#327 – Dick Bernard: Part 3. The Canyon of 60 Abandon, and More Ways to Communicate Less

In November, 1998, I was very actively contemplating retirement, and I attended a conference of the National Education Association (NEA) in the Houston area.
We were at a nice resort hotel, but the weather was – to put it mildly – awful. By the time we left we were shuttled around in large trucks due to flooding on the resort grounds.
Despite the memorable weather, what was truly memorable for me happened at the conference, where a presenter I’d never heard of, Michael Meade, gave a workshop entitled “The Canyon of 60 Abandon”. To the accompaniment of his own powerful drumming, he told the story of a society where the old were retired at age 60, then banished to a far distant Canyon, no more to be part of the society.
One family violated the rules, and hid their elder under the porch. In his myth, Meade said the King called for a competition, with a large prize going to the winner. The family with the hidden elder utilized the elders accumulated wisdom, solved the puzzle and won the prize.
In 1998 I was, truly, wondering what if anything lay beyond the long career I was finishing. Fourteen months later I did retire, and found out. And today, eleven years later, I am still finding out.
There is, indeed, a “Canyon of 60 Abandon”, but out in that Canyon, I have learned, there are huge numbers of incredibly talented people whose wisdom seems largely to go unused because…. Well, I don’t know the specifics of why. This deserves conversation.
Then there is the very matter of conversation.
Conversation between elder and younger (which seems to be defined as who is “working” or of employable age, versus who is not) is more complicated now than it has ever been. For a long time, I’ve been observing that there are “more ways to communicate less“. First evidence of that comes in a September, 2002, item I wrote for public school administrators and school public relations people.
In February, 2004, for the same audience, I enumerated some communications methods I’d seen discussed in 1991; along with an updated personal list of newer communications mediums as I knew media in 2004.
Unknown to me in 2004, because they were either just beginning or unknown to anyone, were communication methods very much in vogue today: Facebook (beginning Feb. 2004, regular messages restricted to about 420 characters); YouTube (2005, 10 minutes maximum. I use YouTube earlier in this column); and Twitter (2006, messages restricted to 144 characters). For someone from my generation, accustomed to letters to the editor (perhaps 200 word maximum) or newspaper columns (probably 600 words – this entry is almost exactly 600 words), to even communicate with someone from my children and grandchildrens generation can be dicey even if you live close by and can visit in person, which is seldom the case these days.
We have to figure out how to not only talk to each other, but how to listen, and to truly value each other.
In Michael Meade’s mythical society, the throwaway elders represented a big cost to that society; in today’s remaining society, the very real “Canyon” between youngers and the others has to be reduced.
We also need to sort out how we make societal decisions these days which seem premised solely on the Power Bargaining model: he or she who has the strongest ‘whatever’ wins, and the rest lose.
It is not much of a recipe for the long term success of our society and, indeed, world. In a world of winners over losers, everybody loses.
I close with a recent and current Facebook entry of an upcoming event. I plan to attend, and to buy the book as well.
Related posts Feb. 6, Feb. 7, and Feb. 10.

#312 – "The first rough draft" post-Bells for Haiti, January 12, 2011

I always remember my first visit to the then-brand new Newseum in Arlington VA. It was sometime in the late 90s, and I happened to be at the right place at the right time to catch a shuttle to the new, and then free, Museum to print and visual media.
A prominent quote, there, was this (or words to this effect): “Journalism is the first rough draft of history“. It was a statement full of meaning: any breaking news is fraught with peril, possibly inaccurate, but still news nonetheless.
Wednesday of this week an ad hoc group saw the results of “Bells for Haiti”, a tribute to Haitians on the one year anniversary of the devastating earthquake January 12, 2010.
Following is my ‘first rough draft’ of the event, of which I was proud to be a part:
On Wednesday, Cathy and I chose to join a group of eight people on a downtown Minneapolis MN bridge to witness the Bells ringing at the Episcopal Cathedral of St. Mark (a block behind us in the photo) and at our own church, the Basilica of St. Mary (in the photo). (Click on photo to enlarge it.)

Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis, from the bridge, 3:53 p.m. CST January 12, 2012


Adjacent to the Baslica on the left is a very busy and noisy freeway, then nearing rush hour, but when the immense primary bell began to ring, precisely at 3:53 p.m., I was overcome with not sadness, but elation.
It was about December 9, 2010, that Basilica had signed on as the first place to ring their bells in Bells for Haiti.
Our little project had actually come to pass.
A year earlier, January 10, 2010, in that same Basilica, Fr. Tom Hagan, long-time Priest in Cite Soleil, had given the homily at all Masses at Basilica. January 11, he was back in Port-au-Prince…little did he know….
Like all great things, Bells for Haiti started with an idea in conversation: in this case, Bells for Haiti began with two women in conversation at the American Refugee Committee (ARC) in Minneapolis (whose headquarters is two blocks behind and to the right of Sue, the lady with the camera).
For a month a small ad hoc committee, never exceeding 11 people, initially mostly “strangers” to the rest, came together in a conference room at ARC to make the idea happen. We elected to keep Bells for Haiti simple.
By January 12, as any of you know who visited Facebook, over 3,500 people from who-knows-where had enrolled in the remembrance via Facebook. (Our committee was largely Facebook-illiterate when this project began. No more.)
Bells were ringing all over the United States, and probably other places, all at the same time and for the same reason.
We will never know how many places, how many people, in how many ways, people remembered Haiti on Wednesday, January 12, 2011.
The project gives meaning to the famous quote of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has.
Thank you. Extra special thanks to the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network and the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers who co-sponsored the event.
Those who participated on the Bells for Haiti committee: Therese Gales, Jenna Myrland, Lisa Van Dyke, Lisa Rothstein, Bonnie Steele, Dale Snyder, Jacqueline Regis, Ruth Anne Olson, Sue Grundhoffer, Mike Haasl, Rebecca Cramer, Dick Bernard. Jane Peck also deserves much credit, though she could not participate directly. She initiated the idea for gathering groups together last spring to keep working for Haiti. At the moment, there are 25 groups loosely and informally affiliated in what is now known as Konbit [“cone beet”]- Haiti/MN.
For more background, click here.

#308 – Dick Bernard: Susan Boyle, Ted Williams…and Elaine Page

Give 35 seconds for Haiti, Wednesday, Jan. 12, 4:53 p.m. (Haiti, Eastern time).
One of my earliest blog posts was this one on April 16, 2009, celebrating a stunning performance by unknown Susan Boyle at Britain’s Got Talent. (The original video referenced in the blog is no longer available. The same video appears to be here. The videos have probably been seen over 100,000,000 times.)
At her debut she said, to a doubting panel of judges and audience, that “she wanted to be like Elaine Page”. To be honest, I didn’t know who Elaine Page was at the time.
In December, 2009, about a year ago, Susan Boyle got her chance to sing with Elaine Page. Check their performance out, here.
The video speaks for itself.
Susan, and the doubting that accompanied her performance…to the extent that there were thoughts that she might not actually be singing the song…was soon discovered to be “the real deal”. Susan got on the roller-coaster that comes with new-found fame and had her ups and downs.
A few weeks ago I bought her second annual CD as a Christmas gift to myself. Apparently her autobiography is on sale at the bookstores. Maybe a purchase….
She is testimony to each of we commoners that we do, indeed, have talent.
Then comes the incredible story of one homeless guy in Columbus OH, Ted Williams, who two days after the story broke found himself in the studios of NBC in New York City as a major guest on today. You can view an extended clip here. (I am not sure how this video will be on YouTube. The first segment I watched was taken down for copyright reasons. If you can get lucky, you’ll see this phenomenal story.)
Again, from obscurity to instant fame…and the wondering whether this alcohol and drug addict will make it. Mr. Williams – it seems more appropriate than saying “Ted” – will face the same roller coaster ride as Susan Boyle, and hopefully will get the kind of support he needs to ride the waves of fame back into a normal life.
This time, again, I’m going to bet on the underdog: you go, Ted!

