, I’d like your comments to add, here.)
October 8, 2009:  We saw “Capitalism: A Love Story”, this afternoon.  It is well worth the time, and it’s messages will be conveyed in a later post.  Even if you think that Capitalism is all there is, this film will cause you to wonder….
October 3, 2009: We were planning to go to Michael Moore’s latest film, “Capitalism: a Love Story“, today, but scheduling problems (even retired people have scheduling problems!) interfered.
So, we don’t have bragging rights to having seen the film on its first day of release, or even the second.   The people who watched the film in over 1,000 theaters across the country can see it first.  There’ll be plenty of time.  Maybe early next week….
I’m a creature of Capitalism. Everyone of us in the U.S. are.  Even those who loathe Capitalism and live in the U.S. are in Capitalism’s clutches.  It surrounds us; it’s what we grew up with; it’s likely what we’ll die with, perhaps not a normal death.
(As I was writing the previous paragraph, an e-mail came in from Michael Moore’s mailing list, captioned “A Great Opening Night – – Do Not Put Off Seeing “Capitalism: A Love Story“.  Michael Moore’s take at #mce_temp_url#)
Capitalism is and has always been great for the serious Capitalists, the people who make the financial killing from business as usual.
What has always been a source of curiosity for me is why the foot-soldiers in behalf of Capitalism are ultimately its intended victims: the middle class types (like me) who are exhorted to spend what they don’t have on things that they don’t need to put cash in the hands of the people who will lay them off on a moments notice to help prop up a sagging profit and loss statement.
There are many ways that this nefarious goal is accomplished:  fear and loathing is an obvious one.  People, at Capitalism’s encouragement, rail on against the evils of “socialism” without even knowing what it is, except as defined by the Capitalist.  (We are a surprisingly “socialist” nation as it is…and we value the many socialist elements of our daily life.  Yet we’re supposed to despise socialism…and almost by rote, we do.)
Most working people are in effect “chained” to a corporate work station.  They are free to leave, yes, but terrified to do so, especially at this down time in the economy.  Capitalism generally abhors things like labor unions, and convinces the people who might benefit by labor unions to rail against them.
Or it can be seen at really great events, like Sunday’s Twin Cities Marathon, where the corporate face is very, very positive, and tens of thousands of people participate, and watch, an outstanding event largely run by volunteers (and, of course, the runners are “volunteers” as well.)  In the end analysis, though, it is the corporate sponsors, and the winners in the competition, who get the payoff.  Everyone else simply contributes to the corporate greater good.
The stories go on and on.
But, yes, we are all part of Capitalism.
In the end, I think that Capitalism will succeed only in killing itself*, in a final, slow but certain, act of self-immolation.  It won’t take a movie like 2012 to do us in.  We literally can’t survive living in as unbalanced a way as we currently continue to live.  It’s only a matter of time.  The only unknown is how much time….
By the time the Capitalists figure this out it will be too late.
Watch Michael Moore’s film, get in a lather (including against him, if you like – but the film is highly rated), and go to work for deep change.  You won’t get rid of Capitalism, but you can help get it reformed.
* – an older story: a friend of mine, a history buff, recalled reading an apparently true account of an old-time Capitalist venture that went severely awry.  Seems a group of European businessmen, in business to make money, saw an opportunity to make a bundle by selling armaments to a neighboring country.  They struck a deal, made their pile…and their country was promptly overrun by their newly well armed enemy.
I’d name the countries, but won’t.  Most any self-respecting Capitalist would do the same stupid thing if opportunity knocked….
Update October 6, 2009:  We’ll likely go to the film tomorrow.  In the interim, I’ll simply add some comments that have come to mind since my initial scribblings, above.
In the U.S. we’re immersed in Capitalism.  It’s ubiquitous, impossible to avoid.  Sunday I was over at the Twin Cities Marathon – first at the starting line at the Metrodome; then at the Finish Line (no, not as a runner!).
Everything about the marathon was a commercial event, from major sponsors, frequently named, company names on all products dispensed, probable tax write-offs for their “contributions” to the community.  Such events are marketing bonanzas for the corporate world.
But when I think of Capitalists, as a group, I mostly think of the really fat cats that make the really, really big bucks off the rest of the population.  These folks used to be called by terms like “Robber Baron”, “Captain of Industry” and the like.  In the present day you can see them in local, regional, national and international folks who are extremely wealthy (or appear to be so, till they’re busted for fraud, as has happened to some big operators in my area recently.)
These truly “rich” folks, as defined by almost anyone, are today’s Capitalists.  They are only the most recent in a long, long line of people whose god is money, and who exercise power against all the rest of us.
Most of them are probably “good” people.  But if it comes to accumulating power and money (synonymous terms, in my opinion), they can be pretty ruthless.

