#508 – Dick Bernard: Remembering Saul Alinsky

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

UPDATE see end of this post
Thanks to a column in today’s Minneapolis Star Tribune I was reminded of long ago memories of Saul Alinsky.
No, I didn’t know him, but I certainly knew of him, and he had considerable influence on my early work as a teacher union organizer.
Yesterday was Saul Alinsky’s 100th birthday. I’d never really looked him up till today, and I was fascinated by what I found.
Alinsky died June 12, 1972. At the time of his death, I had been a union organizer for all of three months. In the fall of that same year I went to Washington for basic training in organizing, and without knowing he was dead, I got some excellent training in some of the Alinsky methodology.
I remember particularly the phrase, “personalize, polarize and publicize”. You couldn’t organize against a thing, so you organized against some person who was powerful, and could represent evil, and then you’d publicize the daylights out of that polarity. (If you see similar things happening today from the right wing, you’re right – they’ve been using Alinsky’s tactics for years…while they ridicule Alinsky.)
I also recall Alinsky’s success in getting some fairness for sanitation workers at O’Hare Airport in Chicago. Management was not much inclined to deal with these lowly workers, so a plan was hatched: workers occupied every stool and urinal in every restroom, and quickly got everyone’s attention. There was a settlement. (Was this a real incident? Someone let me know. It is a vivid memory.)
Alinsky’s clientele had no power, as power is traditionally described in this society. So his members had to be creative, and united.
In 1972, Minnesota teachers had just achieved the right to bargain collectively, and were just beginning to see the possibility of at least a little parity in the relationship between management and labor.
The first decade was an interesting one: those holding power had no particular interest in relinquishing any of that power; those who had had little power, had to learn by trial and error how to achieve power without completely upsetting the system for which they worked.
Abundant mistakes were made on both sides in those early years, but in time a certain equilibrium was reached, and it would be my guess that most managers with any sense would see that a union can be, if not set up as the enemy, a force for stability and for good within the work place. It is, after all, not in anyone’s best interest to have a chaotic system without fairness (though I am sure there are plenty who would love to go back to their imagined perfect world where all the rights reside with management.)
In Alinsky’s world, the powerless were the priority.
In today’s world, the powerful learned from Alinsky too, and are trying to use the same methods to take complete control once again. What the powerful may have to learn the hard way is that there is a cost to their success, and the cost accrues to them in the long run.
Labor, whether organized or not, needs to look with great caution on attempts to remove rights to organize and bargain collectively and get independent redress of grievances.
Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana are experiments in destroying unions; I know that there are similar wishes among some elements in Minnesota as well, and perhaps in other states.
Happy Birthday, Saul.
And give the working people the determination and courage to assert their rights to fairness in this increasingly unbalanced economic world that is the U.S.A.
UPDATE: Comment from Bob Barkley, Ohio:
Your thoughts regarding Saul Alinsky are right on target.
I was never trained in his methods but those of us in the teacher organizing of the 1960′s and 1970′s were disciples even if we didn’t know it. I started in 1966 had often quite unconsciously followed the Alinksy model over and over.
And quite ironically, I had it applied against me when I became “management” within our union.
Needless to say, it works. And it is the centerpiece of much that is done today by the very folks who criticize it so vehemently. The GOP right wing uses Alinsky methods to criticize Saul Alinsky. How ironic.
UPDATE Feb 22, 2012:
Yesterday friends and former colleagues John Borgen, Corky Marinkovich and I met for lunch. John showed us a package of old photos from MEA staff days. Here are the photos, through the magic of scanning and facebook. I have deliberately not labeled the photographs. The photos are undated, but the photo envelope says “copyright 1981” and the demeanor of the staff indicates it was a serious meeting, probably in the summer, before a very difficult fall in Minnesota. The setting was probably a staff union meeting.
There were, at that time, perhaps 40 professional staff in MEA. Likely most were at the meeting. For all the reasons everyone who has ever tried to photograph all people at a gathering, many are missed. I have not named the 22 people who can be identified on the photos. They are listed in alphabetical order here, for those of their colleagues who may have known them.
Thanks for the memories, John!
Darrell Baty
Pinky Bennett
Dick Bernard
Bob Black
John Borgen
Ken Bresin
Carl Erickson
Audrey Erskine
Sandy Fields
Curt Forbes
Wayne Hyland
George Jungermann
Chuck Kehrberg
Ed Leipold
Corky Marinkovich
Paul Moen
Dave Moracco
Charley Shaffer
Nancy Sinks
Doug Solseth
Stephanie Wolkin
Sue Zagrabelny
UPDATE March 7, 2012
Several of us attempted to reconstruct the remaining members of the staff at that time. Subject to error, here’s what we came up with:
Roger Barrett
Ken Berg
Don Berger
Judy Berglund
Ralph Chesebrough
Cheryl Furrer
Bob Larson
Chuck Lentz
John Martin
Peter Pafiolis
Kenn Pratt
Chuck Purfeerst
Bob Reed
Al Sollom
Hank Stankiewicz
Carol Sulovski (later Berg)
Mary Rose Watson
Larry Wicks
Duane Wilson (?)