#282 – Dick Bernard: Inducing Hysteria: some thoughts on Air (and other) "security"

I write this on the afternoon of Thanksgiving eve, 2010. I’ve heard that this day is the heaviest air travel day in the U.S. I have also heard that Thanksgiving Day itself is the lightest travel day. At this writing I don’t know whether/if there have been slowdowns or many, if any, protests. All I know, sitting here in suburban St. Paul MN on a chilly late afternoon, is that today may be a miserable day for ground transportation here.
The TSA flap seems to catch the wave of we Americans tendency towards over-simplification; as well as our “chicken little” “sky is falling” tendency: to expand little problems into earth shaking scenarios. It is very easy to induce near-hysteria and/or outrage in us.
I wrote yesterday about our recent every benign experience with TSA and air security generally. We are infrequent fliers: the last time in an airplane was nearly two years ago. We might be a somewhat average air traveler. Somewhere lurks that data.
I’ve thought back, today, about aspects of my own flight history: the first time in a jet aircraft, 1962 or so – a soldier-passenger flying in a military tanker/transport which was a lot like flying inside a cigar with no windows to give any perspective. In a word, terrifying.
I was thinking, this afternoon, about a certain flight from Minneapolis to Portland OR in June of 1973. My employer had chartered a Northwest Airliner, and we flew as a group. The plane was full, as I recall. At some point in the flight, the pilot and co-pilot opened the door to the cockpit and allowed us to come up and take a look at the business end of the aircraft. Nobody was allowed to “take the wheel”, but I don’t know of anyone who was skittish about the casualness either.
It was years earlier – 1961 – that the first sky-jacking of an aircraft occurred over the U.S. Some folks got a free flight to Cuba….
We’re long past the days when a person could walk in off the street and greet someone getting off the plane.
Now we’re where we’re at, and terrorists have to be laughing at us. (Our only ‘incident’ on check-in at Minneapolis a week ago was the scan of my luggage found a small (8 oz) bottle of Listerine mouth wash I had simply overlooked as a potential problem. It was confiscated – politely – and thrown out.)
Another piece of data I heard recently is that on an average day there are 2,000,000 air travelers in the United States. This means that only one of every 150 people in the U.S. is in the air on any particular day. It also means that over 300,000,000 of us are not even in the air.
I don’t mean to minimize the potential problem but with that many people in the air, it is absolutely impossible to assure absolute safety regardless of the means used.
It is an absolute certainty that future incidents will occur, some very serious. And I would concede that prudence at airports is warranted.
But sometimes it can get to be ridiculous.
As I’ve watched and read the “heavy-breathing” on this issue I see focus on an infinitesimal number of potential abuses of the system. It will be interesting to watch the nightly news in a few minutes to see how Thanksgiving eve traffic is going; how many protestors actually tried to protest.
My guess is that there will be few problems, as many of these caused by passengers as by the harried and harassed TSA agents who are, basically, just doing what they are supposed to do – assure reasonable safety.
We need to get, and keep, perspective.
Happy Thanksgiving.

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

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

Related item here.

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

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

U.S. Capitol October 31, 2000


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

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

#251 – Dick Bernard: Campaigning.

Yesterday our local candidate for state legislature was door-knocking in our neighborhood – at least I know she was, since there was a flier with a handwritten personal note from her in our door.
Campaigning for office is brutal work, not for the faint of heart, and I sometimes wonder what would happen if all of those who collectively run for all offices would just say, in unison, ‘forget about it, life’s too short, I’m outa here”. Then we might come to some appreciation of the largely thankless labor our representatives provide, regardless of party, regardless of position, regardless of level.
Our representative is running for a third term. Best as I’ve been able to see, she’s run as a centrist – a survival skill in her district – and she’s ably represented the interests of her district and the state of Minnesota, her state.
“Her district”, in Minnesota, means basically about 40,000 people in part of one suburban city. Conservatively, this is 10-15,000 households, minimum. Trying to balance the interests of just her constituents is one thing; trying to represent her constituents while at the same time entering into endless negotiations with colleagues and assorted interests at the state level is something else again. There is an endless barrage of competing priorities, and at the end there is a record, gleefully dissected by an opponents apparatus who, these days, is not constrained by that quaint concept, honesty. (And who, further, is not constrained by a record – the opponent has never run for office before, to my knowledge.)
So…about the time our candidate was knocking on our door, our mailman was delivering a piece of what I would call “hit lit” from the opposition. It was, of course, attractive, with lots of flying feathers, saying that the opponents had “ruffled feathers” over our Representatives reckless spending which was, they cutely said, “for the birds”.
One enterprising friend did the research on this claim. She found that the expenditure referred to was from a fund established by Minnesota voters 18 YEARS before our Representative was in office, and furthermore, it was fully funded by lottery ticket sales and mandated for the specific use to which it was put. In other words, our candidate had nothing to do with either the fund or the expenditure.
Another mailing from the same source “complained about an alleged expenditure from the Nongame Wildlife Management Account which…is totally funded by those who check the box on their personal or corporate tax returns saying they wish to donate $1 or more to the fund, plus by private donations.” (quote from my friends letter to the editor, likely to appear in the local paper next week.)
The damage, of course, is done. More people will at least glance at the fliers in the mailbox, than will read the letter to the editor. Allegations will trump facts…with some voters.
So, our legislator walks on, neighborhood to neighborhood, doing her best to knock on every door, while trying to keep some semblance of personal life together – dealing with her mother’s recent death and other things. One cannot be a real person and run for office, either. That’s why so few are up to the task.
In the warfare that is politics, there is no time for letting down, of taking things for granted.
We’ll do what we can to help our candidate, and candidates, as will many others.
But we all need to pitch in.