#97 – Dick Bernard: Killing a civil society

/in , , , , , , /by

On the afternoon of November 4, 1995 – it was a Saturday – I was on the way to afternoon Mass at my then-Parish, St. Peter Claver in St. Paul MN.  Nearing the church, an announcement came over the car radio: Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had been shot.  I passed the word along to the Parish Priest Kevin McDonough, who blanched, and as I recall, I was allowed to announce to the congregation what I had just heard on the radio.
At the time of the announcement we weren’t certain of any details, including who had shot the Nobel Prize winner, or even if he had died.  By the time Mass was concluded we knew Rabin had been assassinated, and soon learned that his killer was a radical right-wing Israeli Jew, at the far fringe of those incensed that Rabin was working for a durable peace with Palestine.
As it happened, two and a half months later I was with a group that visited Rabin’s still-fresh grave in Jerusalem.  I still see it all.
This vignette comes to mind because of a September 29, 2009, column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times.  The NYT column headline is “Where did “we” go“, and opens recalling Friedman’s visit with Rabin in Jerusalem shortly before the assassination.  He says, early on, “extreme right-wing settlers…were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin…They questioned his authority.  They accused him of treason.  They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shoulted death threats at rallies.  His political opponents winked at it all.”
Of course, the story ended with a righteous crazed zealot killing Rabin.  A single murderer, but endless accomplices who in effect encouraged the insane act.
Friedman goes on at length in his column to raise the parallels he sees in today’s United States of America.
We see hate speech being legitimized in our country, and outlandish behavior being sanctioned as simple political free speech.  All of this is duly reported (if not encouraged) by news media, legitimate and not so legitimate.  And unlike in Rabin’s day, the means of technology for disseminating hate and outrageous and deliberate lies is much more sophisticated than it was only 14 years ago.
One can only wonder what Rabin and others could have accomplished in Israel/Palestine had he lived.
The merchants of hate won, and everyone (including the hate merchants) lost.
If you can, read Friedman’s column.  For a limited time it is available on the web. Here’s the link: #mce_temp_url#
If you’re one who’s amused by, or admires, the politics of hate and deceit, get over it.  If you despise this kind of behavior, call ’em out whenever you witness it.
Change needs to happen person-to-person.

#95 – Dick Bernard: Elmer L., Politics and People

/in , /by

This is the third post of three on this topic.  The previous posts are Sep 26 and 28.
Sometimes there are valuable lessons to be learned from unexpected persons or from groups that have,deservedly or not, been labelled in a negative manner.  I thought of such a possibility on Saturday.
The first thing I noticed, walking up to the meeting on Saturday, September 26, was a series of posters, Burma Shave style, beside the walkway.  Coming closer, I noted that they were posters of all of Minnesota’s past Governors, from the first through the current.  They were especially pertinent for this event, which featured all known Democratic candidates for Governor of Minnesota.
One of them I noticed especially was that of my friend, Elmer L. Andersen, Minnesota Governor, 1961-63, who lost a second term to Democrat Karl Rolvaag in, until the 2008-09 Franken-Coleman election contest, the most protracted electoral recount in Minnesota history.