#503 – Dick Bernard: Beginning a week with MLK; Ending a week with OWS

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

Thursday night I was part of a near overflow crowd as Prof. David Schultz of Hamline University spoke on the topic “Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Twilight of American Capitalism“. Those who are old hands at the Thursday night sessions of the program of Citizens for Global Solutions could remember only one other program rivalling this one as a draw. There were about 60 persons in attendance.
The outline of the presentation is accessible here, with permission of the speaker: David Schultz occupy wall street and the twilight of american capitalism-1
I felt it was a very worthwhile evening. Here’s a photo (click to enlarge):

David Schultz (at left) and Citizens for Global Solutions President Joe Schwartzberg, January 19, 2012


Friday morning, enroute to another meeting on cold and snowy I-94 in St Paul, I noted a bunch of folks near a very simple and clear banner on a walkway over the Freeway:
Get Corporate Money
out of Politics
MovetoAmend.org
It was a clear message, no threat to traffic.
Of course this day, January 21, is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Citizens United versus Federal Elections Commission. MovetoAmend.org has all the details….
Also during this week organizers delivered over 1,000,000 signatures on petitions to recall Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. It was a much higher turnout than anticipated. It spoke volumes – or, shall I say, boxes – all by itself.
And Wikipedia, Google and many other websites joined an on-line demonstration to call attention to SOPA and PIPA, two pieces of legislation that would normally fly under the radar. (See my Jan. 18 blogpost on the topic here.)
This was quite a week, beginning with Fr. Greg Miller reading from Martin Luther King’s “Where do we go from here?” speech to the 10th annual convention of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in August, 1967, ten months before he was assassinated. Access to the entire speech is here. It is very well worth reading in its entirety. Here’s a sample: “…[C]ommunism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social…and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism….”
Of course, MLK was often accused of being communist, but the epithet just didn’t stick, but it, and its supposed synonyms, are still trotted out as false indictments. That’s why I have the quote here.
Driving home from Prof. Schultz’s talk I kept thinking of a gift received from Twin Cities activist Lydia Howell in December, 2006. It was a used copy of Martin Luther King’s book “Why We Can’t Wait”, about the watershed civil rights year of 1963, published shortly after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
King covered the waterfront in this small book, which is still readily available (see here, and many other sources).
OWS has been immensely successful to this point, and is now in a period of reflection about next steps.
Dr. King remains with us in words, and in spirit.
In Why We Can’t Wait he speaks profoundly of “The Days to Come” in the final chapter. Here’s a teaser quote from President Kennedy to Dr. King in 1963: “Our judgment of Bull Connor should not be too harsh, he commented…. ”
You’ll have to read the book to get the context.
Please do.
My own recommendations to the OWS and similar movements:
1) OWS and others need to change the conversation about both “them”, and “us”. For instance, what do the greedy winners have to lose by winning? A great deal, actually, but you need to think about it – to turn the conventional interpretation upside down and look at the issue from the other side. And the same kind of questions can and should be raised about your own movements….
2) The movements could benefit by a deep discussion of the meaning of the word POWER. Here’s a place to start….
3) Gandhi said “we must be the change we wish to see in the world.” Gandhi was one of King’s heroes. Both are gone. “WE MUST…” Theirs were very big shoes, but WE MUST…. As Margaret Mead said, “never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed that is the only thing that ever has.” I reference both of them here – two at-home examples of people who made a difference.

Lee Dechert, whose passion is the dangers posed by man-induced climate change, commented about 'occupy the earth' in the question and answer session January 19.

#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.”