#247 – Dick Bernard: Musing about Taxes

I’d consider Gerald Harris, editor/publisher of the LaMoure Chronicle and a couple of other North Dakota weekly newspapers, a friend, even though I have only met him in person one time, and then briefly, and even though we may well walk different paths ideologically.
But when I get to his town to visit my relatives, one of my must-buys is his newspaper, and I buy it so that I can read his opinion.
He tells it as he sees it. Dammit! And he seems willing to share other points of view.
So, I bought his newspaper on Saturday, and read his column, which was about re-doing the U.S. tax system – an ever popular coffee shop topic, whether in bib-overalls and seed caps, or business suits.
Gerald’s scheme was three tiered: 1) get rid of all deductions for anything, making a tax department unnecessary; 2) apply a Value Added Tax to all goods produced; 3) make some kinds of Sales Tax universal on everything. To deal with the vexing problem of people with nothing, he proposed an allotment of $600 per month per person, payable in two lump sums each year. The lucky poor would get $3600 checks twice a year, to steward carefully or squander…their choice.
The other culprits in his scheme: those evil politicians – always the easy ones to kick around, even though they are doing our collective bidding…so they can be elected or reelected.
I sent this reponse to Mr. Harris, which he may or may not reprint this week:
Saturday afternoon after Mass I was standing outside Holy Rosary Church chatting with a couple of LaMoure friends. A young woman, dressed in summer clothes with a couple of small inexpensive backpacks, approached us and asked how to get to ______, a North Dakota town we knew was five or six driving hours away. She had been put out of where she’d been staying in LaMoure, and told to walk home. She didn’t even know the direction to walk. My friends helped as they could, staying with the young woman until they were comfortable she had the help she needed.
I learned the next day that the young lady – she said she was 21 – probably was taken to Jamestown for the late bus, and delivered to relatives in Bismarck. Perhaps this will show up in the police report in this weeks Chronicle. It was a quiet drama – one which most of the churchgoers probably weren’t aware was even happening, though they were milling around nearby.
After this unanticipated encounter, back in my room, I read your musings on reforming the tax system in this country, including the quotation provided by “a banker”** and your suggestion that each person get $600 a month, paid in lump sums twice a year.
Opinion intersected with harsh reality.
Taxes is easy to kick around, especially by those who are expected to pay it. The scheme always seems to be how to avoid as much taxes as possible, and switch the remaining tax burden to somebody else. The rich have platoons of lawyers and lobbyists to skew the law in their favor. Unlike Corporations, who are now, legally, “persons”, people like that young woman have no clout, no knowledge, no voice….
Greed is always a silent player in these conversations about individual rights versus community responsibility. The richer one is, it seems, the more that person feels entitled to their riches, as if he or she really “earned” them.
North Dakota is, I have heard, one of the wealthier states in the U.S. Why is it that there seems an inverse relationship between wealth and true generosity?
I wonder what has happened to that young woman I saw last Saturday; I wonder if anybody much cares.

I sent the editor a link to this recent column on the issue of the rich and taxes.
A e-friend reminded me that Richard Nixon, long ago, had once thought of a yearly stipend of $25,000 per family to stimulate the American Economy….
** From a banker: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the people.” Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Cooper, 1802.

