#502 – Dick Bernard: A 24-hour blackout of Wikipedia, SOPA, PIPA, etc.

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

UPDATE 4 A.M. JANUARY 19: If you despair about individuals being unable to make a difference read today’s Just Above Sunset. All you need to do is be willing to join forces on a cause and work together. “Work together” is the key. And keep working…. Thank you.
UPDATE Jan. 18: Here is a significant website which helps clarify some of the legal tension relating to copyright.
UPDATE Jan. 20: Here’s an excellent summary video of the issues. It’s about ten minutes.
*
Original comment, posted January 18.
Go here for information about why Wikipedia is voluntarily blacking out its on-line English people’s encyclopedia today. Wikipedia joins names like Google, Mozilla (Firefox) and many others in urging action.
Read the materials provided, then act.
*
Possibly, you say to yourself, laws like these are necessary to protect “we, the people” from stolen (copyrighted) information.
While the issue is complex, and there are plenty of abuses, you are deluding yourself if you think these laws, if passed as is, won’t impact on you.
Information is power, coveted, missed if lost….
*
From 2004-2006 – two years – I tried to get accurate information from the United States Government and others about “facts” as they related to Haiti. This began innocently: I just wanted an answer to a simple question. What resulted is a short column I wrote entitled “Anatomy of an Official Lie” which is still on-line here. I did an immense amount of work on this column, and came to the conclusion that I was being lied to, sometimes intentionally and sometimes inadvertently, at all levels. I submitted it for publication and it wasn’t printed – not an unusual outcome then or now. My audience for my concern became the public-private political entities that impact on U.S. policy overseas. My letter to them is here. I did not get a single response.
There is a serious problem with access to and sharing of information, and it will not be solved by the passage of a more restrictive law in the Congress.
*
Less than a dozen hours ago I received the most recent of those ubiquitous “forwards” sent by an unwitting friend. It turned out to be false (as most such forwards also turn out to be).
The friend apologized, but then suggested that the respected on-line source I used was itself incomplete in its rationale declaring the forward to be “false”. This was the same person who had sent the information along without any fact check at all. The forward, one gathers, more agreed with his own personal bias. Facts didn’t matter as much as the accusation.
*
Another friend, a retiree who blogs, learned of a law firm that began to sue bloggers for using portions of material even with attribution – from newspapers they represented. It costs a lot of money to defend oneself even against a false claim.
The “SOPA” bill that’s before congress right now..and I write about on my blog…and have written to my Congressional people about..needs to be killed…otherwise, there will be thousands of blog-chasing lawyers out there.
Yes, I quote my friend in that last sentence, above, without attribution. It’s from a letter he wrote to me, yesterday. He takes this issue very, very seriously. He worries, with good reason.
*
It is perhaps human nature to dismiss or discount things that we don’t think affect, or possibly will affect us. So a common response to such entreaties as this is “why bother?”
Martin Niemoeller, Lutheran Minister, WWI German War hero and German dissident and German prisoner from 1937-45, often spoke of the danger of this complacent attitude. His is a memorable and timeless quotation, which appears in somewhat different but most likely accurate renditions, since he used this phrase in each speech he gave, and may have slightly varied the words from one occasion to the next.
Niemoeller: “When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then the came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

#500 – Dick Bernard: Some thoughts at 500

/1 Comment/in , /by

I began this blog with #1 on March 25, 2009. That is slightly over 1000 days ago, which means I post on an average of every other day. But averages are deceiving. Sometimes I post daily, sometimes a week or more will go by.
I’ve been satisfied with the initial design, and with my initial descriptor of myself: “moderate, pragmatic Democrat”. That’s what I am. I had no idea what, if anything, would evolve. I just started to write. What you see is what you get.
Jody Russell of Thunder Communications got me off the ground with this blog, and I’m very indebted to her for her expertise. My platform is WordPress.
Except for an occasional problem, such as a vicious spam attack fairly early on, things have gone okay.
My topics are whatever happens to strike my fancy on any particular day. Monday’s post will be on Martin Luther King Day; The January 12 post was on the second anniversary of the Haiti earthquake. And on and on.
Along the way, the editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet noted my work, and many of my blog posts appear there; more recently the Woodbury Patch, part of the burgeoning nationwide Patch network, has been posting me about once a week (I submit, they decide.) Last Thursday’s post on Haiti was ‘picked up’ by the Stillwater and Northfield Patch publications.
You can learn more about the Daily Planet here, and about Patch here. They are part of the burgeoning alternative media world.
The traditional print media (we’re long-time and satisfied subscribers to the Minneapolis Star Tribune) and the local Woodbury Bulletin notices these new kinds of journalism. It’s a new, still unsettled, and certainly imperfect frontier.
I’m meeting other bloggers: Larry Gauper up in Fargo does Wordchipper, and does it well; Alan Pavlik in LA is prolific with Just Above Sunset. There are others.
Most recent discovery is Shawn Otto’s important ScienceDebate.org. I met Shawn some years ago when someone introduced me to him on line, just another name. You might know of him through the film House of Sand and Fog, still available, for which he was screenwriter and co-producer.
Income stream from blogging? fohgettaboutit. Zilch. If I did this for the money, I wouldn’t…. Impact? Who knows? Probably very little, but very little is better than none.
Like anything else, you get somewhere by showing up. Many years ago, June 1972, I heard Alex Haley speak to the annual convention of the National Education Association in Atlantic City. This was the year before his blockbuster, Roots, was published.
My takeaway: he submitted stuff for publication for years, literally, before being published or paid for anything.
I have found that the very act of posting the blog, with the potential of somebody unknown actually finding and reading it, causes me to try hard to gather my thoughts in a coherent and accurate way. I try to do a bit more than just throw words at a wall.
There is a search box on the home page. Enter a word and you’ll see how many of the 500 posts at least mention a particular word: 81 posts mention Democrat; 79 mention Republican; 41 mention Iraq; 32 mention dialogue; 38 mention hell, 9 heaven (the frequency of those two surprised me!) (This post should show up in the list of posts with those words, if this works correctly.)
One of my unique words was the mention of “truncated”. That’s in September 16, 2011. To me, an important political post.
One of my personal ‘favorites’ is discussion of “more ways to communicate less” (February 8, 2011).
Every now and then somebody will comment about the blog, usually favorably, but I’m like the vast majority of the immense numbers of bloggers in this country: mostly we labor in anonymity, hoping one or two will stop by once in awhile to at least scan our thoughts, get inspired or get mad….
We are part of the web of conversation that is necessary for a functioning society.
Thanks for stopping by. If you think this is a worthwhile place, let others know about it. Hopefully I can report at post #1000 about three years from now….
UPDATE Feb. 23, 2012: I neglected to mention my thought process with name of the blog, etc.
When I retired from teacher union work (Jan. 2000) I was president of a group called the Minnesota School Public Relations Association. After an entire life in public education, I decided to observe and feel public schools from ‘outside the walls’. I called myself “Looking at Public Schools from Outside the Walls”, and in 2002 developed a website which still exists here, and includes nearly 60 ideas for visitors. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much interest in the site/activity, and it went dormant in February, 2008, but I kept it on-line.
Friends were encouraging me to do some blogging, and I finally bit in early 2009, and attached my blog to the outsidethewalls platform.
The photos on the home page are 1) from a road beside the ND farm near Berlin where my mother grew up in the early 1900s. Her brother and sister lived on the farm till recent years. The dog is their dog, “Sam”, who when I came to visit knew my routine and looked forward to the walks. He’s passed on some years now.
The other photo looks north from Hawk’s Nest in near dead-center ND, south of and between Carrington and Sykeston. The photo was taken in 2008 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of my high school graduation at Sykeston.
Thanks for stopping by.