#501 – Dick Bernard: Martin Luther King, "Where do we go from here?"

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Sunday morning at Basilica of St. Mary, Fr. Greg Miller chose to close his homily with an extended quote from Martin Luther King’s talk to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference 16 August 1967. Entitled “Where do we go from here?”, the text of the speech is here.
It is worth the time to read in its entirety.
As always, King’s words speak powerfully for themselves. They are old news, but they are as recent as today. Change comes slowly and is never easy.
Fr. Greg, ordained in 1973, he said, traced his ‘roots’ as a Catholic Priest to mentor Priests who were activist civil and human rights leaders in the 1960s and 1970s. This is how future comes from past. Had Fr. Greg not called attention to King’s talk, I likely would never have read it.
How can each of us apply Dr. Kings words today, 45 years later? He is gone. We are his legacy, the ones who need to do the heavy lifting. Read his words and decide where you fit in.
Less than a year after his talk, April 4, 1968, before he had reached age 40, Martin Luther King was dead at the hands of an assassin in Memphis, Tennessee.
But his dream lives on through all of us.
To help catch the dream – perhaps for the first time – I highly recommend a new film, just out on DVD and on demand. The film is I AM, the Documentary. You can read about it here. We saw it last spring, and it gives hope.

#498 – Dick Bernard: Haiti. Thoughts on the second anniversary of the earthquake

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

There are, of course, many perspectives about realities in Haiti. Following are three for the second anniversary of the earthquake, January 12, 2010. Comments are solicited. Access at the end of this post.
The Haiti micro-finance Fonkoze had a very interesting one hour Webinar on the situation ‘on the ground’ in Haiti on January 11, 2012. It can be heard/seen online here.
A significant book, Tectonic Shifts, released this week, gives many perspectives on the aftereffects of the Haiti earthquake. Details including full description of contents here.
My personal thoughts: Today is the second anniversary of the devastating earthquake in Haiti. A year ago we had Bell Ringing for Haiti at the moment of the earthquake. It was very successful. This year there are any number of commemorations of the awful event.
Haiti recovery continues, though slower than desirable. There have been and continue to be many very serious problems.
I choose a ‘good news’ message this year.
In October, 2011, my friend Paul Miller sent the following photo, taken June 1, 2011, somewhere in the Port-au-Prince area of Haiti (click on all photos to enlarge).

Natalie Miller and Lavarice Gaudin, Haiti, June 1, 2011


The photo was of Paul and Sharon Miller’s daughter, Natalie, with Lavarice Gaudin of WhatIf? Foundation, looking at locally grown Haitian agricultural produce to be used for the food program at Ste. Clare church in Port-au-Prince. (You can read the WhatIf? and Ste. Clare story here.)
This photo is a shining sign of hope for Haiti.
In November, Lavarice came to Northfield MN as a guest of the Haiti Justice Alliance, and on November 9 we heard him speak at the University of Minnesota.

Lavarice Gaudin, November 9, 2011, at University of Minnesota


I’ve been around the Haiti Justice community long enough to know the drill: there is injustice; you can go to Haiti and see injustice; someone comes from Haiti to speak about injustice. And the injustice continues.
But I’ve been seeing increasing evidence that the action conversation between Haiti and the massive number of NGOs involved in Haiti is slowly but perceptibly changing, and WhatIf?/Lavarice Gaudin/Haiti Justice Alliance together are one piece of what I hope is increasing evidence of change from a charity to a justice model of outside involvement in Haiti.
Lavarice – who we first met in Miami in March, 2006, on a visit with Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste – is native Haitian, college graduate. I had the privilege of meeting Fr. Jean-Juste at Mass in his Ste. Clare parish in early December, 2003, subsequently following his life through trial and tragedy…imprisonment and ultimately death at a too-young age. On that March, 2006, visit, I was put in touch with Fr. Jean-Juste through Lavarice Gaudin, who in turn I had learned of through passionate Haiti advocate and Haitian Marguerite Laurent (“Ezilidanto” in one of the google references to Jean-Juste, above).
I mention all of this because there are endless networks between the U.S., other countries, and Haiti. Unfortunately, the dominant ones, as our own government, have too often been negative and oppressive and dis-empowering to the Haitians.
But there are very positive networks as well. They don’t all agree on tactics and strategies, but the important thing is that they are working tirelessly for justice, part of which requires self-determination for the Haitian people, who have been denied that self-determination.
I was attracted to that photo of Natalie and Lavarice because of the many things it symbolized.
Here was a young, idealistic, American college student, an intern for WhatIf? Foundation. Here also was a Haitian with lots of talent and lots of ideals who moved easily in the U.S. and in Haiti, and who had come back to Haiti to work for a more secure future for the people of his country.
And here, symbolized by the growing corn in the field, was a Haitian farmer, who if I recall Lavarice’s words correctly, was paid for use of his land, and also paid for the produce of the land, which was in turn used to feed the people of Ste. Clare.
Certainly, this is just one example, of many, but it is an example.
A couple of days ago I had occasion to use that warm Haitian proverb, common in many cultures: “Men anpil, chay pa lou” (“Many hands [make] the load lighter.”)
This proverb presumes people working together, not at cross purposes. Many hands fighting each other does not make “the load lighter”.
The road to change is long and very, very difficult, but I hope that year three after the earthquake will bring more and more progress and true recovery to the wonderful people of Haiti.

