#683 – Dick Bernard: The Cost of Fear; the Power of Speaking Out.

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

Artists rendition of "Banana clip" automatic rifle seen at a Minneapolis restaurant


Yesterday I was at a local restaurant having a cup of coffee, and writing some letters. It’s a very ordinary activity for me. For some reason, I ‘ve always worked best where there’s some hubbub around.
At the next table, very close by, four men, obviously friends, and probably in their 50s, were conversing about this and that and at some point one of them mentioned that he had been actively thinking about ordering an AR-15, and a gun cabinet to go with it.
The chat went on a short while, then he mentioned the topic had come to the attention of his spouse, and apparently he had changed his mind: she would have nothing to do with the purchase. As he described it, they had an interesting conversation….
If I heard it right, I was listening to one smart man, talking about one powerful woman who had something to say about one important matter: an assault rifle in the home.
The conversation got me thinking in a direction I hadn’t considered before: how much does an AR-15 really cost?
I don’t have a gun, and I don’t plan to have one, and I don’t stop to look at guns in stores or even look at ads about guns. I don’t know the details about todays killing machines.
When I got home I googled AR-15, and there were lots of references.
Succinctly, if you can get the assault rifle (there’s been a run on them – supply and demand), it is not cheap. And that’s just for the weapon.
Plus, a well-equipped AR-15 owner should have a range of accessories to go with the gun, all which cost money; things like the locked cabinet, the ammunition, the gun range, etc., etc.
I also noted a more than subtle paranoid edge to the websites peddling AR-15.
Most merchants sing the praises of their product. These sites were less than welcoming or disclosing. No smiley-faces there.
Any reader can challenge my assertion, simply by doing what I did: google “AR-15 cost”.
So, if I heard this totally decent looking and sounding man correctly, he won’t be getting his new gun, and the family relations will be better, and he’ll have money to spend in more productive ways.
I am not, by the way, anti-weapon. Never have been. I am against the insanity of combat weapons for “self-defense”.
Would this guy lug his AR-15 with him everywhere? If he ever had need for the weapon at home, could he find the key to the cabinet? Would the cabinet be where he needed it to be when he needed it? Would he be thinking clearly when he was squeezing the trigger?
Would his investment prove to a blessing or a curse?
Back home I listened to gun victim and survivor Gabby Giffords brief and extremely powerful testimony to a Senate Committee on the issues of Guns. Her husband Mark Kelly’s testimony as well. And the testimony of NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.
Giffords and Kelly made sense. LaPierre simply “came out with guns blazing” and made no sense at all. He was speaking raw power, bullying behavior, that was all.
I’d recommend support for the Giffords/Kelly brand new website on Americans Responsible For Solutions (they are both gun owners, and not against guns per se).
And another good site to get acquainted with is the Brady Campaign.
There’s no need to be afraid of getting into this conversation. It may even do a lot of good.

#680 – Greg Halbert: "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

(click to enlarge photos)

Banana Clip AR, as seen Jan 22, 2013, in Minneapolis MN at the Seward Cafe


Dick Bernard: The Gun Issue is on the table, and that is good. Unfortunately, much of the conversation is as much based on reality as the above painting, which I saw in the Seward Cafe on Franklin Avenue in Minneapolis today. The painting does get at a reality, however…. The ladies in the below photo (same place and time) were having a civil conversation “under the gun” so to speak. If only we all could approach the gun conversation in the same civil manner.
There is lots of good information available, if one is interested in learning. The following is an example.
Recently I had occasion to send around to my own e-list a “Was the Second Amendment Adopted for Slaveholders?“, by MinnPost columnist and long-time well respected writer on Government issues Eric Black. The column links to a longer academic paper by Carl Bogus.
Both are worth a read. At minimum, read the last two paragraphs of Black’s commentary.
Greg Halbert, a good friend, fellow church usher and retired prosecutor, is on my list, and read the items, and provided his own summary view, in a note to Mr. Black.
Here is Greg’s note to Eric, with an appended additional note to myself.
I encourage you to read the Eric Black column and his accompanying links as well.
Greg Halbert to Eric Black Jan 19:
Very much enjoyed your article on the Second Amendment; you educated me greatly, as I am sure it educated many other people who read your piece.
There is another point regarding the right to possess firearms that troubles me. I receive numerous emails from conservative people who claim they have a right to possess a firearm for possible use if and when government becomes tyrannical.
Nothing much, that I have come across, is discussed regarding this claim. Our Revolutionary leaders believed the British government had become tyrannical so they launched the Revolutionary War. But, in doing so they committed treason against the king. Fortunately they won the war and gained independence from Great Britain. Had the British won the war, George Washington and others could well have been executed.
So here we sit in 2013 with certain citizens of the United States fearful the U. S. government will become tyrannical, so they possess firearms and ammunition for use if such tyranny develops.
The difficulty I have is just how is this tyranny defined? How will you, me and others know when our government becomes tyrannical? It is left unsaid, but I presume gun toters think they as individuals will determine when the government has become tyrannical. Then what?
Do these Second amendment worshippers actually think they will take on city police departments, county sheriffs, the national guard, FBI, etc?
Do people who assert this right to possess firearms for use against a tyrannical government understand that treason is another word to describe their actions if they ever come to that?
This tortured line of thinking has escaped any careful examination.
Greg Halbert to Dick Bernard Jan 19:
These so-called super patriots fail to appreciate they are really contemplating treason with this talk that they need arms and ammo to be prepared for response to a tyrannical government. Who determines the government is tyrannical? Anyone? Isn’t that anarchy? Sorry, I am running low on question marks so will close.

#679 – Dick Bernard: Thoughts on Martin Luther King's "Why We Can't Wait", on Martin Luther King Day 2013

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Yesterday at Mass at Basilica of St. Mary visiting Priest, Fr. Pat Griffin, in his homily, included a snippet of Martin Luther King’s writing: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly….”
I wrote enough snippets of the quote so that I could source it, and at home went to the search engine and, sure enough, there the exact quote was in his famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, written April 16, 1963.
That letter was primarily to religious leaders, Bishops and like rank, who were not, shall we say, being very supportive of efforts to end injustice against the Negroes, one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. Such change disrupted their notion of temporal influence.
Preceding Father Pat’s pull quote was this phrase by King: “I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states….” and so on.
My takeaway from his message is that we’re all in this together, not gangs of individuals protecting our narrow interests, however righteous those interests seem to be.
I pulled my quote, above, from my copy of Martin Luther King’s “Why We Can’t Wait”, published early in 1964, primarily about the watershed Civil Rights year of 1963.* At the time, Dr. King was 34 years old.
The book remains in print, and I recommend it as required reading for anyone who wants to make a difference.