Elmer L. Andersen, with Karl Rolvaag in background

Elmer L. Andersen, with Karl Rolvaag in background


I believe Elmer L. could teach something to today’s Progressives and others wishing to learn the practice of constructive politics.  But first, a little about the man.
Elmer L. Andersen was an old-school progressive Republican.  From the first time he voted, in the early 1930s, he voted Republican.  Beginning in the late 1930s he became active in the Republican party, getting to know people like Harold Stassen, and in 1949 be began a number of terms in the state Senate and then the Governors office.  He recounts his political adventures in his autobiography, A Man’s Reach (published in 2000).  His philosophy is laid out in two excellent books: Views from the Publisher’s Desk (1997), columns he wrote as a newspaperman; and I Trust to be Believed,  a collection of his speeches published the year of his death in 2004, at age 94.  All are worth reading.
He and many of his Republican cronies were moderate, progressive, even liberal.  In fact, he called himself a liberal Republican.  He was a trailblazer for many ideas today’s Progressives might claim as their own.
There was plenty of political jousting and partisanship in his good old days.  But there seems a qualitative difference between then and now.  Then, warriors fought – and worked out deals; today, all efforts are made to polarize and divide.  The difference was dramatized for me in April, 1999 when old-time Democrat warrior Willard Munger gave an award to his friend Republican Elmer Andersen.   They had common cause on the environment, and other things, and it was obvious that they deeply respected each other.
Willard Munger (l) and Elmer Andersen (c) April 22, 1999 at an environmental awards ceremony.

Willard Munger (l) and Elmer Andersen (c) April 22, 1999 at an environmental awards ceremony.


Along with other moderate and progressive Republicans Elmer Andersen was effectively purged from the party he helped build during the radical right wing takeover which began in the 1980s.  While he never said so, directly, it is likely that he voted Democrat in his last elections.  He didn’t desert his party, his party deserted he and his many moderate Republican colleagues.  Quiet efforts are being made to reclaim the Republican Party, but it is a difficult struggle.  The right-wing radicals remain in charge.
I’ve never been Republican, and Elmer L. never declared as a Democrat.  In his last years he probably worked quietly to help bring moderation back to his party.  But it was and is a daunting task.  Polarity is still the name of the game.
Today’s Progressives probably have good reason to study how Elmer L. Andersen did politics back in the days before high technology, rank partisanship and purchased elections.  He was, it is clear, a savvy political organizer, and a master of Tip O’Neill’s mantra “all politics is local”.  Politics, then, was “boots on the ground”, as it will have to be for people who don’t have loads of money to buy today’s elections.*
Elmer loved knowledge, and his profession was selling, and he knew how to work with people of all sorts. That he served only a single term as Governor does not detract from his reputation, at least from my perspective.  He was a class act.  If nothing else, consider reading the middle third of his book, A Man’s Reach.  There he talks about the practice of politics.  One could do worse than practice what he taught through his actions.
Since Progressives often seem to characterize Democrats as little more than luke-warm Republicans, perhaps a companion event to September 26, inviting all possible Republican and other candidates to answer the same question in public, might be worthy of consideration.  Just a thought….
Elmer L. Andersen Oct 12, 1995

Elmer L. Andersen Oct 12, 1995


* – I have articulated a political organizing idea on micro-organizing which I call “Each one reach two” which I write about within 13 Essays at  #mce_temp_url# .  Especially note Essays #1,2 and 13 which were posted in September, 2008, and September, 2009.