#499 – Dick Bernard: Political Communication; Communication in the U.S. Political Sphere

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

This mornings e-mail brought a most interesting post from Just Above Sunset (JAS), one of my favorite bloggers. Today’s post, Longing for Vigilante’s, concerns Politics and the Communications Profession. It is quite long, but worth the read, and accessible here*. I filed an off-the-cuff comment (later in this post, certainly a “rant”), and the entire conversation brought to mind a reflection on political communications in days gone by….

Some years ago I read a fascinating historical novel, Bones of Plenty by Lois Phillips Hudson.
Hudson’s novel is set in rural North Dakota in 1934, in the area of a small town west of Jamestown, and not far from where my Uncle Vince has spent his entire life. Vince was 9 years old in 1934 (he just turned 87), and in conversations he has described that year as the worst year in the Great Depression.
There is much to this novel, but what brought it to mind today was reflecting on how communications took place in 1934. There were newspapers and journals, then, many of which printed most anything submitted by readers. There was no glut of information. Some citizens had telephones; radio, while existing, was not accessible to the masses.
The main way people communicated, then, was in person, face-to-face, after church, in the saloon, at the town hall, or in assorted settings in the town and country.
These were not people who necessarily agreed with each other: some loved Roosevelt, some hated him. There were all of the things that cause relationship dilemmas in the present day. But the fact of the matter was that they were stuck with each other, and as a consequence, whether they liked it or not, they had to figure out ways to survive, together.
It occurs to me that we no longer feel that need to relate with others, politically, and we are hurting ourselves immensely, as a country. We isolate ourselves in “pods” of particular interests/biases.
This is unhealthy to the future of our society.
*
After I read Just Above Sunset, I dashed off the following, which I have chosen to not edit in any way. Best to catch the emotions of the moment. It is my rough draft, as it were.
The photos at the end of this post are of elders and a student in conversation two days ago in Minneapolis. It was a privilege to witness their chats.
Here’s to real, genuine, communication as it used to be!
*
(Posted to Just Above Sunset [Jan. 13 2012]) “[I begin with] my last sentence, apologizing for the length of the following rant. Sorry. I hope at least one person reads this!
There is certainly research around on this most important topic, but nobody will read it.
My guess: most Americans don’t even read headlines, much less content, and in these days can’t be bothered with discerning fact, so they depend on their outlet of choice: Fox, Daily Kos…endless similar sources right and left.
I’m just a common dog in all of this. I’ve noted that the first paragraph and the last are important. the headline may or may not be unbiased. Pundits often stick in the middle of their column, somewhere, a CYA paragraph, in case somebody calls them out for their bias. They can then say, truthfully, what is really false: “see, it was right there, and you just didn’t read it.” The lead story on TV is always sensational, and there is no “depth of coverage” worth those words outside of, perhaps, 60 Minutes. And on an on and on.
There is a lot of money to be made by the media in political advertising, and we schmucks will pay the bill through campaign contributions to our favorite candidates.
Years ago I coined a phrase, [essentially] “we have too many news people, and too little news” [actually, “more ways to communicate less“]. Of course, as I say, I’m just a common dog and have no way of proving that, and the words are too common to do a productive internet search of that and prove my case. But “my” phrase has been out there for years.
We have become a nation of idiots.
‘Opinions’ have replaced any semblance of ‘facts’ or ‘truth’.
Or maybe we haven’t lost it all just yet.
Just a couple of days ago an elderly friend of mine (actually, he and I are the same age, but what the hey?) was talking with a young woman, who’s working on her senior thesis at her university in Philly area. [first photo, below. click to enlarge] I had taken her over to see him. She happened across me last summer, and I think she’s glad she did. He observed to her, and I agree with him, that the vast majority – the silent middle in this country – is up to something. But it’s quiet and uninteresting and too hard to ferret out, so it won’t make the news. If he’s right, and I think he is, we’re at a time of a profound shift in attitude, but it’s far too boring to cover: like watching paint dry. News is entertainment today.
My college friend is the future we’re, pardon my French, ‘shitting’ on as we play our games. They will remember. We lived in the golden age of “America”, and we lost perspective. Who doesn’t know someone who’ll freely admit “I’m spending my kids inheritance.” It’s more than our kids money we’re spending. We’re spending their future, too.
So the commercial media (which unfortunately includes almost all media now – even lonely bloggers need to pay for their computer) will continue to “ambulance chase”, and in one way or another adopts the famous mantra: “we report, you decide”. And the politicians and their image makers will lie through their teeth, knowing it doesn’t make any difference at all: today’s quote is all that matters, and that people will forget by election day.
As a disinterested relative of mine is fond to say, “they all lie”, which gives her permission to ignore any responsibility for her own choices.
One parting shot: last spring we saw a movie that came and went quickly, but is back in DVD and on demand as of Jan 3, 2012. It is called I Am, The Documentary. I wish everybody in the world could see it, and then talk about it. Check it out on the internet. As the subtitle says: “The shift is happening”.
I hope.”
Sign me: someone who cares.