Fr. Gerard Jean-Juste and parishioners at Ste. Clare Parish Port-au-Prince Haiti December 7, 2003


Enter the word “haiti” in the search box of this blog and you will find many references to Haiti.
My personal web site re Haiti is here. It includes a comparative map, and historic timeline. Yes, it needs updating….

#497 – Dick Bernard: The Nobel Peace Prize Forum at Augsburg College, Minneapolis, March 1-3, 2012

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

I’d encourage your participation in the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize Forum at Augsburg College, March 1-3, 2012. Details are here, and more suggestions are in the last paragraph of this post. Here is some background.

BACKGROUND:
In 2007, I was invited to join the planning committee of the annual Nobel Peace Prize Festival, and join the Board of a group, World Citizen, dedicated to Peace Education in the broadest sense of that word. More information on both are accessible here and here. (World Citizen has a long history in the Twin Cities dating back to 1982. World Citizen founder, Lynn Elling, co-founded the Nobel Peace Prize Festival)
The allied (with the Festival) Nobel Peace Prize Forum also has a very long history, 23 years, beginning in 1989, and since the beginning has been a cooperative venture between the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Institute, Oslo, and the five Norwegian Lutheran Colleges of Luther (Decorah IA), St. Olaf (Northfield), Augsburg (Minneapolis), Concordia (Moorhead) and Augustana (Sioux Falls).
The Forum/Festival are unique in the world.
(A similar conference for the four Swedish Nobel winners (Economics, etc.) is held at Gustavus Adolphus each year. Details here.
There is some understandable confusion about the Oslo and Stockholm Nobels, best explained by the respective websites, here and here. It is not a matter of competition between Norway and Sweden; rather it was intended by Alfred Nobel himself.)
Following the 2011 Forum, the five colleges and Nobel Institute agreed to move the Nobel Peace Prize Forum (primarily for college level and above) to Augsburg College for 2011 and 2012. In addition, the previous Festival (primarily for K-12 school age students) will be integrated into the Forum and have a specific day.
All details about the Nobel Peace Prize Forum at Augsburg College in Minneapolis are available here and will be updated regularly.

HERE ARE SOME SUGGESTED WAYS TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS YEARS FORUM AT AUGSBURG:
As one who has experienced both Forum and Festival at Augsburg, I would highly recommend this years activity, and urge your support, which you can provide in several ways:
1. By participating yourself (you can register on-line)
2. By letting others know about the event.
3. By contributing financially either as an individual or through your company or other institution.
4. A fourth way, if you wish, could be through pooling of donations through an ad hoc group I have set up (with knowledge of Augsburg). Details are accessible here: Nobel Festival 2012001
Whatever you do, I encourage your support of this fine program.

At Augsburg Nobel Peace Prize Festival March, 2008

#494 – Dick Bernard: On New Years Eve, A look back to 1960

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

“What are you doing New Years…New Years Eve?”
For us, our six year old grandson will be an overnight guest tonight. That makes for a reasonably predictable “New Years Eve”.
As for the year just finishing, and the year ahead: 2011 depends on the interpreter; 2012 is as yet unknown. They’re all important, these New Years. Collectively we’ll be fashioning that six year olds future in the days and years ahead. We’re all he and all of his cohort, everywhere, have to depend on.
My favorite blogger, Alan, writing from LA, summarizes the year now ending in today’s Just Above Sunset posting.
His columns are long, but always a worthwhile read.
Earlier this week I took a stab at what’s ahead by reflecting on a college newspaper column I came across from November 3, 1960.
What I wrote follows: (if you’re one of those who wants to ‘cut to the chase’ read the bold-faced sections.)