#91 – Dick Bernard: Photo-shoppe

/in , , , /by

Years ago, in some unremembered periodical, I recall seeing two seemingly identical black and white photos.  Both were of some stern looking Communists during Stalin’s time: all men wearing suits.  The casual observer would have seen no difference in the photos.  But the caption pointed the reader to a particular place in the photo.  In the first photo, a man occupied the space; in the second, that man had been disappeared.
Somebody with the Stalinist Russia version of Xacto knife had modified an official photo, simply removing some errant  comrade who had been purged, possibly liquidated for unremembered sins against the Party.  It was cheaper and more efficient to simply modify the photo, than to regather the group and take a new one.
It was my introduction to a primitive Photoshop.
I can remember many subsequent examples of the same tactic:
In the mid 90s, one of my colleagues at work retired, and there was the usual fete. His work colleague, a guy a bit more technologically savvy and interested than the rest of us, had purchased a home version of Photoshop or equivalent, and had placed Roger’s head atop a photo of a magnificent slam-dunking Michael Jordan’s body.  Roger was a fit guy, but no Michael Jordan.  The hatchet job was done pretty well, and the projected work of art got a lot of good laughs.  Welcome to the world of manipulating images.
The most dramatic example of the art of manipulating information through photos came, for me, during the early Iraq War in 2003.  It is the famous film footage of the statue of Saddam being toppled by supposed hordes of grateful Iraqis, happy that the dictators term had come to an end.  Most of us can remember this iconic piece of film footage: the supposed triumph of freedom over tyranny.  It was really nothing more than a military psychological operations tactic to manipulate both the Iraqis and ordinary Americans.
Fewer of us remember, because it takes some work and interest to find this out, that the particular piece of news film did not portray reality at all.  In a pretty obvious piece of collusion between media and government, the film shown on television focused tightly on the statue falling, and it was only later that it was found that there were only a handful of Iraqis actually at the site to watch Saddam take his fall from prominence.
Democracy had triumphed over evil.
But had it?  What difference was there between the excised communist in Stalin’s Russia; and a dishonest piece of photography in 2003 United States of America?
No difference, I would submit.
When it comes to technology, 2003 is long ago and far away, as we all know.  But many of us come from the old Kodak-moment days when you were stuck with what you got on that photo you took in Grandma’s back yard.  Most of us have gone digital now, but we are not familiar with the many and sundry ways that perfect lies can be concocted simply by manipulating images.
Most recently, the obvious lie of the photo of millions of people at the 9-12 event, was quickly replaced by less obvious lies which can be fashioned through not only the way pictures are taken these days, but which of these photos are used, and how the photographs are manipulated through means such as the ever more sophisticated photo-editing devices.  A skillful practitioner can make a crowd of hundreds look like tens of thousands….  CNN carried an interesting after-the-fact commentary on the manipulation of the event by Fox News  #mce_temp_url# .
In the past, a photographer was limited by how many photos he or she could take with the old Nikon; today’s digital technology potentially gives the “news” photographer tens of thousands of images to pick from, so today’s American version of commissars need to be well-trained in attempting to avoid embarrassment from not only unpleasant edits of their image, but covert and malicious photography as well.
We can’t go back to the past, but the prudent consumer is skeptical.
Caveat emptor.

#90 – Dick Bernard: Glenn Beck and the "Mythical marching millions"

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Note responses section at end of this post.
Yesterday afternoon I was sitting in a clinic waiting room while one of my kids was having an eye appointment.
I happened to pick up the latest issue of Time magazine (Sep 17, 09), whose cover story  is the right-wing flamethrower (he and his large following would refer to himself quite differently) Glenn Beck of Fox News.
The three page article is very well worth reading, and reading carefully.  Here’s the link: #mce_temp_url#
For the few who’ve never heard of him, Beck is the hot commodity in the crowd which gathered in Washington DC on 9-12-09 to supposedly restore unity by sowing hatred and division against all things represented by President Obama (but without casting aspersions on people or policies of the previous administration which created or at minimum severely aggravated the problems the current administration now has to deal with).
In such a crowd, there is no need for consistency.  What’s right is right; what’s wrong is wrong.  Period.
Beck is a hot item, of that there is no doubt.  Within his constituency, he is very popular.  I seem to recall $23 million as his total anticipated revenue from his radio, television and publishing this year.
His weekly audience numbers in the several millions each day.  His market share might be 1 or 2% or so of the U.S. population.  He was compared, in the article, to others of similar ilk in our past history: Father Coughlin, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the “Know Nothings”, etc.  He is a gifted entertainer, able to emotionally move his audience.
In other words, he is a force to be reckoned with.
But there is another side to this story as well, part of it said in the article, part of it only implied.
In today’s incredibly fragmented media market, Beck has a relatively huge audience market share.  But it was pointed out in the article that a much greater viewership of comedian David Brenner in 1987 was judged to be so insignificant that his show was cancelled for lack of viewers.  In those pre-cable years, of course, there were few media outlets, and people couldn’t segregate themselves in “birds of a feather” ghettoes like we can today.
Beck simply looks to be larger than life, but in real terms Beck is not nearly as major a figure as he appears.
Even Beck’s large revenue stream belies the reality.  To quote the article, “extreme talk…like Beck, squeezes maximum profit from a relatively small, deeply invested audience.”  The $23 million doesn’t come from 23,000,000 givers of $1 each; a much smaller group pony up $50, $100 or maybe even more for his books, etc.
His audience, however, is a mass of people with different kinds of negative passions.  They are not a cohesive whole.  About all they share is what message makers have identified as a single common thread shared by many Americans: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.”  Problem is, they’re “mad as hell” about assorted different things, and coordinating their outrage is a problem.  They’re just “mad as hell”.
Though relatively small, Beck’s is, however, a shrill and even dangerous audience.  They have learned from the likes of Beck that angry outbursts and generally outrageous behavior are effective.  Who enjoys being shouted at?
The dangerous part is that somewhere in the bowels of such a movement are the certifiably crazy people who will assassinate or blow up a building or in other ways create mayhem.
For this reason, and this reason alone, I think the Beck crowd needs to be taken very seriously, and confronted whenever and however people like ourselves have the opportunity.  We have much more power to moderate than we exercise.  We don’t need to be terrorized into silence.
I think we also have to look inwardly as well.  Like the Beck crowd, most advocates tend to associate only with like-minded people, and come to feel that there is only a single way of looking at a situation, and that the entire rest of the world is crazy.
Not so.
Do read the full article.  It’s now on the newstands or in your library.  Or the link is earlier in this post.