Bob Milner and Allison Stuewe, Minneapolis MN, January 12, 2012


Interviewing Lynn Elling, Minneapolis MN, January 11, 2012


UPDATE January 14, 2012
* – Comment intended for “Rick the news guy” referred to in Just Above Sunset. Rick was apparently on the “ground floor” at the founding of CNN. I don’t know if this comment will reach Rick. I rarely watch CNN now, but what I see suggests that it at least is attempting to act as a legitimate news source, compared with someone like Fox News (to me, “faux news”).
I thought you might be interested in the following:
I spent considerable viewer time with CNN in the early years of the station. My first vivid memory was Wolf Blitzer reporting from wherever he was during Desert Storm in 1991. He did a great job, as I recall.
In October, 1996, I was watching CNN when I finally had enough and turned off the television, permanently. It was in the heat of the political season and one Newt Gingrich looked me straight in the eye through a CNN camera and told a bald-faced lie, with great sincerity. It was my last straw. I don’t remember what the lie was, but I know it was Newt. I wrote a column about it which was published in my college town paper in December of that year. The column is [Politics 1960 vs 1996001].
I am no longer a TV fan, though I watch it for brief times, including evening news. I pretty rarely watch CNN these days.
The most recent experience with CNN was another unfortunate one: I went to Haiti in December, 2003, and spent a week there learning about Haiti from people who were favorable to President Aristide, including his foreign press liaison. This was a time of tension before the coup, and, in fact, we were in the press liaisons home when she got the phone call about the big demonstrations forming near the capitol.
I really knew nothing about Haiti before that trip, and I was astonished at the diametrically opposed ‘spin’ from the American government and press, and people who liked and respected Aristide, particularly when it became clear that he was to be deposed largely through U.S. efforts [personal opinion here].
One of the worst events for me was one evening when I learned that CNN would be interviewing President Aristide in Port-au-Prince. I think the guy doing the interview was Anderson Cooper, though I could be wrong on that. It’s not terribly relevant. What turned me off was how condescending and dismissive the CNN interviewer was to Aristide. He was treated like he was some small town mayor, rather than as President of a country. I’ve never forgotten that.
The news business is difficult, no doubt. I do know a bit about how it works, and I don’t think it is working at all well today.
Thanks for listening.