Watching the Election Returns, November, 1960, in the "Rec Room" at Valley City ND State Teachers College. (from the 1961 Viking Annual)


“A TIME TO THINK”
I’m old enough to live in the fog of the “old days”.
But there are lessons…and teachers…from that past – people who are most often ‘anonymous’ or ‘unknown’. Here’s one such lesson, from someone called “Mac”.
Over 50 years ago – it was September 23, 1960 – a headline of the Viking News at Valley City State Teachers College (STC) proclaimed “Bernard Chosen as Viking News Editor”.
That fellow, Bernard, was me. Somebody concluded that I’d do okay at the job. Newspaper adviser Mary Hagen Canine kept copies of the fourteen issues published ‘on my watch’, and somehow the issues and the memories they record have managed to survive until the present day.
When that first issue published in late September, 1960, Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy were vying for President of the U.S.

NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller had whistle-stopped Valley City in June. He was a possible Republican candidate. I went down to the City Park to hear him speak.
In that first Viking News, I wrote an editorial, part of which referred to a column on the same page called “Meditations” by “Mac”. Mac, I said, was “Charles Licha [who] attended STC several years ago”. He had returned “for his last quarter before graduation. He is married and is the father of five children, and presently holds the rank of Captain in the U.S. Army.”

November 3, 1960, right before the election, “Mac” wrote a long column including a section, “A Time to Think”, directed to we students, many of us not yet 21 and thus ineligible to vote.
The column would fit today as well as it did then:
In part: “Walking down the hall the other day, I was suddenly struck by the thought that here at STC, a wonderful thing is taking place. I’m speaking specifically about two tables that are placed in close proximity to the rec room door. As closely as I can determine, one of these tables is strictly Democrat while the other is strictly Republican…What party are you for? Which man do you think is the Best Man? What are your reasons for your choices? Even if all of you are not of voting age, every one of you should have an answer to these questions and others questions equally as important.
He continued, “just remember that a portion of this country is yours, just as surely as though you held title or deed to it! For that reason the selection of the Chief Executive and lesser dignitaries charged with the affairs of the nation and the individual states should be of immediate concern to you. An attitude that smacks of “My one vote makes no difference, “I won’t vote because I don’t like either man,” or “I just don’t have the time” is not only anti-patriotic and stupid, it’s anti-you, and a direct denial of your responsibilities.”
Capt. Licha died in 1975 at only 48. By 1965 he was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam (scroll down for photo). He had earlier served in WWII and Korea, and was career Army. Residual effects of Malaria contracted in WWII contributed to his death at a young age. The last few years of his career he taught ROTC at North Dakota State University in Fargo.
Compared with the rest of we collegians, he was a ‘senior citizen’ of 33 when he wrote his column.
He spoke much wisdom 51 years ago.
We his modern day contemporaries might well listen, reflect on his final piece of advice: to “vote intelligently and wisely” in 2012.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

#492 – Dick Bernard: Christmas all year long….

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

I was at 7:30 a.m. Mass Christmas Day at Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis. Usually, I’m found at 9:30 a.m. They had a need for a few ushers, the time was open, so I volunteered.
Celebrant this day was Father Tim Backous. He is a regular visitor from St. John’s University in Collegeville MN, and always has a cogent and powerful message. Today was no different.
He opened his homily with reference to one of those inspirational “forwards” that tend to appear at this season of the year.
This one, as I recall it, was about a Colorado physician, enroute home for Christmas, who encountered car problems and limped into a service station for help. Inside the station was a woman, crying. The woman said she was enroute to California with her three kids to start a new life. The kids were in the car. She said she had run out of money. The physician, a woman, filled her gas tank, bought food such as it was available at the station, and gave her whatever extra money she had. And the woman was on her way.
The service people checked the physicians car to find out what was wrong, and they could find nothing amiss. She went on her way, and never again had any problems with the car.
A Christmas miracle.
Fr. Tim noted that this and similar stories are common this time of year, and indeed they are all wonderful.
“But at the risk of being labeled a Grinch”, I recall him saying, there is a larger message.
He continued, Christmas is only one day of the year, and it is useful to keep that in mind every day of every year.
It is one of those uncomfortable messages we need to hear.
Every day should be Christmas day…if not in scale, but Christmas spread out in bits and pieces through the entire year.
Merry Christmas, and 365 compassionate days in the coming year.