#244 – Dick Bernard: Making a Disaster into a Catastrophe

It’s Saturday evening, September 11, 2010.
A few hours ago, looking for something to watch on TV, I happened across the Weather Channel, which at the time was playing a program about the evacuation of Dunkirk, France, May 27 – June 3, 1940. It was an incredible rescue, thanks to a nine-day break in often treacherous weather on the English Channel. In all, 338,226 English and French soldiers were ferried to England by large boats and small; 40,000 French soldiers were captured by the invading Germans, presumably becoming casualties of WWII.
It was a heroic moment, facilitated by what some would later call a ‘miraculous’ set of weather circumstances. It was a very interesting program.
Dunkirk was almost two years before Pearl Harbor and the entry of the U.S. into World War II.
In those years before sophisticated media, the public learned of events largely after the fact through newspapers, telephone, radio and black and white images later conveyed in film. Winston Churchill became a heroic figure through good decisions, a great deal of luck, and a gift of oratory.
It was a simple time.
I was three weeks old.
As I write, after 9 p.m. CDT, my spouse is watching the History Channel, which is replaying archival tape of 9-11-01.
It is dramatic, with sounds and images as recorded in an age where media had become ubiquitous and instant.
It is not necessary to recite what I hear, and what is being shown on a large screen HD color TV elsewhere in my home. Even up here, it is a riveting film (which I do not plan to go down to watch.) I’ve “been there, done that”.
There were almost 3000 people killed on 9-11, about 2600 in New York City, 263 in four planes (including the 19 hijackers), and 125 at the Pentagon. There were casualties who were citizens of 70 different countries. Of the hijackers, 15 were Saudi Arabian, none were Iraqi. The word ‘al Qaeda’ came into the vocabulary, a phrase which I understand simply means “the base”, and responsibility was fixed on Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, who was harbored by the Taliban government in Afghanistan at the time.
We are now nine years down the road from this disaster, which has in the intervening years become a catastrophe which has captured our country and is destroying us economically and morally (i.e sanctioned torture) as well.
Over 4400 American service people have been killed in Iraq, and several million Iraqis were killed or displaced by the resulting Iraq War. Conservatively, about 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in the conflict since 2003. In some sources, only the “Coalition of the Willing” casualties are noted.
Afghanistan, the initial target of our national need for revenge, was for all intents and purposes abandoned in favor of invading Iraq, and we are now mired in Afghanistan in a conflict which, to be honest, is militarily unwinnable, and politically impossible to leave.
We close 9-11-2010 with conflict raging over an Islamic Center near Ground Zero, and an apparently cancelled burning of Korans in Florida.
We do not seem to learn our lessons well.
We had an opportunity, after 9-11, to choose a different fork in the road of relating to the world.
We chose War, indeed to celebrate War following 9-11. It was a politically popular decision Afghanistan Oct 7 2001001. I have seen pieces of the World Trade Center at the International Peace Garden on the border of North Dakota and Manitoba, and seen in the Peace Chapel there front pages of World Wide newspapers featuring the collapsing World Trade Center in flames from September 12, 2001. Somehow they seem incongruous and out of place, there.
It is not too late to choose peace, but the door is closing fast.
The TV show has ended. I didn’t watch….
Sunday morning, September 12, 2010:
My e-mail inbox has this headline from the New York Times, 4:17 a.m.: “On Sept 11 anniversary, rifts among mourning“.
The “rifts” have absolutely nothing to do with “mourning”. Rather it is like picking at a scab for nine years, not allowing it to heal.
So long as 9-11 is kept as a potent political issue, its dead cannot rest in peace.
We should be ashamed.

#241 – Dick Bernard: The Tyranny of the Minority; and the (theoretical) Power of the Majority

