#263 – Dick Bernard: President Obama comes to the Twin Cities

/in , , /by

NOTE: The video of the entire speech by President Obama in Minneapolis on October 23 is accessible at the end of this post.

Sometimes I hear talk of Democrats and Republicans being the same: “they’re both alike“; “they’re all liars”; “Democrats are only the lesser of two evils“. This kind of rhetoric comes from both left and right. It is an excuse to vote Republican, or to not vote at all.
I beg to differ. There is a big difference, crucial at this time in our history.
In my life I’ve had a few ‘close calls’ with sitting Presidents of the United States.
The first was about 1953 when we saw President Eisenhower in a motorcade in Minot ND. We lived in an area town, I was 13 or 14, and he made a big impression. He was in an open convertible, personable and waving. He was likely there to inspect the site then being considered for the major Minot Air Force Base.
In the summer of 1975, I was within arms length of President Gerald Ford when he visited Bloomington MN. My kids, a couple of neighbors and I were on the other side of a rope line, which was all that separated the President from the onlookers. He was very engaging. The Secret Service was nervous.
In January, 1980, I was at a meeting in the Cabinet Room of the Carter White House. The President wasn’t in, but it was a heady experience nonetheless.
I’ve had other close brushes: Jimmy Carter’s Plains GA in 1977; the Eisenhower library in KS; a couple of tours of Harry and Bess Truman’s home in Independence MO, and the Truman Library; the Bill Clinton Library in Little Rock; Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson’s home in Texas…plus the house where LBJ grew up; Abe Lincolns home, tomb and environment in IL several times and his KY birthplace; George and Laura Bush’s Crawford TX. Perhaps I’m missing one or two….
June 20, 2003, I traveled out to suburban Minneapolis to perhaps catch a glimpse of President George W. Bush as he came to a meeting at a small manufacturing facility. The meeting was so closed, and Bush was so elusive, that even his supporters who wanted to at least see the limo didn’t know he had arrived and gone in a back way…and they were irritated, to put it mildly. The only way any of us knew GWB was inside was when a cheer came through the walls of the building he was in. To get into a Bush event, you needed to be vetted and ticketed: it was invitation only. The common scrum? Forget it, even if you were a loyal Republican.
Then came Saturday, October 23, 2010. President Barack Obama came to town to stump for Minnesota Democratic Party candidates (DFL), especially for gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton. What a day. (Some photos at the end of this post.) No ticketing. Come as you are, first come, first admitted.
I don’t know how large the crowd was Saturday, but it certainly filled the University of Minnesota fieldhouse (capacity 7000) to the brim, and apparently there was closed circuit television outside for those who could not get in. It was a responsive, yet very polite group. It appeared that at least a majority were students, perhaps a large majority. And they were enthusiastic. There was no comparison with the 2003 Bush event.
In these still-charged days of paranoia around ‘terrorists’, going to yesterday’s gathering was a breath of fresh air. Security was crisp and quick but non-intrusive: clear rules, but a welcoming place. This I also experienced a while back at another event featuring Vice-President Joe Biden.
Having a Press Pass gave me an excellent vantage point, and much more freedom of movement than those who patiently stood in line for at least a couple of hours to get inside the Fieldhouse.
President Obama made his entrance, and his exit, in close proximity to, and engaged with the people in the hall. His stump speech, even with the terrible acoustics of the Fieldhouse, was powerful, and elicited a very loud and positive response. (Originally the event had been planned for outdoors, but they weren’t sure of the weather and moved inside.)
A few protestors were outside, but no heckling indoors. A couple of people fainted…those were the only tense moments.
An appearance by the President of the United States does not decide an election, but one gets an impression of leadership and without a doubt the assembled group left highly energized and ready to work.

Part of the long line on the Northrop Mall waiting for the doors to open.


A view of the crowd, President Obama at right.


The President speaking to the crowd


There might be some pessimism in some quarters, and some glee in others, that Obama and the Democrats have lost their competitive edge – that they’re just “Republican lite”.
That certainly wasn’t in evidence at the University of Minnesota Saturday.
As for the Republicans vs Democrats: the Democrats are working very hard and in a positive direction; there are two Republican parties currently at war with each other, and the one currently in control is one which inspires much more fear than it does confidence. Today’s Republican Party is not the party of Dwight Eisenhower.
Related, here.
Video of President Obama’s remarks in Minneapolis here.