#495 – Dick Bernard: Some scary things about the political theater in Iowa

/3 Comments/in , , , /by

UPDATE Jan. 4: Many comments follow at end of this post.
Kurt Ullrich of Maquoketa, Iowa, in the December 31 Minneapolis Star Tribune, caught very well tomorrows Iowa Precinct Caucus vote. It is in this column, “Sliding through Iowa like so many trombones”. If we could stop reality with the illusion of Prof. Harold Hill and “76 Trombones” leading the big parade, it would be one thing. But Iowa is a place, half way through the first term of Tea Party power and the Corporation as Citizen, where we are seeing the first act of eleven months of political theater to the max.
I have no issue with Iowa or Iowans. There is a long tradition of early presidential preference polls there, Republican and Democrat. Many relatives of mine – good people – live in Iowa, as do people I grew up with who moved there. In more than a casual sense, part of my roots are in Iowa. I have good friends who grew up in Iowa; valued clergy members whose roots are in Iowa, on and on and on.
Iowa is unfortunate in that it mirrors the rest of us, everywhere. And the image that comes across, in this particular political season, is not flattering.
I’ve been watching it as it evolves.
Here’s a bit of what’s ahead in the next 10 months, if Iowa politics is any indicator:
1. Shameless political lying will be so pervasive, that the prudent person will believe nothing advertised either for or against anybody. All that should matter is the actual record, which is available, but will take some work to uncover. A relative of mine is inclined to justify sloppy voting by the mantra “they all lie”. It is not that simple. But there will be more bald-faced lying than ever in the coming months; and this includes those ubiquitous ‘forwards’ of carefully selected ‘facts’.
2. There will never have been an election so dominated by big and essentially undocumented money. This will translate into extraordinarily fine tuned and vicious media advertising designed to mislead and deceive. This will infect every corner of the media, from the internet through television, radio, newspapers…. The culprit: “On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions.” (The source of this quote is here.) We saw some practice with this in the 2010 election; but that was child’s play with what we’ll see this year. Money will scream loudly in the upcoming election.
Love it or hate it, if you plan to have any say, you’ll need to contribute money to candidates, groups, or causes that you support; and in addition, get involved to an extent you aren’t accustomed to.
3. There are far too many news sources, far too partisan, and far too little news. A person, regardless of ideology, can successfully insulate him or herself from any opinion other than the one he or she believes. This is dangerous. In any society there are legitimate differences of opinion. In the quaint old days, people had no choice but to engage directly with others of differing points of view, and out of this usually came some reasonable agreement. These days, the emphasis is on gaining and keeping control over both policy and process. This has never worked long term, and will not work now, but is a huge problem.
4. Finally (simply to keep this at reasonable length) is the matter of POLLS, omnipresent, and misleading. There is no question that polls are statistically valid, with a range of usually plus or minus 3 or 4%. A sample of 500-1000 people, even for a national sample, is all one needs. But the wild variations in polling results in Iowa, and the large number of people calling themselves “undecided” as caucus day looms, amplify the impact of the first three points above, and render meaningless each and every prediction about what will happen on Tuesday in the state of Iowa. Does anyone remember that my Congresswoman, Michele Bachmann, won the Straw Poll in Iowa a few months ago, and as of today is in single digits there?
Whether what actually happens in Iowa will make a difference remains to be seen.
Caveat emptor.
RELATED: here
UPDATE Jan 3, 2012: here
COMMENTS:
1. Bruce has posted a comment on-line (below). (The comments feature is open for use.) Here is the comment:
Indeed,gonzo money in politics is ruining our form of government. The Obama campaign coupled with its outside PACS will raise, I’ve read, about a billion bucks. The Republicans will be compelled to do the same. I wonder who the winner will feel beholding to.
My guess is that the deep pockets on Wall street and other places in our corporate world, don’t really care who wins as long as they have all the access money can buy.
2. from Madeline: I agree with your analysis. It’s scary.
3. from Mike: Caveat voter.
I agree, Dick, Don’t buy what the media is selling.
Iowa was important in 2008 as it was evidence that Obama could draw support in a largely Caucasian and rural state. Now nobody seems to have grabbed the Iowa Republican vote by enough to brag about, but somebody will brag about it, even if thy don’t.
4. from William: Dick, the obscene amounts of money spent on political campaigns is ruining our form of government. Pandering for money from contributors seems to dominate the actions of office holders from day one in office. Lobbyists know this game well and influence the political process to the detriment of our country. Along with this comes all the negative ads and distortions. The truly sad part is that the negative ads do have an impact. Look what happened to John Kerry with the Swift Boat ad in 2004.
5. John: I have spent way too much time following the Iowa political scene. I am fatigued, feel ripped off and will probably be glued to the V results tonight anyway.
IMO, the state of political discourse in the USA is f*cked!
6. From a good friend in Iowa: I went to all the meetings of our prospective Republican candidates, except John Huntsman. They all have great personalities and gave their view on how the U.S. should be run. Bachman even showed up in Forest City, (grandparents live here) went to see her, shook her hand & took a few pictures. She is nice looking & pleasing personality, her views are too restrictive- evangelical in nature. She is not a threat to being a president of the U.S. let alone a candidate. There is only one candidate that could beat Obama, that is Mitt Romney, if only people could get over his being a Mormon. Also, I am not sure that Obama needs to be beat. He is counting on the United Nations to do most of his dirty work if elected to a second term, which I am a little leery of.
The health care system in the United States needs to be tweaked to some degree, but not a decoupling from private enterprise. I told [my brother] that there are just to many people without insurance and no means to health care to ignore the issue in this election cycle. The people I am talking about had their boots taken away from them ( via the free trade agreements etc.) so there are no boot straps to pick themselves up with even if they wanted to.
I will be going to a caucus tonight and voice my opinions for a nominee.
7. From Jeff: Comment #5 is good [to this column in Minnpost] NOTE from Dick: Columnist Eric Black has many years ‘boots on the ground’ covering national politics. Note the column as well!
8. From Kathy: I am aghast at what the media is doing with this upcoming caucus…agree with your warnings…wonder how realistic it is to hope we can get the Move to Amend to reverse the Court ruling…seems absolutely critical to avoid a total break down of our system as we thought we knew it.
9. From Alan: I agree with it all. But the movie I think of is Blazing Saddles, with these words of consolation offered to the handsome new black sheriff – What did you expect? “Welcome, sonny”? “Make yourself at home”? “Marry my daughter”? You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know… morons.
10. from Mary (one of on-line comments, evening Jan. 3): Watching the caucus process and seeing a lot of journalists rush to gin up excitement and high energy where there is none! Polls / charts / graphs are created to prove almost every opposing point…. thanks to ‘smart boards’ for giving non events a pie chart!!
25 down…75 to go!
You know there is money being spent but in truth there are also people working….that’s good, right??
Ever wonder why democracy is so hard to explain?
11. Wrapup. Dick 5:15 a.m. Jan. 4:
Romney by 8, or so says NYT in the news greeting me when I woke up. I watched very little of the analytical chatter last night. It will be endless today. Main takeaway for me, as always: It is/will be the people who actually show up to vote who in the end make the difference. Sure, there are lots and lots of problems, but it is those who show up who make the difference.
12. A friend from London who grew up in the Middle East writes: Is watching the Iowa election unfold as irrelevant (& captivating) as watching a sport one is not really interested in – especially since one is not Republican inclined? It does, as you suggest, mirror the electorate at large. However, wouldn’t time be better spent doing other things – including campaigning for one’s candidate?
I know very little about the candidates (perhaps more than many since according to research those who watch Fox news are even less informed than those who watch no news!) still this bit by Craig Sams in the Guardian today was surprising, is it all true? Is Paul then more liberal than many democrats!? Your coverage of the Iowa Republican primary (Report, 3 January) barely mentions Ron Paul or his policies, settling, like most of the US media, for describing him as “quirky” or “marginal”. Yet he is neck and neck with Mitt Romney and the reason why is not extreme conservatism but commonsense policies that appeal to many Americans and, I would suggest, to many Guardian readers. Ron Paul consistently opposed the Iraq war; opposes funding of Israeli and Arab military that is linked back to purchase of US armaments; opposed the raid on the Gaza flotilla and the demonisation of democratically elected Hamas; rejects sanctions against Iran; wants to end the US embargo against Cuba; sees the World Trade Organisation as a barrier to free trade and is
opposed to protectionism; called the 9/11 Commission report a “charade” that masked a failure of bureaucracy; would not have assassinated Bin Laden; seeks the abolition of the Federal Reserve; opposed Tony Blair receiving a Congressional Gold Medal of Honour; sponsored the Employee Ownership Act to encourage employee-owned corporations with tax-exempt status; opposes
internet controls; wants immunity for whistleblowers, including Julian Assange; opposes the death penalty; believes all polluters should pay; opposes subsidies to the gas and oil industry; favours legalisation of drugs
and treatment for abusers as with alcoholics.
13. from Greg: A first time reader of your blog, I compliment you for the effort and I agree with your point of view. I couldn’t figure out how to post a comment on your blog, but feel I must contribute one thought.
You state: “1. Shameless political lying will be so pervasive, that the prudent person will believe nothing…..”
While it may be true that no “prudent person” will believe the “shameless lying”, it is also true that a huge percentage of our voters are neither prudent nor informed (how else could you explain Sarah Palin?) And this election, because corporations are now persons, may well be decided by “shameless lying”.
Many years ago I read a book titled: The Social Construction of Reality. The thesis put forth is pretty simple: If you hear it often enough, it becomes your reality. By December 2012 our collective reality may well be shameless lies.
14. Online comment from Richard: As you know, because of decades of political inertia in the U.S. and other nations, and because of the inertia of our planet’s climate system in reacting to ongoing increases in human-generated greenhouse gases like CO2, our planet has already been locked into decades of global warming in which the polar ice caps and mountain snow packs will continue to melt; oceans will continue to rise, warm and acidify; seashores and islands will continue to flood; coral reefs will continue to die; storms, droughts, heat waves and other extreme weather events will continue to plague the Upper Midwest and other world regions; plant and animal species will continue to disappear; and a record world population will continue to expand from seven billion in 2012 and engage in wars and other conflicts to survive in a world of ravaged environments and depleted resources.
A few years ago when he addressed a University of Minnesota audience, polar explorer and ice cap researcher Will Steger warned that unless global warming is reversed by 2020, irreversible climate changes will occur. Because of ongoing increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, that deadline is now 2017. It will of course be breached.
Yet in the final days of the 2012 GOP Iowa precinct caucuses, that paramount issue was virtually ignored by the presidential contenders, the mainstream and other media who covered them, and the public at large. To my knowledge the U.S. GOP is the only major political party in the world that has adopted denial of human-induced global warming as an official policy. And in the Congress and many state legislatures including Minnesota’s, it has blocked or even rescinded legislation to limit global warming and adapt to its adverse impacts.
Dick, I don’t know if that paramount issue was ignored in the 2012 Iowa Democratic precinct caucuses; but if your blog is an example, it was clearly ignored by citizens who are apparently more progressive. As
“political theater,” that also hinders urgently needed actions to confront and cope with fatal global warming.