The book outlines how difficult it was, even then, to make a difference, and it emphasizes (at least so I saw) many things that most people don’t take time to acknowledge.
Dr. King’s hero and model, apparently, was someone most of us have never heard of: Fred Shuttlesworth.
And the Civil Rights Movement had difficulty convincing the Middle and Upper Class Negroes of the value of its mission to bring justice to those with less power and influence. Negroes who had by some chance or another risen above their “place” (say, owning a business) were reluctant to jeopardize their own perceived success to an uncertain cause. They were torn and too often they went with the status quo.
The most important chapter for me was the last one in the book, “The Days to Come”, in which Dr. King talked about the realities of the political process, including his personal acquaintance with three Presidents (Lyndon Johnson had just become President of the United States when the book was published. The others were Eisenhower and Kennedy.)
MLK was a rarity among us: not only was he a gifted and charismatic leader; but he recognized the reality leaders, including Presidents of the United States, face.
Most of King’s 1963 centered on Sheriff Bull Connors Birmingham AL. And at page 132 of Why We Can’t Wait he says this, recounting a comment by President Kennedy (then 46 years old) followed by his own commentary:
“Our Judgment of Bull Connor should not be too harsh,” he commented. “After all, in his way, he has done a good deal for civil rights legislation this year.”
King’s next sentence bears our attention: “It was the people who moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people,” King says.
Today, on the celebration of Martin Luther Kings birthday, and the public inauguration of President Obama, his words take on special meaning to all of us who care.
The ball is in OUR court.
* POSTNOTE:
My copy of Why We Can’t Wait came as a surprise gift from my friend, Lydia Howell, in Dec. 2006. It was a well-used copy, which I have even more well-used over the last six years.
Lydia’s note says “Now, more than ever, I find the life, work and words of Dr. King one of my deepest inspirations. I hope you…find [Why We Can’t Wait] useful….”
I surely have, Lydia.
I decided to first read the book one chapter each day, sitting in a pew at the Cathedral of St. Paul.
My book notes that I read the chapter “Letter From Birmingham Jail” on April 14, 2007, at 2 p.m., during a wedding. At the quotation cited by Father Griffin on Sunday, I have handwritten in the margin, “Bridal Procession”….
I have no idea who got married that day, or how they’re doing, but I can tell you this juxtaposition of thoughtfulness and words inspire continuing action.

#678 – Dick Bernard: Anniversary of a Retirement

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

It was thirteen years ago today, January 18, 2000, that my staff colleagues at Education Minnesota bid me adieu at my retirement after 27 years attempting to do my best to represent teachers in a collective bargaining state.
I was not yet 60 when I cleaned out my office, handed in my keys and walked out the north door at 41 Sherburne in St. Paul.
It had been long enough.
Even so, I had purposely fixed my retirement date to accommodate the statutory deadline for contract settlements that year: January 18, 2000.
My job back then was an endless series of negotiations about anything and everything: elementary teachers had differing priorities than secondary; that teacher who’d filed a grievance, or was being disciplined for something, had a difference of opinion with someone. Somebody higher up the food chain had a differing notion of “top priority” than I did….
So it went.
And negotiations was a lot better than the alternative where the game was for one person to win, against someone else who lost.
It was one of many lessons early in my staff career: if you play the game of win and lose, the winner never really wins, at least in the real sense of that term, where a worthy objective is for everybody to feel some sense of winning something. Win/Lose is really Lose/Lose…everybody loses.
We are in the midst of a long-running terrible Civil War where winning is everything; where to negotiate is to lose.
We’re seeing the sad results in our states, and in our nation’s capital, and in our interpersonal communication (or lack of same) about important issues, like the current Gun Issue, Etc.
Thirteen years is a while ago.
I brought my camera along that January 18, 2000, and someone took a few snapshots (at end of this post). Nothing fancy, but it is surprising how many memories come back:
There’s that photo of myself with the co-Presidents of Education Minnesota, Judy Schaubach and Sandra Peterson. Two years earlier rival unions, Minnesota Education Association and Minnesota Federation of Teachers, had merged after many years of conflict.
I like to feel that I played more than a tiny part in that important rapprochement, beginning in the late 1980s in northern Minnesota.
Both officers have retired. Sandra Peterson served 8 years in the Minnesota State Legislature.
Leaders don’t stop leading when they retire.
February 28, in Apple Valley, Education Minnesota’s Dakota County United Educators (Apple Valley/Rosemount) will celebrate 20 years from the beginning of serious negotiations to merge two rival local unions.
I was there, part of that. And proud of it.
There’s my boss, Larry Wicks, who many years earlier I’d practiced-teaching-on at Valley City State Teachers College. I apparently didn’t destroy him then; he’s currently Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association.
And my work colleague and friend Bob Tonra, now many years deceased, who somehow took a fancy to my Uncle’s WWII ships, the battleship USS Arizona and destroyer USS Woodworth and painstakingly made to scale models, behind me as I type this blog.
And of course, colleagues – people in the next office, across the hall, other departments, etc. Or Karen at the Good Earth in Roseville – “my” restaurant for nearly its entire existence. They gave me a free carrot cake that day….
That January 18 I finally cleared the final mess from my office and took a few photos of my work space, across the street from the State Capitol building. On my office door hung a photo from the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, April, 1999, a few days after the massacre at Columbine.
That young lady in the picture is granddaughter Lindsay, then 13. She, her parents and I walked up that Cross Hill on a rainy April day, and saw the stumps of the two crosses one Dad had cut down – the ones erected by someone else to the two killers, who had killed themselves. They lived then, and now, scarce a mile from the high school….
All the memories.
Let’s all learn to truly negotiate and to compromise on even our most cherished beliefs.
Such a talent is our future. Indeed our world’s only chance for a future.
(click to enlarge)