#89 – Dick Bernard: A salute to two veterans

/in , , , , /by

This morning, at the State Capitol Rotunda in St. Paul, I’m honored to read two brief tributes to WWII veterans which appear in the 2009 edition of the MN Blue Book, being released today.
I saw a flier on “Vote in Honor of a Veteran”  in the summer of 2008, and wrote the two tributes a year ago this month, forgetting I’d done them until recently when I was informed they’d be in Minnesota’s official book.  They are among quite a number of other tributes to veterans living and dead.  It will be an interesting morning.  10:30 a.m. at the State Capitol Rotunda if you happen to be in the area and interested.   (The event was originally scheduled in a smaller venue, but apparently there is a lot of public interest.)
The tributes are to my Dad’s cousin, Marvin Campbell, many years a resident  of Brainerd and Crookston, who passed on in 2006, and to another, an important mentor of mine, 88 year old Lynn Elling of Minneapolis.
MARVIN CAMPBELL
Marvin and Frank 7 14 35001
Pictured above are buddies Marvin Campbell and Frank Peter Bernard (my Dad’s brother), July 14, 1935.  Marvin idolized Frank.  At the time of the photo, Marvin was 16, and Frank had just turned 20.  Two months later, Frank reported for basic training in the Navy.  Six months later Frank reported for what turned out to be his permanent and last assignment: the USS Arizona.
The brief thumbnail of Marvin Campbell tells most of the rest of their veteran story.  #mce_temp_url#
Unfortunately, rough drafts of history (as mine was, last year) are sometimes hurriedly done, and thus have errors.  So it was with the piece I wrote which appears in the book.  Marvin Campbell was indeed a bank president, but much of his time as a bank president was in Brainerd MN.  He was active in the National Guard there, and proud of the recognition the Brainerd Guard gave to the casualties and survivors of the Bataan Death March in 1942, many of whom were from Brainerd.
LYNN ELLING
Lynn Elling had just completed his degree at the University of Minnesota when he was called up for Navy duty in 1943.  His time in the Navy was spent as a junior officer on LST 172 in the south Pacific.  (“LST” officially means Landing Ship Tank; but in Navy gallows humor, it meant Large Slow Target.)  They were the workhorses for the military, endlessly hauling materiels within the war zone, thus the gallows humor.