Manger Scene, Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis December 25, 2011


Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis MN, December 25, 2011

#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.

#488 – Dick Bernard: The Drones

/2 Comments/in , , , , /by

POSTNOTE Mar. 21, 2016: see posts on same topic here (12/20/2011), here (5/12/09) , here (5/23/13) and here (3/20/16, especially #6).
Earlier today [Dec. 13, 2011] I was at the annual meeting of an organization I’ve long been part of called the Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers. One of the group rose to ask the speaker a question about the new proposal relating to drones in Thief River Falls MN. More information is here.
Back home, on the evening news, was the continuing story of the drone that went down in Iran, and whose wreckage is now in Iran’s custody. Much ado is made of this event.
Google “drone” and there are over 9,000,000 results. No doubt, it is a new and permanent and controversial feature of warfare.
Given the far more deadly alternatives – nuclear, invasions with wholesale and wanton killing, and similar – I’m not inclined to get very upset about the role of drones in the modern world. Without any doubt, they, like any other device, are subject to abuse, but over all, they could reduce substantially the indiscriminate killing of innocents that has always been the standard of warfare up through the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, wars especially deadly to civilians. Here’s a conservative estimate of Iraqi deaths (not even factoring in all their other huge losses in that ugly war) which has been catastrophic to the U.S as well.
Given the choice between use of drones and precise targeting or nuclear, or other ‘scorched earth’ invasions, there’s no question in my mind: drones are preferable.
Given my personal druthers, there would be no war. Period. But given the nature and history of humans, particularly those humans who seem to rise to the top of power pyramids, it seems unlikely that we will ever reach the nirvana of real and lasting peace.
The best we can do – and it is the best – is to continue working towards a more peaceful world, through peaceful means.
I’m accustomed to saying that I’m a military veteran myself, from a family full of military veterans. As I pointed out to a relative, recently, I’m a member of both the American Legion and Veterans for Peace, and I don’t see any contradiction, though my cause is that of the Veterans for Peace.
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.

As I listened, today, my thoughts went back to a little article I’d seen before in the college newspaper I was privileged to edit. The article was one of those that could be used for filler, and appeared in the opinion page, May 24, 1961. This was four months after Dwight Eisenhower’s famous farewell address including his concerns about the Military-Industrial Complex, and John F. Kennedy took office as President of the United States.
Here’s the article in its entirety (click to enlarge it.) Fifty years later, it remains current.

Valley City (ND) State Teachers College "Viking News" May 24, 1961


Sitting at the same table with me today was John Noltner, whose new and excellent book “A peace of my mind: exploring the meaning of peace one story at a time” includes interviews and photos of 55 people.
I particularly noticed the pages (42-43) featuring former Minnesota Governor Al Quie (1979-83). Mr. Noltner added comments as follows: “Al doesn’t believe that we can ever achieve world peace because of our competing political, economic, and belief systems. He believes the broke human condition will prevent us from achieving total peace. But Al believes in working towards inner peace and peace within communities….”
We may never reach the destination of the ideal of peace, but one person at a time we can help the process along.
Directly related post here.
[Mar. 21, 2016: There was a followup blog post on this topic Dec. 20, 2011 [here. See postnote at beginning of this post for more related links.]
UPDATE December 14, 2011
1. Please note additional comments added on-line (see the end of this post for access to these comments). As of this Dec 20 there are two comments, both from Bruce in Twin Cities.