#262 – Dick Bernard: A reflective moment

/in , , /by

Earlier this morning I was at my daily hangout, the Caribou Coffee in Woodbury MN. It’s been my daily day-opener for ten years now. I like the place and the people – regulars and staff. I guess it could be considered part of my daily ritual.
One of the staff came by this morning, noting I seemed deep in thought. I was.
Indeed, thinking is an important part of every day for me, legal pad in front of me, newspaper, oft-times other things. Most every day, Caribou is where I gear up for the day ahead.
Today is an unusual day.
President Obama is in town, and I plan to go. I decided, somewhat on spur of the moment earlier this week, to request a Press Pass, and an e-mail late last night confirmed I am on the approved list. My “street creds” are 262 blog postings at this site. That’s it. This is the first time I’ve ever been part of the Press Pool, so to speak. I’ll report on that experience tomorrow.
Earlier this morning I had read the entirety of the opinion page of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, specifically three commentaries generally on the upcoming election by J. Brian Atwood, Syl Jones and Johnathan Gurwitz. Brian Atwood and Syl Jones know me – I hope positively; I’ve met them both; Johnathan Gurwitz is off my radar. All three columns are well worth the time to read.
I was most interested in the Gurwitz commentary, which distressingly reflects today’s American electorate, and I fixed mostly on this quotation which led his column “When workers in the former East Germany had the temerity to rise up against their Marxist masters in 1953, members of the communist Writers Union distributed leaflets demanding that the workers labor twice as hard to win back the confidence of the government.”
I’ll take Gurwitz at his word – that his quote accurately reflects the history.
When the Caribou staffer walked by this morning, I was thinking specifically about the Gurwitz commentary, and I had hen-scratched onto my note pad a few random thoughts:
1. East Germany workers and others did indeed tear down the Berlin wall, but it took 36 years after 1953 to accomplish this, and it was not the mythological Ronald Reagan who hurried the deed by saying “tear down this wall” in 1987; it was the East Germans themselves (late 1989). The East German regime in 1953 outlasted 23 years of Republican U.S. Presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan; and 13 years of Democrat Presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Carter.
“Power to the People” is not a spectator sport. “Throw the bums out”, a common contemporary narrative of the “populists” and their spokespeople and backers, is more than angrily marking a ballot in the passion of the moment.
2. There is a distressing – and exploited – tendency for people to make decisions based on Anger. Anger is not a good emotion on which to make short or long-term decisions. Prisons are full of people who killed somebody in Anger, and felt good about it afterward – only waking up later to the consequences of their deed. Making decisions based on National Anger is unproductive and dangerous. (The root of “Decide”, is the same root as for words like “suicide”, “homicide”….)
3. We are a society full of people who are, at best, half-empty on essential information on which to make informed decisions. Too many don’t know the other side of the story, and furthermore, don’t want to know. Worse, we often focus on our own side of our own single issue, as if it is the only thing that matters. Then we associate only with people who agree with our point of view. This is not healthy. Neither is it healthy to take an anti-intellectual position. We need people who are able to think things through and make wise decisions based on complex data.
Shortly I’ll leave to see the President. If past is prelude: it is an investment of an entire afternoon, mostly waiting. He will probably speak for 20 minutes or so, which will then be distilled down into perhaps a maximum of a minute max of sound bites for television, two minute total segment, and summary reports in tomorrows papers.
More tomorrow.
More personal thoughts on Election 2010 here.