Lynn Elling on LST 172 1944

Lynn Elling on LST 172 1944


The tribute to Lynn is at  #mce_temp_url# .  The millioncopies website referenced there includes a longer description of Lynn and his work which I wrote a couple of years ago.  Do take a look.  #mce_temp_url#
It may seem odd that someone like me who is pro-Peace (and anti-War as a solution to problems) will write tributes to veterans.  It’s not at all odd to me.  I am a veteran myself, from a family full of military veterans.  Service mattered.  We thought (and we probably were) generally working to protect our country.  In recent years, the orientation seems to have changed.
We work towards Peace in the ways available to us, and at the times we see wrong, and work to right it (to borrow a quotation from Ted Kennedy, at his brother Robert;s funeral in 1968).
In particular, Lynn Elling’s work for Peace lives on in the organization World Citizen, of which I am currently Vice-President.  Do visit #mce_temp_url#

#88 – Dick Bernard: A Happy Birthday to Annelee, and a time to reflect on War

/in , , , , /by

See comment at end of post
Annelee Woodstrom is 83 years young today, and what a remarkable 83 years it has been.  She’s one of my role models.  What a life.  What an example.
We saw her reading from her book “War Child, Growing Up in Adolf Hitler’s Germany” one week ago today.  We were among 75 people in a church conference room, all listening carefully.  You could “hear a pin drop”, literally.  Each time I hear her speak, her presentation is more compelling and powerful.