Additional Comments
2. From Jeff in Twin Cities: Voice of reason, not that it will gain you any friends amongst the hard core.
3. From friend in England: Dear Mr Bernard,
50 years ago!? You are absolutely right, absolutely still relevant.
In that article as well as in the blog are the questions that exert minds and consciences for whom these capacities are still sufficiently active.
We obviously do not live in a perfect world, perhaps not even the best possible the way things are going! Does that mean compromise? Maybe not but it does mean answers must be nuanced & moderated. The need to prevent (inhuman) utopias! I increasingly believe that Camus got two important things right – and you allude to them in the blog.
The first is that Sisyphus will have to keep rolling that rock uphill as it slides down; but, he added, one has to imagine Sisyphus happy! Indeed all we can do is push for reasonableness & peace but without despair although as early as 2500 years ago, Heraclitus was dejected at the foolishness of men and urged them to think differently (laterally?): “donkeys prefer garbage to gold!”.
The other point Camus wrote about was that we should neither be executioners nor victims. I assume then a peaceful fight for peace & justice is the only alternative left. One thing that bothered you 50 years ago & still troubles you today is hypocrisy. Unfortunately in so many spheres of life it seems to be on the increase.
Kierkegaard titled one of his shorter works: “Purity of Heart is to Will one Thing” referring to James 1:8 “A double minded man [is] unstable in all his ways”. At times the instability that the double minded have inflicted upon the world becomes clear. May God grant us if not many pure of heart then at least many who are trying to be just that – and may he place them in positions of power: political, financial, & even military -till that last becomes irrelevant …
4. From John N. in suburban Twin Cities:
I enjoyed your post and I agree with the notion that we are getting better at limiting our civilian casualties in war, when compared to decades and generations gone by. But I guess what concerns me most about the use of drones and remote warfare in general is how sanitized it can become.
I recognize the desire to preserve the lives of our soldiers. I remember though, even as a youth, when some others around me were fascinated with the technology of fighter jets and guided missiles…how I had trouble
embracing their enthusiasm, knowing what that technology was used for.
When we get so enamored with the technology of warfare, and when that warfare can be conducted from the safe and comfortable surroundings of a base, far removed from the battlefield, I believe there is the potential to lose touch with the actual damage that is being done. I worry that it becomes too easy to use those remote weapons when our own exposure is so limited in the process.
That being said, I do believe there are good uses for this technology, and used well, it can actually serve to make violent conflict less costly to civilians…but we must always remain aware of the power we are unleashing
and make certain that we understand fully the human cost of the technology we employ.
5. From John B. in Twin Cities:
A Story: There was a farmer who had rat in his barn who alluded his capture. Finally, after days of trying, he lured the rodent into live trap. He removed the rat, dipped him in a can of gasoline and just before he threw the animal as far as he could, he set lighted match to the rodent. Seconds later the burning rat ran back into the barn causing the barn to go up in flames. (Moral of the story: The burning rat used the farmer’s anger against the farmer. Some clever folks will figure out a way to reprogram our drones, turn them against us.)
6. From Bob H:
December 15, 2011
Dear Dick, Frankly I was stunned and saddened to read your Blog #488 article defending the current U.S. use of drones on al Qaeda. But I appreciate your inviting a reaction.
Because you proudly proclaim association with the Catholic/Christian faith, I just have to ask, hellooo, what part of “Thou shalt not kill” do you not understand? While I do NOT proclaim any special theological claim in spite of my graduating with a minor in philosophy from a Catholic college, it would be hard to believe that Jesus would not support that commandment. One has to ask, “Whom would Jesus bomb?”
Drones indiscriminately kill civilians. They do not have eyes that see around corners or into buildings. The “Just war theory” has been dismissed by reputable theologians since we went from lances, maces, hot oil and saber killings! Even Pope John Paul II condemned George W.’s attack on Iraq and said, “this war would be a defeat for humanity could not be morally or legally justified” because of the indiscriminate and disproportionate inevitable killing of civilians by modern day weapons!
You state, “”drones are preferable.” When did you slip to the “Dark Side” in your take on killing? What is a “preferable” way to kill or assassinate?
And your referencing yourself as being a member of Veterans For Peace stuns me too, when you say, “though my cause is that of the Veterans for Peace.” Our “Statement of Purpose” states that we will work to “increase awareness of the costs of war, restrain government from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations,…” What part of the world and “other nations” do you see us using drones on?
I see no excuse for legitimizing drone use on sovereign nations where I assume you accepted our VFP “Statement of Purpose” for membership. And suggesting that it is OK to murder in certain circumstances seems to be a bit like saying it is OK to just kill a little.
You probably do not remember or did not read my article that appeared in our Veterans For Peace newsletter several years ago excoriating our country’s use of drones in far-flung sovereign nations. I wrote how the flip side of that, like foreign nations doing similar attacks on us on our country, would help us recognize the inevitable tragedy in their deployment.