#490 – Dick Bernard: Drones, Chapter two.

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

UPDATE: All comments, including to this post, are found here. #9 is first comment received after publishing of this post.
In “The Drones”, published a week ago today, was one crucial paragraph: “However limited, there is room for conversation among people willing to listen to each other, and considering other points of view. But one can’t have such a conversation in separate rooms.”

One of the recipients of the post (I would describe all of the initial recipients as people passionate about peace and justice, including me) asked a reasonable question: “do you believe what you wrote, or are you just trying to get a reaction”. I replied honestly: “both”.
I keep thinking of two novels I’ve read.
The first is “Peace Like a River”, a 2001 best seller by Leif Enger.
The book is set in early 1960s Minnesota and North Dakota and much of it involves a chase by an FBI agent attempting to apprehend a possibly innocent teenager accused of murder.
The takeaway from this book which applies to the drone conversation is the huge change in technology in the last 50 years. If you don’t believe this, simply pick the year when you began high school and compare the ways and means you had of communicating, then.
In Peace Like a River, the FBI agent works with what he has to work with, and it’s very primitive by today’s standards.
Then, think of the ways anyone can communicate today, literally anywhere in the world.
By today’s standard, drones are no Buck Rogers sci-fi device, even compared with our own means of keeping track/keeping touch. We can lament the loss of anonymity, but it’s long gone.
The other book which came to mind was the 1962 novel “Bones of Plenty”, by Lois Phillips Hudson, set in rural North Dakota in 1934 – the year described by my Uncle Vince, then 9 years old, as the worst year he could remember during the Great Depression.
The takeaway from Bones of Plenty was how people dealt with issues in small towns (and large) in older days when communication was far more limited than in the early 1960s.

Among a book full of vivid written images, Hudson describes meetings in the town hall in the tiny community west of Jamestown which is epicenter of her book.
As today, not everyone in the 1930s thought alike, but unlike today, in small towns or large, or in the country, people really had no reasonable option, short of completely isolating themselves, than engaging in conversation (sometimes called ‘fights’) with people whose views they might not like. This applied to everyone, including politicians. This was before there was an effective means to deliver political rhetoric in soundbites to people in the isolation of their own homes. Most often communication was pretty raw and pretty real.

I’m old enough to sometimes have nostalgia for the old days. But one doesn’t need to think very long about the many problems back then.
Similarly, it would be nice if there were no need for drones, but given the alternative, killing a la the World Wars, ever more focused on civilians, I will take the lesser of the two evils.
Of course, drones, like today’s Dick Tracy wrist-radios which everyone has, have their own serious limitations as will become obvious with time. In our massive world, we will never control outcomes with small airplanes. We depend on reasonable relationships with host countries to have these airplanes on their land. We could be told to leave.
We are an ever larger and broader community with different and legitimate points of view. We are a world with artificial but no longer real borders. We’re stuck with each other.
Let’s talk. But “let’s talk” doesn’t presume going into the conversation with a “you can go to hell” pre-determined outcome as what seems to be happening in Washington D.C. at this very moment.
We can’t be a “you can go to hell” society and survive.
That’s why I continue to lobby for true dialogue – conversation without borders.

#487 – Dick Bernard: Going to Hell

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Saturday while engaged in domestic chores, I turned on the History Channel. The just-beginning program was more-or-less the history of Hell.
Hell, of course, has a very long history, predating Christianity and since, like God and Heaven, Hell is presumably not open to visit until after you’re dead and go there, it is susceptible to human interpretation, misuse and abuse. Hell has lots of authoritative interpreters…and they disagree.
I’m Catholic – in fact, just returned from Sunday Mass. The history of Hell is a long one with me, including intermediate places like Purgatory and Limbo, and procedural things like Mortal and Venial sins and Confession). I don’t believe or disbelieve hell. Through an older adults view, I take the claims with a grain of salt, especially when some other human is expressing to me, with certainty, something that is not at all certain.
Nonetheless, the History Channel program was interesting, appearing to emphasize various images of Hell, including the most dramatic: that of Dante Alighieri’s Hades.
One thing is sure: if you believe in Hell, you don’t want to go there!
But fear of the hereafter is and has always been an exploitable fear: a way to keep people in line. We surely learned it when we were growing up in small town Catholic America.
On the TV program, quite considerable time was spent with a young Baptist preacher with a small congregation somewhere. There was no uncertainty in this preachers mind: he could cite chapter and verse. Being Baptist, there is a certain way out of the pit, regardless of your misdeeds.
I’m not here to argue theology.
As I watched I began to think back to a very powerful radio program I had chanced upon on National Public Radio a few years ago. I was somewhere between here and there in my car, and the radio happened to be on when I heard the program. I’d cite ‘chapter and verse’ but I can’t remember the program or the person interviewed, except that it was on a Saturday afternoon.
The person being interviewed that day was a former very high profile evangelical with a mega church in Oklahoma or Texas. He was a powerful orator, and he had built a very large congregation based on his own particular personality and “hellfire and damnation” message. He could paint a vivid picture of the pit of Hell. He was a Bishop in his denomination. As I recall, he was African-American, and his flock was basically but not entirely white.
They were “saved”, and thus immune from the bad place.
The ministers downfall began one day when he was at home watching television, and the image was of the evacuation of refugees from Rwanda after the genocide in 1994.
The image was apparently pretty vivid, of starving people, particularly young children.
As he watched, he was transformed: rather than Hell being someplace down there it was, he came to feel, a condition here on earth – “hell on earth” comes to mind. Not only that, it was a condition which we humans had considerable control over.
The next Sunday, he preached as usual, with power, good humor and all the rest. But he revised his hellfire and damnation story, making all of his flock cause in the matter of heaven and hell.
It stunned the flock in the pews.
The impact was immediate. Attendance fell off, and fell off some more.
His was not the message they had come to hear, and financially support.
He left his church, and his reputation was ruined in his entire circle.
I wonder, today, not about Hell as described in that program on the History Channel, but about this Minister: where he is, what he’s doing. Whether he repented from his revisionist view of hell, or stuck with it.
He was talented, and I’m sure he survived and probably thrived. But I don’t know that.
Merry Christmas to all.

#483 – Dick Bernard: Political Communication, awash in lies of every sort.