Judy Schaubach, Dick Bernard, Sandra Peterson Jan 18, 2000


In Gallop Conference Room at Education Minnesota Jan 18, 2000


Karen Schultz and server at Good Earth, January 18, 2000


Bob Tonra with his model of the USS Arizona ca 1996


Larry Wicks (at left)


Cross Hill above Columbine High School, April 1999, granddaughter Lindsay by the crosses, late April, 1999

#677 – Dick Bernard: President Obama's Moment

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

In my opinion, Wednesday, January 16, 2013, will go down as President Obama’s John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King moment.
It took an immense amount of courage for him, January 16, 2013, to confront our nations culture of violence, particularly the fringe – it’s really only a fringe – which worships the unrestricted “right to bear arms” – all and any kinds of arms.
(The Second Amendment, ratified Dec. 15, 1791, says this in its entirety “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The reader can, of course, choose which words to emphasize…or ignore…in that amendment.)
President Obama, his supporters, advisers and the Secret Service, know the personal risks of what he did yesterday.
I believe President Kennedy, and I know Martin Luther King, knew the risks of witness for a better society and world. They both fell to rifle shots from hatred, 1963 and 1968.
Any of us around then – I was a school teacher when the announcement over the intercom came that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas – know more than we want to know about how hatred and threats such as we are now seeing spewed by folks tend to trickle down to madmen who are more than willing to do the dirty work of killing the messenger. The NRA is, I believe, wittingly facilitating this hatred.
The vast majority of us, I believe, are with the President on his initiative to change the sick system which enabled Newtown and other tragedies.
But we can’t be sitting quietly in the background in our circles as this debate moves forward.
We need to supportively encircle the President and help him move forward in the many ways available to us. We need, particularly, to support our legislators who support change, and encourage those who are reluctant to see a civilized world in a different way than through a gun sight.
Yes, this is a complex issue.
Personally, I don’t own or plan to own a weapon, but neither am I anti-gun for the traditional uses I grew up with. Gun ownership is a privilege with great responsibility. Sadly, legislation is about the only way to increase responsibility.
I see something of a continuum in the debate which is now officially beginning.
At one end of the continuum is true religious model, best stated in the “beat their swords into plowshares” citation (Isaiah 2:3-4). Arbitrarily, I’ll call that end zero.
At the other end is the “man’s home is his castle” philosophy which, played out to its illogical end, allows anybody to do anything with any killing device. I’ll call that ten.
Somewhere in between those poles is common sense in a “free State”, as stated in that Second Amendment.
We are – all of us – the “State” referred to in that Second Amendment. We are “the people”.
The collective “we, the people of the United States” share responsibility to “insure domestic Tranquility” (the Preamble of the Constitution), and tranquility doesn’t come at the end of a gun.
(On that continuum, above, I’d put myself at a four or less.)
Our World is our Castle.
We all live together in that Castle. We depend on each other; not only on ourselves.
Get involved, and don’t quit. Be willing to negotiate, but carefully. It is hard to negotiate with someone who refuses to negotiate.
On this and other issues, learn both sides and stick with it. It’s a crucial issue at a crucial time.
Here’s the complete U.S. Constitution: Constitution of U.S.001
Recent previous posts on this topic are here, here and here.
UPDATES:
From Will:
Some blogger yesterday had a great juxtaposition of King and Obama: “I Have a Dream” vs. “I Have a Drone.”
Dick, to Will: Yesterday, I seem to recall, the President mentioned that there had been 900 or so gun deaths in the U.S. in the month since Newtown. Perhaps you could tell me how many deaths from Drones in the same month? How many Iraqis died in a typical month in the Iraq War when it was raging back in the good old days of 2003-2008? How many war dead in Afghanistan in a typical month?
The United States is a nation that almost worships violence. And the gun issue is a perfect place to intensify the conversation on the role of violence in our society.
The President is already on record asking Congress to help adopt rules for use of Drones. It isn’t as if he’s been silent.
Over 50 years ago I edited a small college newspaper, and I’ve always been intrigued by this item we printed in one issue of the paper, sometime in 1960-61.
(click to enlarge)

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


Bruce, Jan 17:
Excellent blog.
I concur with you in that it took tremendous personal courage for Obama to take his position on gun control. The president’s life is always in danger for any political act he does, but this one is exceptionally dire. If he is successful in facing up to the NRA and it’s rabid fringe followers, his life will be at risk even after he leaves office. That is the level of emotion on this issue. It may be equivalent to Lincoln and slavery, which brings me to an article I read in the last couple of days on the 2nd Amendment. It’s point is the 2nd was ratified to preserve slavery. I think it goes to ” the man’s home is his castle” doctrine. That is the basis for a person has the right to protect his property with violence, if necessary. The most valuable property in the 18th century in America, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, was slaves. Slavery was legal, and there were slaves in all of the states. The national economy depended on the institution of slavery. In order for the Bill of Rights to be ratified the south needed a compromise which protected their property(slaves) from abolitionists thus preserving their police state(slave patrols). I think, Tom Hartmann, the author of the article, has a good analysis. Protecting the institution of slavery was at the heart of the 2nd amendment. With the Emancipation Proclamation, the 2nd Amendment should have been eliminated. There was no longer a reason for it except for protecting the profit of fire arms manufactures. I can’t help but think it’s exceptionally poetic that it’s the first “Black” president that is facing down the gun lobby. I think it scares the hell out many. In the Tarrantino movie Django, Django must remind many, unconsciously if nothing else, of Obama. It’s a very violent movie, but I recommend it, especially after you read this article.
Another lobby that is as powerful as the NRA is AIPAC. Obama is standing up to that lobby, too. He is putting forth all his political might to show down these two lobbies. With the nomination of Hagel, he has pick a fight with AIPAC. He has brought it out into the light, and now with the backing of Senator Levin(MI) a powerful supporter of AIPAC, he may have won that fight. See here.
The president has guts and resolve. That is what makes him dangerous to the forces that these two lobbies represent. Liberating the country from the oppression of these two lobbies is no small feat, and as you have stated, we need to help this president and protect his back.

#676 – Dick Bernard: The Gun "Conversation" one month after Newtown.