The article below which is included in this quarter’s VFP newsletter also states my feelings about drone use, particularly in a country we are not at war with, Pakistan. I am sorry to see you have apparently been weaned from a conscience of “Thou shalt not kill’” into one that would give your stamp of approval of their “preferable” use to obliterate innocent children even though they man kill fewer people!
Your rationale sadly seems strikingly similar to the Germans in their rush to support Hitler in the 30’s. It is, as I have explained to you a long while ago, the shame of my German ancestral link which has for over 40 years prompted and sustained my work for true peace. I regularly remind myself of Edmund Burke’s “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to remain silent.”
You are a good man. I just pray that you will join with MLK and those other non-violent supporters we admire in truly accepting the criminality of drone use and reconsider your position. They clearly do NOT, as you so properly write, promote your pledge “ to continue working towards a more peaceful world, through peaceful means.”
Peace, brother.
Here’s the article referred to earlier in Bob’s post: Heberle VFP Drones001
7. Grace, in St. Paul, on Dec. 18:
I so agree with “We desperately need to sit in other circles than just our own and truly engage with people of other points of view*.” Social science agrees with you too. Conformity is 32% even when the answer is obviously wrong, given that everyone else agrees on the wrong answer. However add just ONE courageous voice to that group and dynamics change drastically. Interestingly my experience is that one simple voice may even be more persuasive than a large minority if the person speaks well and shows respect. People who are not afraid are more open to listen.
* – Dick Bernard: I had made a followup invitation for comments from my own list, and in part had said as follows:
The peace and justice movement is at a critical fork in the road today; indeed seems to have taken one fork to the exclusion of the other. My belief is that continuing the old ways is in the long run an unproductive and indeed damaging strategy.
My campaign is for engagement with those of differing opinions, and openness to perhaps even modify or change opinions based on those conversations.
There is a place for idealism; but we live in a real world that isn’t going to go away. We need to truly engage with the entire community.
That is not a new campaign for me. 29 times in the first nearing three years of this [Outside the Walls] blog I have mentioned in one way or another the importance of “dialogue”, including in the very first blog post in March, 2009.
We desperately need to sit in other circles than just our own and truly engage with people of other points of view.
It is, it seems to me, the only possible viable choice to continuing to achieve incremental change – and we have achieved a great deal of positive change. There doesn’t seem to be much acceptance of that fact.
8. from a friend who’s a Historian, Dec 17, responding to a note from me on this topic:
Your last lines [in my note to him] reflect my opinions completely.
What I said to the friend: Long and short, in my opinion, the peace and justice community could accomplish a great deal by engaging with the community around it, rather than simply protesting against, constantly, the assorted injustices it correctly identifies.
But it won’t….
9. from Joe S, good friend and professor emeritus:
I was, quite frankly, shocked by your essay on drones, but have not had a chance before now to respond. Happily Bob H. did a better job than I would have in his communication of December 15. I agree with him completely as far as he went; but I would go a step further and state, with conviction, that our use of drone bombing is not only immoral, but also politically stupid. It will surely prove immensely counterproductive and is already doing so in Pakistan and elsewhere. Given the number of innocent people we annihilate — “collateral damage” to use the current euphemism — we are creating new terrorists (including many terrorists in waiting) faster than we can dispatch the old ones. And, short of creating committed terrorists, we are creating enemies (many of whom will willingly support terrorists) at an even faster rate. Sooner or later we will surely pay dearly for doing so. Put yourself in the position of a parent, who has just lost an innocent child to a drone attack and imagine your own response. What makes you think that to save American lives it is okay to snuff out the lives of others?
The biggest logical flaw in your whole argument is revealed in the following sentence: “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.” By what reasoning do you believe that there were only two alternatives? Is not pursuing the path of peace also an alternative? Had even a small fraction of the 1.2 trillion dollars we’ve spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq been allocated to building schools, clinics, and other productive facilities in developing countries, we’d now be way ahead of where we presently are in the eyes of the world. Similarly, if we devoted comparable sums to upgrading the quality of life in our own country, we would have become the model for the rest of the world that we (falsely) proclaim to be. And even isolationism, which I personally eschew, would, in my view, be a preferable alternative to the one you espouse.
Finally, your approach undermines the rule of law. It supports the doctrine that “might makes right.” Flawed though it is, the UN, not the US, should be assume the role of the global cop (and should be strengthened accordingly) and the International Criminal Court, aided by regional courts should become the chief dispensers of justice.