/0 Comments/in , /by

In the very recent past an incident at University of California at Davis (UCD) went viral. A policeman was filmed from many angles pepper-spraying students doing a sit-in on campus in support of the Occupy movement.
I have a good friend who has lived in Davis for over 30 years and he presumably knows his relatively small local community well. In university in the late 1960s he was an excellent journalist and photographer during the Vietnam Wars days of rage. He is very media savvy to this day. I decided to ask him for his report on the situation three days after it happened. He said this:
“Reporting live from the streets of Davis – the scene is – – – – –
Nothing – nothing at all.
All of the action is in the center of the campus; which is about a quarter mile in any direction from any vehicular traffic.
The “angry mob” of about 500 is maybe 1 percent of the total student/faculty in residence; and I see not a whit of any discussion or even acknowledgement of [this?] by anyone I’ve talked to over the past several days.
Obviously, the town newspaper smells Pulitzer; and their website/blog/twitter feed is in overdrive – which fits with the total wired generation of students; each, it seems, started filming 10 seconds before the pepper started.
What IS acknowledged and youtubed (but not virally; and NOT getting any other play at all), is that the students were warned multiple times over several hours after several days; both written and verbal; to move or they would be sprayed.
I’m frankly far less disgusted by the pepper spray than the mainstream media seems to be. Given the history of civil disobedience between protestors and police over the decades, pepper spray is far less violent and injury producing than dragging; clubbing or other more serious options. Should it have been done, though? Most definitely not. Best tactic would have been to ignore.
Remember this: Hype is driven by the loudest screams, and with internet and texting readily available to the masses, any rumor or partial truth can really run rampant.
RE the chancellor – she is likely gone, along with the officers and the police chief. There is no way to avoid that.”
A while earlier, right after I’d heard of Occupy Wall Street in New York City for the first time, I wrote a signed commentary* on the topic for the local newspaper: “You’d be forgiven if you haven’t heard of it”, I said about the by the then-evolving viral protest in behalf of the 99% of us who aren’t wealthy. Zuccotti Park was the parent of the UCD gathering. Zuccotti Park had gone unpublicized by major media for nearly the first two weeks of its existence.
My column was published in the October 12 edition of the paper, and my local legislator – who’d have no love for OWS – wrote me a dismissive e-mail pointing out that she did know about the protest…and the Minneapolis one as well. What she didn’t know is that I had submitted my newspaper commentary two weeks earlier, on September 30, and for whatever reason the paper had chosen not to print it. I thought they’d trash-canned my comment, and in any event I had no opportunity to edit my work. That was their prerogative.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, and quite willingly, I receive on a continuing basis the ubiquitous pieces of garbage I’ve come to call “forwards”, anti-Obama, anti-liberal, anti-“other”, religiously sent on by disciples of the right. (Similar kinds of items, with a completely different ideological slant, of course, come much less frequently from the left as well). I check all of these out. Mostly they are false or so completely doctored by their originators as to not even resemble the truth. They never carry pride of authorship – the actual name of person or group which started them on their lying way across the nation – and they are forwarded on by those who apparently don’t do even minimal fact checking or, worse, don’t care. “I’ll believe what I want to believe.”
Somehow I hope we’ll survive this onslaught of untruth – though over the next months hundreds of millions of dollars will be devoted to spinning information fairy tales on TV, radio, the internet and other means.
Caveat Emptor.
* – the commentary submitted Sep 30, 2011:
Nothing much startles me any more, but this clip from a nationally known blogger got my attention on Friday: “Wall Street folks sipping champagne from a balcony as they watch the protesters walk by….”
Indeed, there it was, video from someone at Occupy Wall Street. People on balconies overlooking the protests, sipping drinks of one sort or another, including one raising a wine glass as if to toast the protestors below a la Marie Antoinette.
Protest on Wall Street? You’d be forgiven if you haven’t heard of it. The morning paper had not a word about it. The national media has given it almost no attention, though there have been smatterings of coverage lately. What attention has been given tends towards blaming the protesters, or dismissing their efforts.
Wall Street Rules.
The occupy Wall Street protests matter, even if they don’t rise above the horizon out here due to media inattention.
We in Woodbury live in a prosperous town in a still prosperous state and still extraordinarily wealthy country.
It is too easy to ignore unemployment and underemployment. Most of our families and most of our streets do not have those scruffly leeches on the system that we love to imagine and tsk tsk about. “They should just get a job”, we say, even if there isn’t a job to get, even a menial one.
In the short term, an economic crisis here or elsewhere is simply another opportunity for the Captains of Wall Street and the Corporate World. “Buy low, sell high”.
I grew up with many rural sayings – country wisdom. One that comes to mind for all of us is “the chickens will come home to roost”.
Those worthless wretches who are left with no job, high debt, at best job insecurity (often temporary, no security with no benefits), cannot fuel our capitalist economy which depends on people with money to spend.
They’re the (yes) unfortunate collateral damage, unfortunate, but just part of the game.
They’re also the death of our society that depends on consumption.
As the watering hole dries up, Wall Street and the fat cats among us will continue to prosper for awhile. Bad times are good times for the big bucks folks.
The politicians riding the slick horse of defending the rich against supposed class warfare, may benefit in the short run. They seem to think so, given their abundant anti-government rhetoric.
But, as they used to say, ultimately “the chickens will come home to roost”, and the poor and the dispossessed will get their revenge without once having to hold a protest sign.
It’s time that we “wake up and”, as another saying goes, “smell the coffee”.

#478 – Dick Bernard: The Greatest Generation, the Boomers, Millenials and all that.