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

This is the one month anniversary of Newtown CT massacre. It seems a good time to look back, and ahead.
The day of Newtown – it was a Friday – I wrote a blogpost in this space, which was also carried in the local Woodbury Patch. There were 45 comments on that post. They speak for themselves.
A few days later I did a second post, with some recommendations. It is here. I included in the post the following graphic, which is very pertinent at this point in the conversation about guns.
(click to enlarge)

Handout from a circa 1972 workshop.


This old graphic demonstrates a general truth: if you seek change – good or evil – after a crisis, there is a narrow window of opportunity. If you wait for the perfect moment to act, the opportunity is lost, since people have a short attention span. Both heroes and villains need to pay attention to this.
I could give many examples from both good and evil, but these would deflect attention from our need to act on this issue, now.
There are so many opinions already out there, another one may seem superfluous, but here are some very brief thoughts:
1. Attempting to introduce more arms into any setting, especially schools, is insane. More weaponry simply introduces more possibilities for more tragic mayhem. If one only considers schools, in the United States there are about 14,000 school districts, 133,000 schools (ranging from one room rural, to immense structures serving thousands); with 55,000,000 or so students and perhaps 5-6 million staff, mostly teachers.
Solving this problem with more lethal weapons is no solution.
The NRA attempted to exploit post-Newtown hysteria on this.
2. The National Rifle Association (NRA) does not deserve the power it attempts to exercise.
It is useful to learn about the NRA. Here is an article that seems to summarize the bases well, though not from the official NRA perspective.
NRA claims to enroll about 4 million members at $35 dues. This translates into approximately one NRA member per 60 adult Americans, and by no means do all NRA members subscribe to the credo of the current leaders.
If we look at NRA leadership as it is, rather than what it pretends to be, it is nothing more than a “skinny 90 pound weakling” who, exposed, is no more powerful than the exposed Wizard of Oz. It has only the power the rest of us choose to give it.
NRAs big money backing may talk, but only possesses the same single vote influence that every one of us has with the people we elect to represent us. We have the power on this issue, if we choose to exercise it.
3. Those who demand the right to be armed and dangerous are fools, exposing their short-sightedness and, yes, impotence.
I am trained in firearms – Army years. But I’ve never owned a gun, and I have no intention to get one now.
In a ‘gunfight at the OK Corral’ I would be un-armed and dead.
I don’t need to go to the OK Corral, but if I did, and I was killed, my problems would be over, but my well-armed assailants problems would just be beginning.
Last I looked we have little laws in this country which frown on murder. And we have technology with which to find murderers that wasn’t available during the OK Corral days.
Someone lethally armed is potentially more a danger to him or herself than to any intruder or the hated government.
I don’t need to list examples. They abound.
The struggle for sanity in gun ownership is by no means over. It is just beginning.
Be on the court.
It is your legislators, national and state, who will have to enact the policies that are needed. They depend on you.
UPDATE:
from Peter Jan. 14:
Well since you put it that way…
Just guessing you should strengthen the connection between NRA-fear and legislators. They are the ones who are afraid of NRA, because it looks as if it can get them un-elected if they don’ play along. Also it would be well to look into the history of that, has anybody been un-elected by the NRA? Cause they sure have swung a lot of weight in DC. Power in DC is a very individual matter. Relationships between less than three or four people can have the effect of thousands of votes. NRA is probably as hollow as you say, but to let the air out of them you have to expose this, and that means revealing the actual mechanism of how this (tax exempt!) outfit pulls the strings it pulls, and what those strings are made of.
I don’t actually believe the rank and file membership does a whole lot in the way of lobbying. Lobbyists are all presenting themselves as representing a lot of voters, or a lot of jobs in your district. But day-to-day they don’t really have to trot them out. It’s like the filibuster.
Dick, to Peter, and all: If one feels they have no power, they have no power. We are far more powerful than we think we are; and the adversary is far weaker than it would admit it is….
From Phyllis Jan 15:
Good article! I honestly think most of our senators and congressmen are wimps/weaklings when it comes to the NRA. I wish they would all get a spine!! They cannot answer yes or no, but dance around a question when it comes to gun safety. So they get a F rating from the NRA, who really cares….and what does it mean to have the A+ rating??? Does that make them a better person?? Just asking….

#674 – Dick Bernard: The War for Peace…

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

UPDATE Jan. 7, 2013: note comment at end from Garry Davis.
UPDATE Aug, 2013: Garry Davis passed away at the end of July, 2013. See this post.
Sunday [Jan 6,2013] I was privileged to be among nearly 100 people invited to a private preview of a very special eye-opening film, which has the potential to inspire the public with a new way of looking at the world.
In the documentary, which is still in development, World Citizen #1 Garry Davis engaged us with his fascinating life story. A riveting story-teller, he told us how his quest for a different kind of world began during World War II, when in the wake of his own brother being killed in action, he found himself killing German brothers and families in B-17 bomber runs on German cities.
He couldn’t see any sense in killing others to avenge the killing of his brother and this changed his life. He came to see no real sense in even national borders. In the end, he felt, people have to relate to other people, and figure out ways to get along, otherwise our human world cannot survive. Borders were artificial fences, especially as they defined countries.
His actions made him controversial.
The in progress film about Davis, which I think will be a very important one, develops the story of what happened later in Davis’ life, and how his commitment to peace could be a template for us all.
The screening was co-sponsored by Global Solutions Minnesota, World Citizen (founded by Lynn Elling and others in 1972), A Million Copies, and Minnesota Alliance of Peacemakers. The Film Society of Minneapolis and St. Paul was also co-sponsor and great host for the event, which was presented in their theater at St. Anthony Main, Minneapolis.
Of course, life is not always simple. Paradoxically, on the same Sunday of the screening, another “war” was about to break out.
President Obama is nominating former Sen. and Vietnam War veteran Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, and the issue appears to be drawn on whether Hagel will be sufficiently tough as a representative of American interests. Much will be said in coming days. Here’s a good summary of the first salvos.
This nomination battle is well worth watching.
Garry Davis is still very much alive, at 91, and at the screening on Sunday was Minneapolitan Lynn Ellling, near 92, who remains a lion in the quest for World Citizenship and Peace.
After the screening, about half of us stayed for an interesting Skype conversation between Garry Davis and Lynn Elling and others on the topic of world citizenship.
(click on photos to enlarge)

Garry Davis (on screen from Vermont via Skype), Lynn Elling, film producer Arthur Kanegis and a guest share thoughts on the pursuit of world peace on January 6.