Last night on the national news of one of the Big Three (CBS, NBC, ABC) I watched a reporter contextualize for viewers the conflict over allowing 2000-era federal tax cuts to sunset (expire) for those earning over $250,000 a year. The over-$250,000 group is said to represent about 2% of American taxpayers. For the rest of us, the holiday would continue.
In order to be “fair and balanced” (I suppose), the perhaps-three minute report focused on the negative impact on “small business”, and employment, if the two percent over $250,000 small businesses would lose their tax break in 2011. Two business owners were interviewed, and of course, said that they’d have to cut some jobs if they had to pay more taxes.
At the end of the segment, the reporter took pen to white board, and gave his interpretation of reality: as I recall the numbers, he said that 2 1/2% of small businesses are in the $250,000+ category. BUT this represents almost 900,000 small businesses.
Segment over, back to the news…. Those poor business owners.
One might feel sympathy for these entrepreneur small business owners, and especially for the employees they say they’ll have to let go, but there is a “wait a minute” aspect to this – an aspect not touched (intentionally, I believe) by the news program.
What was not stated was that 97 1/2% of American small business, apparently nearly 24,000,000 of these businesses, the overwhelming vast majority, would not, under the Presidents plan, be faced with the possibility of going back to 2000 era tax rates. Only the two or so percent who are the wealthiest among us would have to wear the hair shirt of the additional tax, which means only going back to the rates prevailing at the time the ill-advised tax cuts were made.
We should feel sorry for those over $250,000 folks for having to help the lessers among us recover from near catastrophe?
Sorry.
(I don’t think the break point of $250,000 is nearly low enough. But that’s for another conversation.)
I think back to my own work experience. I worked an entire career, and within my constellation of relatives and friends, I would probably be considered to have made a really good living.
In my working years, it would take several YEARS of earnings to equal $250,000. I never got close to reaching a six figure annual income. Nonetheless, I lived well (by my standards). By no measure could I be considered “poor”…or “wealthy” either.
The ‘tax holiday’ between 2001 and the present was good for me. I have all my old tax records so can retrace all of those steps, and do an essentially ‘apples to apples’ comparison. Federal tax went down; state tax stayed pretty constant; property tax went up, but not by a lot.
I had ‘more jingle in my pocket’ those tax-holiday years, but I can’t really say that it did me any good at all. And when I compare it against the catastrophe it spawned in huge federal debt to pay for a war; and all of the credit card debt we all incurred living outside our means, it certainly wasn’t worth it.
I’m within the 98% of Americans who will indirectly benefit if the tax holiday is lifted for the top 2%.
Why, then, can the top 2% high-income folks count on the rest of us fighting their anti-tax battle for them, which is exactly what they are counting on?
Tables-turned, they’ve generally never been in the corner of the least among us.
It’s very simple: we have been taught to fight amongst ourselves, and to want what is unhealthy. To be rich is a positive value….
Have we learned anything? I’ll see how election day 2010 plays out.
If we choose to go back to the days of the 2000s that almost killed us, it’s our fault…and it will be our problem.
COMMENT received from Michelle Witte September 9 2010
Dick – what has become of facts? If I were in charge of the DNC
communication machine I would run 24 hour ads about what the facts really
are around these initiatives. For example – when we in Minnesota had the
transportation/gas tax bill in the state in 2008… there were dire reports
of businesses closing, the evils of taxes, etc. I then calculated what the
FACTS were and how it would affect our family. I figured that based on our
Honda minivan driving about 12,000 miles a year at 16MPG we would pay
perhaps $38 dollars A YEAR extra. And for $38 I would get…. an amazing
array of infrastructure improvements. $38. I can’t even fill a hole on my
driveway for that. Get a grip people – taxes allow you to access resources
for a much lower cost than you could if we just all got our cash and then
hand to build our own roads, levies, social security system, food protection
system, schools, ambulance, fire… on and on.
So, let’s look at the sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts – first of all – they are
not RAISING taxes. They are putting back in place a tax structure which
COMPLEMENTED the highest economic growth in the last 30 years during the
Clinton Administration. Those soaring profits we all once enjoyed came on
the back of those taxes being in place. So, we’re now talking about simply
restoring those taxes.
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a family with income of
$300,000 per year would be paying approximately $3,995 more in taxes under
Obama’s plan. That sucks. But it’s certainly not crippling. AND… looked at
the way it should be – those families got 10 years of a tax BREAK while the
rest of us did not.
My neighbor is an accountant and actually voted for Dems after seeing the
effects of the Bush tax cuts on her wealthy clients. They got huge
$10-20,000 checks back from the government after doing their taxes that
first year – they didn’t need it, weren’t expecting it, and clearly, it did
NOT lead to a robust economy where all those people who were business owners
were hiring employees, etc. Instead, people simply extended their credit and
greed and put the economy in the tank. Why would we repeat that again?