Annelee Woodstrom September 13, 2009

Annelee Woodstrom September 13, 2009


I met Annelee when I ordered a copy of her book in 2003.  I had read a column about the book in the Fargo (ND) Forum, and sent her a note.  We’ve been good friends ever since.
Annelee wrote the book when she was 77.  It is about to go into its third printing.  Last year, she wrote a followup, Empty Chairs, about 60 years in the United States, beginning as a war bride of an American GI from northwest MN.  Their marriage of 51 years ended with his death in 1998.  Empty Chairs has also been a success for Annelee.  She has a powerful story to tell. ( #mce_temp_url# for details about the books.  Both are well worth reading.)
Annelee was 7 years old when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933.  She lived in a town of about 6,000 people within walking distance of what is now the CzechRepublic.  There were two Jewish families in her town.  Both were forced to leave, both survived.  At the end of the war, Annelee was 18 and a telegrapher in Regensburg, and near the end of the war she and a friend walked 90 miles home: better to die at home than through the bombs, they felt.  They like other Germans were starving.  Earlier she had been under the carpet bombing of the allies and survived.  The detonation caused severe hearing loss.
What had seemed to be a glorious war for Germany, re-building national pride and securing additional land and resources, had an inglorious end for the Germans. There’s a lesson in that for us.
In the official public accounts of the winners (as in schoolbook history) of WWII, the war usually begins with 1938; the U.S. engagement begins with Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. WWII ends with the surrender of Germany in May, 1945; and with Japan in September of that year.  It was our heroic war, liberating good from evil.  When asked when the Germans saw the end was coming, Annelee readily says “1943”.  She was 16, then.
Annelee began her talk by recalling German history between the end of the “war to end all wars”, WWI, in 1918, and her birth in 1926.  This was a time of destitution for ordinary Germans, rarely seriously discussed.  The Nazis promised jobs and national pride and prosperity, and for a while produced on their pledge, especially for those who were loyal party members.  Her parents refused to become party members, and refused her requests to join the Hitler Youth, whose parades and splendid uniforms enthralled her as a young girl.
There is almost literally a black hole in information about the privation of ordinary Germans after WWI.  But it was this privation, and the resulting humiliation at the loss that probably were the major factors making ordinary Germans susceptible to Hitler and the Nazis propaganda.
Winners of wars write the always heroic official history; losers retain and pass down the memories and consequences of the loss.  There is always a “black hole” – a story not to be told.  Personal memory is powerful for the losers.  There is no surrender of memory.
Annelee to her great credit remembers, and chooses to share.
Happy Birthday, Annelee!
**
Annelee’s s story last Sunday reminded me of an earlier story I had read about Germany in the aftermath of WW I.
This story came in the form of a November 5, 1923, letter written by my great-uncle Herman Henry Busch of Dubuque Iowa to a nephew in Germany.  At the time, HH had lived in the United States for over 50 years and he was a prosperous land developer.  The original letter was in German, and I had it and several others translated for a family history I first wrote in 1993.
In relevant part, here’s what HH Busch said about the consequence of WWI five years after it had ended.  Bear in mind, he is writing from America, and at the time he writes has lived in the U.S. for over 50 years.
“The last letter [unavailable,  apparently written in pre-war or WWI times] I counseled [a cousin] to shake the [German] dust from his feet and come over [to the U.S.].  It was the time when the bishop from Lemberg was taken into captivity by the Russians.  He answered me that [Germany] had a good Kaiser and good times.  My warning was justified.
The American millionaires and the government had loaned the Allies so many millions that against the will of the common folk, President Wilson was pulled into the War.  England had nine million for newspaper propaganda (for war) in American newspapers about the brutal German and that the German-Americans had come to suffer under it, they were held for unpatriotic and were required to come before the court for little things as if they were pro-German[*].  The damned war was a revenge and a millionaire’s war and the common people had to bleed in this bloody gladiator battle.  Yes, until now the world still has no peace because of the revenge of France [**].
So now the Catholics of America have a nine day novena for peace, in our beautiful Marian church.  The novena ends on the feast of All-Saints Day. It would be desirable for the strong God of the warring armies to let justice reign here and give the whole world the peace so that, at Christmas, the world can experience peace and good will to all.  We Americans must now bear the war debt of fifty billion through taxes and it makes me happy that you [Germans] do not need help us pay the war debt.  The last occupation map that I saw had  [his home area between the Ruhr and Netherlands] Borken on the borderline, is Borken occupied?  Is Borken included in the occupied area or not?  Where do the garrison occupation lines run near you?  Was the harvest good?  Are many people in the area in misery?  What is your business?  Who lives in my old home now.  I forgot nothing of the beautiful hunting grounds of my youth.  If the hunt is still as good as then, it would be my utmost wish to make a hunt there in Soison.  Report also of your family. If Germany will become more divided through loss of the Rhinelands and the revolution of the socialists and communists [***] then there is still a  crisis to get through, and we very surely hope that the whole confusion is soon rectified and order comes.  If Germany had been able to overflow the American newspapers with propaganda during the war like England, then America would have been on Germany’s side instead of England’s and it would be in a completely different position now in the world.  One hears that the need in the cities is big and farmers fare the best….”  (page 271, Pioneers: The Busch and Berning Families of LaMoure County ND, 1991, 1993, 2005)
* – German-Americans, especially those who spoke German, were considered suspect in the U.S., much as the Japanese-Americans were considered suspect in WWII, and the Arab-Americans today.  The old patters continue unabated.   If we do the same things in the same ways we will always get the same results…but it is a very hard lesson to learn.
** – In another letter, HH recounts a story told by his grandparents about the early 1800s when Napoleon overran their homeland of Westfalia, and for a number of years they were governed by France.  No love was lost for France by this German.
*** – H. H. does not define “socialist” or “communist” in his letter, and no later record is known from later writings.  The Nazis did eliminate the communists as competition, and the more I learn about the Nazis, they were, rather than “socialist”, really a mother-lode for the capitalists of the day, both in their country and elsewhere.  They were really the very epitome of the “military-industrial complex” which President Eisenhower feared in his farewell address to the U.S. Congress in January, 1961, and which is now a troubling reality.  In his address, Eisenhower had actively considered adding reference to government to his phrase, but in the end did not.
In background, Annelee's family in 1943

In background, Annelee's family in 1943


Annelee’s father was ultimately drafted into the German Army in a construction engineering capacity.  Except for coming home around Christmas of 1943, he was never seen again.  They believe he died in a Russian prison perhaps after the war, but no one is absolutely sure.
H.H. Busch died in 1933, the year Hitler came to power, and the Great Depression was raging in the United States.  Except for the above letter, I have no further accounts by or about him.
UPDATE SEP 20, 2009 from Jim Fuller:
A key point in the piece is that the period between WWI and WWII is a “black hole” for most people, which means that they can have no real understanding of why the Nazis in Germany and Fascists in Italy rose so readily to power in their respective countries.
A painless way to gain considerable knowledge of that era, and have a great time in the process, is to read the novels of Alan Furst.  They are superb, and beautifully written stories of spies and emigre intrigue in Europe between the world wars, but they also are filled with factual detail that one rarely, if ever, finds in history books. Another excellent novel that provides great historical insight is Erich Maria Remarque’s “Black Obelisque.”  (Remarque was the author of “All quiet On the Western Front,” which in its early chapters also tells much about that between-wars period.