Such a topic, Peace, is not a simple one, and there are differences of opinions of how one achieves lasting Peace, but the importance lies in the potential good of the conversation, and of working together to resolve differences.
Garry Davis – and his counterpart Lynn Elling – experienced War up front and very personally in WWII, and neither considers War an option for achieving Peace.
In the War paradigm, which the upcoming debate over Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense is all about, the only conversation will be about the Power of one nation to dominate others, in my opinion.
I had seen an early draft of the Davis film in October, 2012, and it caused me to do reflecting on my own about the issues raised, long before the January 6 preview.
Indeed, Davis was and still is “controversial”.
So, too, were Nelson Mandela who endured years of prison before becoming a world hero; and more recently Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Laureate from Myanmar who couldn’t accept her award in person for fear that she wouldn’t be allowed back in her own country, and endured 21 years of house arrest within her own country, and made one of her first public international statements to the Nobel Peace Prize Forum at Augsburg College in Minneapolis in March 2012. Most recently, she had as a house guest, President Obama.
There is a very long list of “controversial” people who have made a difference and can be role models for us.
Being controversial is often very desirable and good.
I also remembered a couple of sentences written by Martin Luther King Jr. in his book, Why We Can’t Wait, published in 1964, shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy.
King had not long before endured the Birmingham Jail and some months later gave his famous “I Have a Dream” speech on the Washington DC Mall.
He wrote this in his book:
“I am reminded of something President Kennedy said to me at the White House following the signing of the Birmingham agreement.
“Our judgment of Bull Connor should not be too harsh” he commented. “After all, in his way, he has done a good deal for civil-rights legislation this year.”
Immediately following these sentences, King says this, a message to all of us: “It was the people who moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people….”
We of that generation tend to forget a crucial fact: at the time of this conversation, Martin Luther King Jr was 33 years old; President John F. Kennedy was 46.
When Lynn Elling MC’ed the event where Minneapolis and Hennepin County became the first World Citizenship city and county in the United States on May 1, 1968, Lynn was 47 years old. Three years later, in March, 1971, Minnesota as a state became World Citizen. Mr Elling was heavily involved in both actions, which were non-partisan and had a very impressive list of bi-partisan supporters.

Lynn Elling at Minneapolis City Hall May 1, 1968 opening the event where Minneapolis and Hennepin County declared themselves World Citizenship Communities, and where the United Nations flag flew alongside the U.S. flag.


Minneapolis/Hennepin County MN Declaration of World Citizenship signed March 5, 1968, dedicated May 1, 1968


Lynn Elling with the Minneapolis Declaration at Minneapolis City Hall, Dec. 22, 2012. Photo compliments of Bonnie Fournier of the Smooch Project


Minnesota Declaration of World Citizenship March, 1971. photo courtesy of Bonnie Fournier, Smooch Project


The future is with the young. We need to help them choose a path which will give them a positive future.
UPDATE Jan 7. 2013: received from Garry Davis:
Hi Dick,
Great blog! Loved it! So happy you referred to my personal “history” site ( a real archaic opus compared to what one sees today, but still containing some interesting archival material). For instance, under “World Citizenship Movement & the World Government,” in the 3nd para. starting “In 2 years over 750,000 people registered, etc.” you will note “In June, ‘mondialized’ Cahors.”
This small southern French town (famous for its wine) actually started the “Mundialization Movement” from which the 1971 statement of “Mundialization” of the State of Minnesota derived followed by the State of Iowa on October 25, 1973. (For the full list see here). [NOTE: Minneapolis and Hennepin County MN mundialized March 5, 1968.]
Colonel Robert Sarrazac, former Maquis during WWII and my principal “organization” in Paris, was the author of the first “Mundialization” declaration.
Maybe a footnote could be added to fill out this important item.
Looking forward to having the pleasure of meeting you in the Spring.
Warmly, in one global village,
Garry

#671 – Dick Bernard: New Years Eve, 2012. Reprise on The Fiscal Cliff, the Debt Limit and Other Things