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Sunday afternoon, after the Vikings lost, I watched the endless rerun about the coming end of the world on the History Channel. For those who’ve missed it, the end is scheduled for December 21, 2012. All that is certain is the date: exactly what, or who goes where, is open for endless debate.
Idle speculation about our future is foolish, in my opinion. Best to do the best we can with whatever time we have left. (We may have only ten minutes, but what good does it do to worry about that?)
But ‘officially’, apparently, we still have 13 months. And the Mayans and Nostradamus and Merlin and the others could be wrong, or their writings misinterpreted. Till we check out, we’ll be part of the solution, or part of the problem. There’s no neutral zone, in my opinion. It’s not “their” fault.
Earlier Sunday, I read a very interesting analysis of the assorted generations stake in our future. The piece was written by Lori Sturdevant, a long-time and highly respected columnist on politics for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. She has earned her accolades.
Here is her take on the data about the assortment (baby boomers, millenials, etc.) It is a recommended read.
Here’s my very brief response to her writing:
It’s not easy to challenge the opinions and labels of pollsters. We live in a time of polling and the Pew Research data cited by Ms Sturdevant can be seen here, along with endless other pieces of interesting data.
I’d challenge only a bit Pew’s categories.
I was born in 1940, my oldest child in 1964, and for a long while I’ve known I was in the Silent Generation, which Pew for some reason classifies as the folks born between 1928-45 (Aunt Dorothy and Uncle Ed in Sturdevant’s telling).
I’d start the Silent Generation a bit later, perhaps 1937. The folks born before 1937 were old enough to have living memories of the bad times of the Great Depression, and the oldest were old enough to have vivid memories of, and some even old enough, to be drafted into World War II before it ended in 1945.
We silents were too young to have much of a direct memory of the era experienced by what Tom Brokaw called “the Greatest Generation”, but our entire early living experience was with and around people immersed in that era. We couldn’t avoid WWII or the Depression, even if we didn’t comprehend exactly what they were. But all that is unnecessary argument.
But the very interesting analysis of Pew, further analyzed by Lori Sturdevant, is well worth your time, before you wander into the political minefield of Turkey Day.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving (research does show that the vast majority of us do have more than adequate resources to have a happy day on Thursday.) Enjoy. But as the ubiquitous disclaimer on beer, wine and spirits ads suggests: “with great privilege comes great responsibility”)
Related here and here.

#472 – Dick Bernard: Penn State/Joe Paterno/Relationships between Vulnerable Children and Authority Figures

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

There is no need to recite the volumes already, or to be, written about the story at Penn State. (I write, when they are on the field against Nebraska, at this moment, behind 10-0. Entering the game they were the 12th ranking football team in the nation, their opponent the 19th ranking team).
Of course, all that is totally irrelevant. As one commentator said a few minutes ago, it is as if the quarterback, Paterno, fumbled the ball on the goal line at the edge of the greatest victory in history….
I have another perspective that may add a bit to the necessary conversation.
Being human, with a fair amount of seniority amongst my cohorts in today’s population, I know a little bit about human nature.
Being Catholic, I know how stupidity plays out among power people who think that they can contain and control incidents of sexual abuse within the confines of their church authority (that began to unravel in the 1990s, a long time ago, and continues to this day.) It didn’t and doesn’t work. But some in authority still don’t quite get it.
But I have another insight, born of representing public school teachers in a teachers union from 1972-2000 and seeing the statutory transition from, initially, restrictions on corporal punishment (spanking), to mandatory reporting of even a suspicion of abuse of a child by an adult. The transition was complete long before my staff career ended. What astonishes me in the current situation is that this bunch at Penn State could have been so utterly clueless.
There have been, are, and will continue to be incidents of abuse in public education and elsewhere. We are humans, after all.
But in my particular venue, public education, the incidence was very, very tiny, but when uncovered very, very visible. (In the United States today there are perhaps nearly 50,000,000 children in schools; and perhaps 6,000,000 school employees including substitute teachers, aides, bus drivers, cooks, and on and on and on. With such an immense cohort, in school for an average of 171 days a year in Minnesota, there is no end of possibilities for problems, but amazingly few problems occur.)
In Minnesota, the relevant statute has existed since 1975, and can be viewed in its entirety here. It has been amended frequent times, and doubtless Penn State will cause it to be revisited once again.
I remember the general evolution of this law.
It began pretty simply, probably in 1975, essentially prohibiting spanking of, in anatomy terms, the gluteus maximus (to we lay people, the “rear end”). I don’t recall the genesis of the Law, but probably it was from some excess by someone, somewhere. It was a difficult adjustment for the enforcer in a school, often the shop teacher, more often the principal. The paddle had to go. To this day, there are some who advocate the paddle….
As years went on, the Law evolved.
I wish I could remember the year, but I think it was sometime in the 1980s, when the mandatory reporting provision was first enacted. This came to be called the ‘no touch’ rule in my public education jurisdiction.
The reaction was in the direction of zero tolerance of adult-child touch, in any of its manifestations.
I remember the most dramatic aberration (response): kindergarten teachers, virtually all female, became fearful of doing such innocuous things as helping a kid tie his or her shoelaces.
As time went on, the system and the individuals found more equilibrium, but the point remains, as it relates to Penn State, that the business of adult-vulnerable child relationships has been an active part of legal policy discussion since at least 1975 – 36 years.
There is an entire additional discussion, in this case, of the role of football as a symbol of power and authority in our society. Joe Paterno was an institution because he “brought home the bacon” for Penn State in prestige and money.
But, as I say, that is an entire other discussion.
UPDATES (Notice also comment included with this post):
Comment from Bonnie, Minneapolis: Well said, Dick. Hard to understand their cluelessness. Thanks for continuing your good work.
Comment from Bob, suburban St. Paul, Nov. 12:The only moral response by Penn State would have been to forfeit the remainder of their season to emphasize the significance of this horrendous criminal behavior. The students and fans who want to deify their coach and gloss over this criminality need a strong message from the university that this behavior is to be abhorred and treated as a criminal matter.
I believe mandatory reporting started in about 1970 in Minnesota for a host of professionals such as medical personnel, social workers, all mental health professionals, and education staff. Defining abuse to include corporal punishment by teachers must have come later or in 1975. Prior to the mandatory reporting law it was very hard for doctors and others to report abuse for fear of being sued by the parent for violating confidentiality. In 1969 or so I attended a conference at the U of Denver where a Dr Kemp had identified the “battered child syndrome”. I was with a contingent from Ramsey County including the local juvenile court judge, the head of psychiatry at the old St. Paul Ramsey, a county attorney, a police officer and others. When we came back we developed the Ramsey County Child Abuse Team to facilitate coordinated action by the various entities that intervene in abuse cases. Mandatory reporting has been on the books in Pennsylvania for many years. The Penn State staff had to know about their legal obligation to report. It is the same old story of those in power believing that their sacred institution (Church or Football Program) has priority over civil law.
My dates or years are a bit fuzzy but I believe roughly correct without doing in-depth research.
Note from Dick: whatever the actual dates, awareness about abuse, and the laws on reporting, have a very long history.
From Jeff, south suburbs, Nov. 13: The parties involved need to be punished severely… that means the offender
Sandusky, and if any coaches or university officials condoned or did not
report the crime then they also should be prosecuted if they broke the law
in PA.
Obviously Penn State will pay a very heavy price in lawsuits and settlements
in regard to this matter. These civil actions will help Penn State and
other institutions understand that protecting innocent children is paramount
and institutional protection of football or a university’s name is nothing
compared to this. Just think of how Penn State would have been held up as a
correct role model had they handled the situation the way it should have …
morally and legally.
As to the matter of football games. I personally differ on this. if the NCAA
or the State of PA wants to punish the football program at Penn State in the
future that is fine. The games that are set up are contracts that are
certainly not inviolate, and Penn State could forfeit them of course. I
think it would have been difficult last week. My feeling is however that
the players in the program today, and the students at the University today
should not be punished for things they had no involvement in. if the
program is punished in the future in some way , and both criminal and civil
sanctions and punishments are metered out as they are justly deserved I
think that is enough for now.
I do have sensitivity to the fact that sports or a sports program should not
supersede the criminality and heinous nature of the offenses ; but I also
think that punishing students and student athletes today for things that
happened 10 years ago and for which they had no control would be wrong in my
eyes.
Another followup comment from Bob in suburban St. Paul: Dick, I just attempted some research on the origins of our law in MN without much success. I did learn that in 1962 the medical profession began bringing the subject to our attention. In 1974 the federal government passed legislation providing funding to for state programs to address the issue. I do know we were in Denver in 1969 learning about how to develop a multi-disciplinary team at the local level. Just when MN outlawed child abuse remains question for me. Until states passed laws to make child abuse illegal it was dealt with under laws prohibiting cruelty to animals. What is stunning about the subject is the fact that it took us so long to define child abuse as criminal. Until then children were considered chattel. A doctor called me one time when I managed Child Welfare Intake for Ramsey County. He was trying to tell me through the use of obscure language that this young teen-age girl was a victim of incest. He could not be explicit or give me facts to go on because the law did not mandate reporting and he was going out on a limb legally. When I asked him for facts or how he knew these things, he said I just had to trust his medical acumen. It was obvious that this doctor was very nervous about telling me anything but wanted to tip us off. After the law was passed he was required to report and was protected legally. Thankfully we have advanced somewhat, but obviously not at Penn State. Bob
And yet another, from Bob, on Nov. 13: Dick, Try as I may the earliest mandetory reporting law I can find for Minnesota dates to 1974. This seems at odds with my memory of Judge Archie Gingold and others pushing for such a law as early as I969, and our child protection interventions prior to 1974. Perhaps we used other other child protection laws and the mandatory reporting law came along later in 1974, which also provided legal protection for the reporter and really changed everything. My memory is obviously flawed. Bob