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

/in , , /by



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

#76 – Dick Bernard: "Taking Woodstock" (and "zipping to Zap")

/1 Comment/in , , , , , /by

UPDATE ON THE ZIP TO ZAP:  Subsequent to the September 6 update I received two most interesting items:  my brother, who had been involved in the event sent a research piece that was most interesting #mce_temp_url#   .  Then I ordered the 1991 documentary on the event, an equally fascinating summary of what happened during those interesting few days in rural North Dakota in 1969, a few months before Woodstock.  I’d recommend the 53 minute video to anyone with an interest in the topic.   It can be ordered through #mce_temp_url#
UPDATE September 6: see comment re Zip to Zap, as well as link references at end of this post.
Original Post:
Yesterday we went down the street to see the just released “Taking Woodstock”, a film I thought would give me a retro look at Woodstock 1969.  Maybe it would be a temporary release from the bizarre country we seem to be living in today:  A country where some people are terrified that the President of the country might have some unsupervised time with unsuspecting school children when school begins this week (more on that on Tuesday morning.)  A country where health care for all is somehow un-American.  One wonders where we’re headed, and my concern is not our President; my concern is the collective us.
“Taking Woodstock”  turned out to be a very good choice of movie.  It had a comedy aspect to it, and was not a documentary, but in the over two hours in the theatre it gave a pretty decent picture of how Woodstock impacted on small town New York state and the participants in the drama.  I wouldn’t call it an exciting movie – for a while I wondered where it was going – but it was interesting, and gave lots of food for thought.
In the end, it seems, Woodstock 1969 was an unintended very major event that was simply allowed to happen.  One wonders how such an event would play out today, with “cowboys” wandering the streets, armed and dangerous; moralists tut-tutting about immoral behavior, and all the rest.
The 1969 bottom line, or so it seems: in an atmosphere that could well have been chaotic and violent, Woodstock participants did their thing, peacefully, and the area recovered.  Even in the midst of a disastrous Vietnam War, there was a sense of sanity and civility that we seem to have lost today.
(There’s plenty of information available about Woodstock: a good source seems to be http://www.woodstock.com/1969-festival; for more about the film, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Woodstock )
For the record, I totally missed out on Woodstock in 1969.  I don’t remember a thing about it “back in the day”.  I remember hearing about the famous “Zip to Zap” in the spring of 1969 (my kid brother almost scored with Life magazine with photos he took there, in western ND); and about the moon-landing in the summer, but nothing about Woodstock.  Had I known about Woodstock, I would not have been interested. Wasn’t my thing.  Plus I was going to graduate school, building a new house, getting ready for a child who arrived August 25, 1969, etc.  On my priority list, Woodstock wasn’t….
Still, Woodstock has been an object of fascination for me over the years.  
I could grant that lots of the folks who hung out at Woodstock in the summer of 1969 – perhaps even most of them – engaged in one or another kind of dangerous or even self-destructive behavior.  But best as I know, their only potential victims were themselves.  They were surrounded by a genuine ad hoc community of sorts that cared whether the neighbors lived or died.  The atmosphere was live and let live.
Today the moralists would be out there with their National Guard troops and their blazing news releases raging moralism and hell-fire and damnation, and doing their best to quiet other voices.
The Woodstock.com site (URL above) gives a pretty decent summation of what seems to have been Woodstock 1969: “…a community of a half million people who managed to peacefully co-exist over three days of consistent rain, food shortages, and a lack of creature comforts. “Woodstock is a reminder that inside each of us is the instinct for building a decent, loving community, the kind we all wish for,” according to Joel Rosenman. “Over the decades, the history of that weekend has served as a beacon of hope that a beautiful spirit in each of us ultimately will triumph.”
If you can, see the film….
Note:  The person posting the comment on “Zip to Zap” has an interesting website #mce_temp_url#, which includes an astonishingly beautiful piece of music by San Franciscan Matt Venuti.  Do visit and share.

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

/in , , /by

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