/1 Comment/in /by

I wrote about this general issue a few days ago. Here is that post.
A few days ago I predicted to a good friend that by tonight the Congress would figure out some way to come to an agreement on their differences and reach a settlement that could be signed by the President. Such a settlement can be made only by the Congress, with the House of Representatives in the lead, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
I told my friend that I’d often seen “cliff stuff” before – usually in the hot-headed moments near the end of teacher contract negotiations.
Almost always, in those cases, there was a settlement. Rarely did one party or another elect to go over the cliff: reason utimately prevailed. Usually it was one party or the other in such a crisis, perhaps someone in labor, perhaps someone in management, who played the primary role in the end game before walk-out…rarely did both parties tell each other equally to ‘go to hell’…. Sufficient people knew that there were bad consequences for both ‘sides’ if there was a strike and efforts were made to settle.
In labor terms, these days, we are seeing a new variation on this theme: the “lockout” of Minnesota and St. Paul Symphony Orchestras is a current management-option way around collective bargaining, but its effect is no different than a strike. Set your feet in cement, and that cement will ultimately harden. The consequences are unpleasant. You are stuck.
It is best to find a way to settle.
At this writing, in early morning on New Years Eve, perhaps 18 hours away from the end of 2012, it appears that my prediction on the Fiscal Cliff negotiations will be wrong.
We appear to be going over the cliff, whatever that comes to mean.
There’s still time to settle, and I’ve seen stranger things in the last hours before “push comes to shove”, but it’s going to require adult behavior by our elected House of Representative members in particular, and I see little promise of that.
It happens that today, Dec. 31, 2012, my Representative in Congress is still Republican Michele Bachmann. After the New Year it will be Democrat Betty McCollum. The positions of both are worth watching, now and down the line.
(Bachmann continues in office, but in another part of Minnesota, though she still lives in this District. McCollum is also a veteran congresswoman. The configuration of their districts have changed.)
The U.S. House of Representatives remains Republican, though with a smaller majority; the U.S. Senate remains Democrat, with a bigger majority, but not enough to avoid the 60% vote needed to avoid filibuster by the minority. How this change in composition will change the results is uncertain at this point.
What happens today with the Cliff has especially big potential consequences for especially those with the most limited means to survive – the lower middle class and the poor.
The next issue on the horizon is the Debt Limit controversy, essentially, whether the U.S. Treasury can pay debts already incurred by previous Congressional action.
Like the Fiscal Cliff, the Debt Limit is subject to much misinformation. Both topics are abstract and distant and difficult for a layperson to understand.
I took a look at the Wikpedia entry on U.S. Public Debt, which includes a section on the Debt Limit, and I think it gives a reasonable base at least for thinking about the issue.
The Debt Limit has lately become a new political weapon, and it is a dangerous one including for its proponents. Essentially, the Congress, once again, the Congress, will be tempted to say that the United States is not authorized to pay Debt which that same Congress has authorized in the past, a great part of which is to pay for wars, including the current ones.
Basically, this would seem to me a bit like a consumer, myself, voluntarily incurring a huge debt which I cannot pay, which I then simply refuse to pay with the consequence of losing my credit, or my house, or whatever else comes in the wake of my foolishness.
There are big differences between personal debt, and debt for a country like ours, of course. The Wikipedia article above referenced seems to give a pretty good and balanced view of the topic over U.S. history.
This game of chicken is not much different than any other potentially fatal game.
What can you do, as a citizen, today, tomorrow and on? Make your views known to your Representatives.
COMMENTS:
Will, Dec 31: I don’t pretend to understand it and have read a number of pundits and economists who say the fiscal cliff doesn’t even exist and is a political ploy of some kind.
Jeff, Dec 31: I haven’t been following it, we are mostly powerless on this.
My thinking is they will let the fiscal cliff occur, then make some
adjustments in January… with the spending cuts fought over prior to the
debt ceiling vote…
The Farm Bill is not yet done either, another mess.
Bruce, Dec 31: The psychology behind your analysis of the “fiscal cliff” would be correct, if the cliff was a real crisis. It’s a manufactured for political reasons, and that is why they don’t have the urgency to avoid a real catastrophe. They know that, and so does the “mainstream media”, but they choose not to acknowledge it. For the politicians, it’s not acknowledged for win/lose political reasons, and for the media, it’s a sexy story.
Both sides have set up taxes as the bad guy. If we don’t come to a compromise, taxes will go up. Well, really they should go up for everyone. They should be raised until the cost of the two wars we’ve waged for the last ten years have been paid. These were wars fought in our name for, in my opinion, no good reason. The increased taxes should be a reminder that we have a collective responsibility, at very least fiscal, for these terrible wars.
Taxes are the easy part of the “fiscal cliff”. Cuts to the Federal Budget are more difficult. The automatic across the board cuts will show the American people what we need to know, that the Federal Government is a fiscal engine that provides jobs. Jobs directly, but more importantly indirectly. If the Federal government is be responsible for job layoffs, than the unemployment benefits should be raised along with other “safety net” programs until the economy is reconfigured, which would the right time to set up a green economy for the 21st century.
It would be an anxious and exciting time. I wish I was 30 years younger, so I could be part of the rebuilding of America.

#670 – Dick Bernard: "The Fiscal Cliff", "the Debt Limit" and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

/0 Comments/in /by

Today seems to be a good time to transmit that document that is often referred to, often interpreted and seldom read, much less understood, by we, the people: the Constitution of the United States.
Here is that Constitution, including the XXVII (27) Amendments: Constitution of U.S.001. (For those whose fantasy is amending the Constitution for this or that purpose, that 27th Amendment was submitted to the states for ratification in 1789, but was not finally adopted until 1992, 203 years later.)
For those interested in “Fiscal Cliff” and “Debt Limit” questions, a quick reading of Article I, especially Sections 7 and 8, might well be useful: “Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
It doesn’t take a close read to determine that the question doesn’t end with the House of Representatives solely deciding: rather, it must reach agreement with the Senate, and the resulting agreement must be signed by the President.
The presumption of the Founders was working together to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. This is how Democracy is supposed to work. Sure there was argument, the objective was agreement between diverse opinions.
Of course, as everyone who follows politics knows, the dance going on in Washington is more street theater than Constitutional law. Here’s a good (though long) summary on the posturing as of today. The posturing is not healthy to our Republic.
Then there’s the gun issue and the Second Amendment, a single sentence about which zillions of words have and will be written and spoken: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is said that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has about 4 million members, which is roughly one of every 60 adult Americans. By no means do all of those 4 million members agree with the official NRA stance.
This is another case of the tail appearing to wag the dog. NRA seems invincible only because we allow it to seem invincible. NRA is a classic bully in action.
My own thoughts on the issue, here.
“Persistence pays” is a good piece of advice to those who advocate change in our nation’s policy.
Some time ago I put together a chart of the composition of Senate and House of Representatives for the current Congress – the one which ends shortly. It is here, at least for this moment in history fairly accurate: Congress 1977-2011001
I succumb to the temptation to add my two cents worth to what is happening in Washington at the end of this Congress.
We have accepted a political culture of WINNERS and LOSERS.

The consequence is that we are all losing.
The most troubling fact in all of this is that “we, the people” are in reality the politicians we despise. It is we who made the choices when we voted (or declined to vote), and probably our most important choice of all was for our one local representative in the U.S. Congress (an institution mostly disdained by the people – a strange commentary, since we are the ones who elected them all, position by position.)
Becoming well informed (listening to more than a single point of view, and being on the court rather than simply in the stands) is an important part of becoming responsible supervisors of our elected representatives.
Happy New Year.
NOTE: Some earlier thoughts on the word “Taxes”: here.