#471 – Dick Bernard: Armistice (Veterans) Day 2011

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

UPDATE: A reader sends along this Eyewitness to History link from the actual day/place in 1918.
Today is a unique date: 11-11-11 (November 11, 2011).
It is also Armistice Day, commemorating the end of World War I, when at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, a moment was taken to recognize the hope that the end of the Great War, was also the beginning of Peace (hope always springs eternal.)
My mother, Esther, then 9 years old, remembered the day vividly: “The hired girl and I were out in the snow chasing chickens into the coop so they wouldn’t freeze when there was a great long train whistle from the Grand Rapids [ND] railroad track [about 4-5 miles away, as the crow flies]. In the house there was a long, long telephone ringing to signify the end of World War I.” (page 122 of Pioneers: The Busch and Berning Family of LaMoure County ND).
WWI was very deadly and confusing: my grandparents and most of the neighbors in their home (Wisconsin) and settlement (ND) communities were German ancestry, first generation American, and spoke German. One of my grandfather Busch’s hired men was killed in the war, and Grandpa wanted to enlist. Mom’s younger sister Mary, born 1913, remembered “there was a lot of prejudice against Germany at that time so the language was kept quiet. Being called a “kraut” wasn’t the nicest thing to hear. Most of the neighbors had German ancestors. Most of them came to the U.S. to avoid compulsory military training.” (p.136)
Esther and Mary’s Great-Uncle Heinrich Busch in Dubuque, a successful businessman who with his parents and brother had migrated from Germany in the early 1870s, wrote a passionate letter, in German, home to his German relatives Nov. 5, 1923, saying in part “The American millionaires and the government had loaned the Allies so many millions that against the will of the common folk, [P]resident 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 [arrested] for [being] 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…..” (page 271) He went on in the same letter to predict the rise of a regime like the then-unknown Hitler and Nazis because of Germany’s humiliation and economic suffering in defeat.
War was not a sound-bite. History did not begin with Pearl Harbor and WWII….
Armistice Day is still celebrated in Europe, especially.
In the United States, in 1954, the day was re-named Veteran’s Day.
Whether intentional or not, the original intention of Armistice Day has come to be diluted or eroded: rather than recognize Peace; the effort is to recognize Veterans of War.
I’m a Military Veteran myself, so I certainly have no quarrel with recognizing Veterans.
But today I’ll be at the First Shot Memorial on the Minnesota Capitol Grounds, recognizing Armistice Day with other Veterans for Peace. Part of the ceremony will be ringing a common bell, eleven times.
A block or so away the Veterans Day contingent will be gathering at the Vietnam War Memorial.
The same kinds of people; a differing emphasis….
Ten years ago today, November 11, 2001, we were waiting to board our plane from London, England, to Minneapolis.
At precisely 11 AM…well, here’s how I described it in an e-mail March 20, 2003: “One of the most powerful minutes of my life was at Gatwick airport in suburban London on November 11, 2001, when the entire airport became dead silent for one minute to commemorate Armistice Day, which is a far bigger deal in England than it is here. The announcer came on the PA, and asked for reflective silence. I have never “heard” anything so powerful. I didn’t think it was possible. Babies didn’t even cry.”
A year later at the Armistice Day observance of Veterans for Peace at Ft. Snelling Cemetery I related this story again for the assembled veterans.
Today, whether you’re observing Veterans Day, or Armistice Day, remember the original intent of the day.
Peace in our world.
UPDATE – Noon November 11, 2011
Some photos from the Armistice and Veterans Day commemorations on the State Capitol grounds. The ceremonies were about one block apart. I spent time at each. Factoring out the band and other official personnel at the Veterans Day observance, the number in attendance seemed about the same. At the Armistice Day observance, eleven peace doves were released after a bell was rung eleven times. At the Veterans Day observance there was the traditional 21 gun salute. (click to enlarge the photos)

Bell Ringing Ceremony


Some of the eleven doves of peace released at the ceremony.


At the Veterans Day observance at the Vietnam Memorial, Capitol Ground


Statue between the Armistice and Veterans Day observances today, at St. Paul MN