#666 – Dick Bernard: Newtown, to those who’d like to help change the conversation about Guns in America

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

If you’re interested in making a difference in this guns-in-America conversation, here are some thoughts:
Yes, it is Christmas time, and preparations take center stage such as each of us prepare for our own family rituals at this season.
Christmas is often a confusing time, desperately depressing for many, far too much ‘noise’ and competing priorities. We each have our own narrative. “Christmas shopping” is a major one.
Today and forward, the funerals continue in Newtown CT.
This morning some adult men were joking about going out to buy guns before they were made illegal; I had just read an excellent commentary in the Minneapolis Star Tribune from someone with Asperger’s Syndrome about sensitivity to those with such ailments. I wondered if the guns-trumping-everything bunch can see themselves as mentally ill….
As we continue to be overwhelmed by the horrific facts of Newtown, it is easy to become paralyzed into inaction, or, equally terrible, to rigidly refuse to consider other points of view. Neither mitigate towards change in the status quo that led to all of the hideous acts, Newtown only the most recent.
This is an opportunity for deep conversation and some change in course in our country, state and community in many areas: guns, mental health (including every single one of us), video games, sanctioned bullying demonstrated by adults in sundry ways… Even in my small corner of the communications universe, my first post on this topic last Saturday brought some comments (added at end of this post); and the same column used in the Woodbury (MN) Patch has ignited some continuing conversation [44 comments as of early Dec. 19].
Here are some other ‘threads’ not commonly seen to consider as this conversation hopefully continues.
1. The Status Quo is Very, Very Powerful
Newtown is not the first gun crisis we have experienced, and it won’t be the last. Those who do not want meaningful change know the simplest tactic is to simply wait out the initial turmoil – and life will go on, unchanged. Relevant, I think, is this handout from a workshop I attended perhaps 40 years ago which demonstrates the dynamics of response to a disaster. I prefer to leave it in its original form. It speaks for itself. This is a flow chart to spend some time contemplating, in my opinion.
(click to enlarge)

Worksheet from workshop circa 1972

We are the politics we like to criticize and judge, more so than the politicians. Change is possible, but takes lots of work, and persistence.
Ditto to the crisis sequence is the very real problem of instituting real and continued Change. Another old handout I have from the same time years ago showed what we all know is true: change is exceedingly difficult, even if one knows that beyond the resistance to change is a better something Change001. We embrace the status quo (think over-eating, etc) because it is very hard to change behaviors. The initial response to change is reduced efficiency (or pleasure, etc), which is why most of us do not actually change those behaviors we know that we should.
2. We will not Rid Our Nation of Guns. The best we can expect is a much healthier attitude towards them.
The guns the Connecticut Mom apparently kept to protect her from potential hostile others, ended up being the instrument of her own death, and of many others….
I have never owned a gun, and never will. I qualified as expert with the M-1 in the military (WWII vintage, something like a deer rifle with a small ammo clip).
A recurring image is at my 87-year old Uncle’s farm house this Fall. He showed me his guns. He had, if I recall correctly, six of them, including 30.06 and 12-gauge shotgun and some old-timers from his Grandpa’s day. My Uncle is no gun nut, and the guns were not for self-defense. He occasionally hunted for deer or for pheasants on his own property – that was it. He didn’t keep a stash of ammo. If he needed a box of shotgun shells, that’s what he bought – not cases.
He and I didn’t talk about the National Rifle Association (NRA), to which he belonged, off and on. It is pretty clear to me, though, that he has not much time for the present NRA.
3. The NRA and the Gun Industry Needs to be Called to Account.
This, too, will be hard. Our weapons industry provides lots of jobs. Think the problem of change.
The current version of the NRA is not all that old. When I first became teacher union staff in 1972, I can remember the first visits to our national headquarters in Washington DC. Across 16th Street, then, about a mile north of the White House, was an old standard issue office building housing the then-National Rifle Association. That NRA was a very different organization than todays version.
4. Is Change Possible? Yes. Is It Easy? No. Can it be Delegated to Someone Else? No way. It’s in each of our courts.
Some years ago I happened across a wonderful book, “Why We Can’t Wait”, written by Martin Luther King Jr in 1963-64 about 1963 in America. It remains in print and available. I highly recommend it.
MLK was then 34 years old. In his final chapter, “The Days to Come”, he talks a lot about political engagement and political leaders like Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ. At page 132-33, commenting on JFK’s assessment of the importance of Bull Connor to the Civil Rights successes, King says this: “It was the people who moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people.”
This is the powerful message to anyone who wants to impact change. It is the responsibility of each one of us to make our small bit of difference. It takes more than just signing a petition, or saying something else should do it. It is solely up to each and every one of us.
COMMENTS FROM THE PRECEDING POST ON THIS ISSUE:
From Mary Dec. 15:
I attended a workshop yesterday by Noel Larson who is expert in treating people damaged enough to do these acts….and heard about Connecticut there in a large room filled with people dedicated to providing therapy to heal from abuse and perception of constant danger…ironic – if payment is available they have guarantee of work – very difficult work.
I am very sad.
From Jeff Dec 15: watched Congr. Carolyn McCarthy on MSNBC this morning. She is an RN, lost her husband and her son was terribly injured in a Long Island shooter incident in the early 90’s.
She should be watched, she is plain spoken and like most nurses, direct and doesn’t pull punches.
She and another panelist said we have to admit that gun owning is a right, the Supreme Court has determined that. We need to do something about automatic weapons, multiple bullet clips, closing the gun show loophole and strengthening background checks. Find common ground with responsible gun owners , sportsmen that can overturn the perversity of the extreme NRA views. (our political system is gerrymandered under our house districting system to allow the NRA to bully reps)
Michael Bloomberg is putting his money in the fight to find districts where tipping points can be influenced. That is a good thing.
The other thing Cong. McCarthy said is we need to emulate the campaigns against smoking, for seat belt use….long term changing of a culture and mindset by stigmatizing parts of the gun culture are necessary. So gun responsibility, gun safety should be the buzzwords… not gun control. (I note that both George Lakoff, and Nate Silver wrote about this terminology in the past few days).
Bob reminded me of his post from June 29, 2009, here.
From an elementary school teacher in MN: My principal was in the air force and today he talked about wanting to get a gun permit for conceal and carry in the school to protect everyone (which didn’t go over well at all given that everyone is so emotionally raw right now and does not want anything except stricter gun controls) Oh well……..he thinks he personally would save all of us and all 770 students. A little of his ego is involved here I think. Alot more discussion to follow.
From Carol Dec 15: “This morning, a madman attacked more than 20 children at an elementary school in China. As of this writing, there are no reported fatalities.
A few hours later, a madman attacked an elementary school in Connecticut. As of this writing, 20 of those kids are dead.
The difference? The weapon. The madman in China had a knife. The madman in Connecticut had three semi-automatic guns.”

Already you’re hearing the excuses: Timothy McVeigh didn’t need guns to kill all those people, the terrorists on 9-11 didn’t need guns to kill all those people, yadda yadda. As though a 20-yr-old living with his mother could have pulled off a massive truck bombing or flown planes into buildings. An unstable 20-yr-old needed guns.
I’m not going down the rabbit hole of Patch comments, etc. again. Nothing changes with these idiots. Somebody by now has probably claimed that if some kindergartener’s mom had only packed heat in their lunchbox, they’d all be safe.
From Barbara Dec. 15: I am totally freaked out about this. It must be because of the little kids. Little kids, for God’s sake. Evil, evil, evil.
I am on a massive personal inventory about my complicity via relative silence, and how to mitigate against that going forward.
For starters, Heather Martens and Protect Minnesota have infrastructure in place (and have had for years) about guns and violence. So in MN, there’s a foundation in place.
From Jeff Dec 15: This thing has made me numb… and I can still not comprehend it.
Something has to be done to question the ethic of violence in our society, from these types of murders, to video games, to movies to our own govts reliance on violence to pursue its foreign policy.
Merry Christmas.
From Will Dec 15: Dear Folks: I just finished writing the President most of you voted for plus my Congresspeople urging them to stand up to the NRA and immediately introduce much stricter controls on those types of weapons that are most frequently used in massacres such as at Newtown CT and the others.
My heart wasn’t in this next part but I suggested if they focus on assault weapons, maybe their constituent voters who murder only animals aka “hunters” will not be vindictive at election time. After all, some of these Congresspeople do some good work even though they’re Democrats and need to be dragged much farther to the left such as The Green Party or Workers International League/SocialistAppeal.org.
When I wrote Mr. Obama, I noticed his list of subjects, like my Sen. Amy Klobuchar (but unlike Sen. Al Franken and Rep. Betty McCollum) did not include guns nor gun control. So, flustered, I hit the Homeland Security button which promptly was refused and I tried a few others (Drone, Rice, Boehner, Bachmann) before finally managing to sneak under the wire with “other.”
From Greg Dec 15: Regarding a comment in the Gail Collins column that if more good people carried guns they could respond when a person starts killing. A number of years ago I read a story that I wish I had saved.
It occurred outside a county court house in a rural Texas county. A man accosted his ex-wife as she was about to enter the court house, I believe for a post divorce hearing.
The man started shooting at her. Nearby an uninvolved man saw what was happening. he drew his gun and began shooting at the first man who then began firing at this second man. Result: the second man, a good Samaritan, was shot and killed.
At Sandy Creek school and at the theater in Aurora the shooter was said to be clad in protective armor. Thus not only must a person be able to draw and fire at the attacker, but must connect with a head shot … virtually impossible in those circumstances.
The proposal for rifle storage and usage [Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun] tracks closely my experience in the 1970s while on U. S. military duty in then West Germany. Gun clubs existed in cities where people could store their weapons under lock and key and go to shoot at targets. Seems like a reasonable approach.
People who think they are protecting themselves by keeping a loaded gun in their homes may wish to reflect on the experience of the Rochester Minnesota minister who accidentally shot his grand daughter after mistaking her for an intruder.
From Jeff Dec 15: People who want to reform the gun madness have to start from the premise that gun owning is in the constitution and the Supreme court has recently upheld individual rights to own guns and been very hesitant to strike down certain limitations or restrictions.
aa) change minds with spending money on the same campaign that reduced smoking and diminished it to nearly pariah status… enlists teachers, doctors, police, military men , actors, hunters, religious, etc. to work on changing the gun culture, and part of that will have to be rewarding positive gun ownership
bb) work on closing the gun show loophole, work on passing the ban on automatic weapons, multiple ammo clips,
cc) strengthen and bring technology to bear on background checks
dd) allow pediatricians to ask parents if they are gun owners and how they store their guns
ee) increase funding for mental health, and remove the stigma attached to mental illness (remember Paul Wellstone)
Find common ground with gun owners and sportsmen…they are parents and grandparents too.
Jeff Dec 16: we need to ask ourselves what would our governments and our fellow citizens be doing now if the Newtown killer’s name was Abu Abdallah? I can only imagine the actions that would follow, the unmitigated demands for investigations , etc. Yet a madman takes his gun owning mothers automatic weapons and kills 28 people and we as a nation wonder what our elected reps might be able to do? The Patriot Act was forced down our throats as a result of 9/11, the HSA is one of the largest departments of the govt ,,,, yet it seems every week we endure shootings like this.
Paul Dec. 16: Here is another strong voice in support of the commitment of teachers to their students. The bravery of the Sandy Hook teachers in the face of an unimaginable nightmare is astounding.
From Judy Dec 16: This is wonderful.
From Flora Dec 17: My heart is heavy from the tragedy at the elementary school in Connecticut.
This Wednesday, Jefferson High School will show a film made by last year’s senior from Edina High School, called “Minnesota Nice”. It is the film on bullying, followed by homeroom discussion. I hope every effort matters in making the schools a better place for everybody.
Wishing for Peace everywhere,
From Norm: Excellent piece Dick.
I singled out the following ready to send around because where ‘serious’ can’t do the trick maybe a little
tongue-in-cheek will work:
A safe society is one where everyone packs heat all the time: wouldn’t it build character for citizens to learn their responsibility early on? There’s no problem finding a firearm for
small hands: if every one of them had had a piece in his desk, and opened up on Lanza from all directions right away, only a few more would be dead now, maybe even fewer, and the survivors would have learned about pride and self-sufficiency instead of fear and surrender. We have fire drills; don’t we care enough about our kids to give them rapid-fire drills? And come to think of it, kindergarten is not too young to learn freedom through armed revolt (see lesson one above): what more oppressive, authoritarian institution is there than a school to its students? K-12 students with suitable weapons could be learning to fight tyranny before the school crushes their spirit and turns them into slaves of big government.
From Greg Dec. 17, to his Church in Minneapolis: Many people are probably like me, we want to do something tangible for the dear people of Newtown Connecticut. I think it was upon the death of Princess Diana that a book of condolences was placed in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda. People were able to come and sign their names as a demonstration of their sorrow and desire to connect with the people of Great Britain. I did.
In the news coverage of events from Newtown I’ve seen a number of images from St Rose of Lima Church and its pastor.
Let’s place a book of condolences on a pedestal at the crossing next Sunday for people to sign. Priests can make an announcement this Sunday so people will be aware of this opportunity to connect with our sisters and brothers in Connecticut.
Thanks.
Greg