#261 – Dick Bernard: Honor and Respect for those of the GLBT Community

/in , , /by

Today came an unexpected video featuring Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. (There may be an annoying ad for a few seconds prior to the 2 1/2 minute clip. Just let it play through.)
The video speaks profoundly for itself.
It reminded me of a copy of a letter which came into my possession some years ago, and which I again came across recently while sorting assorted papers.
The letter was dated July 26, 1991, and was written anonymously to a prominent Catholic Pastor in a major city. The Pastor has long been dead, and the letter was found among his papers. I know the name of the Priest and his Parish, but in this post nothing which identifies either will be included. It is the content which is important. It is not known if the writer was male or female, or if the meeting suggested in the second to last sentence was ever held.
The letter is intended solely to encourage personal reflection and action to change hearts and minds and policies, too. It is from one person to another. It has application to us all.
July 26, 1991
Dear ___:
This letter is in response to your June 16, 1991, [church bulletin column] which has left me deeply saddened. I am referring to the News Item about the Presbyterians rejecting the ordination of Gays, etc., and the fact that you found this rejection “especially encouraging” and “The ___ Plain Talk – nice sounding words that are used to hide the real nature of sodomy…alternative life style, sexual preference, and so on….”
There are many things I would wish to say about the Church – about power and authoritarianism, about narrow sexual boundaries, about celibates speaking to conjugal love. But I fear it “would fall on deaf ears”. So I shall just speak to you from my heart.
I am Gay – as are 10% of all the parishioners’ you gaze out upon on a Sunday morning (or any other day). You shake our hands and wish us “Peace”, but you do not know us because we are invisible. Gay people who belong to [our church] are not ordinarily out marching in Gay Pride parades. We do not belong to Act Up which recently came to [the church] and embarrassed you and us by their radical rabble rousing. They represent the tiniest minuscule part of the Gay Community; they do not speak for anyone but themselves, anymore than Bishop LeFebvre spoke for all Catholics.
We are lawyers and doctors and librarians and brick layers and computer operators and musicians (and, yes, we are also Priests and Religious in the broad community). We sit quietly in the pews and listen to sermons (good ones!) about loving one another and how much God loves us. In the [parish hall] we shake your hand and say how glad we are to see you (and we are!) and receive your ebullient greeting in return. But you don’t know us.
We are proud to have our own [names recognized for accomplishments] up for all to see in little bronze plaques. We belong to [this church] and are thrilled to be a part of your visionary and splendid building program. But you do not know us and do not love us in Christ.
We sing in the Choir, serve on your Boards, are Eucharistic Ministers and Lectors, are enthusiastic members of the Youth Group and support [this church] financially. But you do not know who we are. You do not know us or love us.
We do not choose to be Gay. Why on earth would anyone choose to be Gay? Why would anyone choose to be a member of a despised minority, to be isolated, maligned, rejected, hated, outcasts in our own Church or even in our own parish? No, we have not chosen to be Gay anymore than you have chosen the color of your eyes.
The Lord God made us just as we are – Gay and straight. He did not say we are “intrinsically evil” (though the official Church does). He said “I have loved you with an everlasting love,” and “I have written you on the palm of my hand and you are mine.” He did not say anywhere that He meant only straight people.
Homophobia is a horrid word. Often it is overt and blatantly ugly. But more often it can be subtle and hidden: Love the Gay person and hate his/her lifestyle. We are all of a piece, [Father], just as you are. Our actions, our loves and loving flow out of who we are, just as yours do. To compartmentalize us and say we are human beings made in the image of God, intelligent, caring, passionate – and then to say we must not ever show anyone that love, and sometimes show it physically, seems nothing short of ludicrous. it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
Hypocrisy is ugly, too, particularly when it thunders down from the highest places in the Church. Gentle shepherds have cried out against it in anguish (the Hunthausens and Weaklands and McNeils and Currans and Callahans), but they are quickly overpowered and forced into submission and silence.
And where is Christ in all of this?
I beg you to go into the chapel in a quiet time – to sit in the very presence of Jesus Christ. Ask Him to tell you how He feels about us. he did say, “I want to gather them under my wings as a mother hen gathers the chicks and you would not.”
I honor you, [Father] as a pastor of great vision, but I weep for you and the Church when true Christ-like qualities of compassion, mercy, understanding, acceptance, and unqualified love are crushed by allegiance to the narrow boundaries of the power structure of the Church. Perhaps when you sit before the Christ, He too will be weeping.
I go on loving this Church and staying in it because it is Jesus Christ. You must not try to drive me out when it is He who invited me in.
I do not sign this (though I deplore anonymous letters) because I fear subtle retaliation. Before you go, I will come to you and tell you who I am. In the meantime, you do indeed know me, but you do not love me.”
Related post is here.

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

/in , , , , /by

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

U.S. Capitol October 31, 2000


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

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

#257 – Dick Bernard: Voting

/in , , , /by

This letter of mine appeared in the October 13, 2010, issue of the Woodbury Bulletin, our local newspaper. Our suburb of about 60,000 population would be considered as prosperous, with a great number of school age children and a correspondingly great number of younger parents who have very good jobs and live in nice houses.
“A year ago – November 3, 2009 – I voted in the [local school district] ISD #833 School Board election. I always vote, and I was aware, this time, that the polling place was like a mausoleum on a slow day: empty and quiet.
There were ten candidates for four open seats on the South Washington County #833 School Board last year.
When the votes were tallied, the numbers revealed that only 6% – one of every 16 – eligible voters had even bothered to go to the polls. The candidate receiving the greatest number of votes polled 3% of those same eligible voters. That person sits in office today because one of every 33 local citizens took the time to vote.
The turnout was a disgrace.
The election was, in my view, an abominable development, a black mark on this affluent community of ours with a very large (in relative terms) percentage of school age children. If we don’t care who represents our kids interests, what do we care about?
(My bet is that virtually no one in this town could name, without going to the school district web site, the person I identify above. This is no reflection on the individual, it is a reflection on we citizens.)
Everyone of course can have their own excuse for not voting last year, or ever. There are always excuses.
There are also good reasons: like an emergency hospitalization on the day of the election, or such; but mostly we’re talking about excuses.
And when one adds in those who vote with absolutely no knowledge of who they are voting for, we are looking at a democracy that is not well.
In a very short while we again go to the polls.
It is expected that far fewer will vote in 2010 than voted in 2008, though the stakes for all of us in the upcoming election are very high.
The marquee races (Governor, Congress, our State legislators and the like) get almost all of the attention, but they are not the only races:
This year we Woodbury voters are being asked to select one Judge from among 24 candidates in the 10th Judicial District.
Sixteen citizens have filed for two Woodbury Council positions; and there are six candidates for Mayor of our community.
These are much more than first or last names on lawn signs.
This message is a plea to citizens to not only vote, but to vote well-informed – to actually know something about the person for whom you are filling in the blank on the ballot Nov 2.
We have the right to vote in this country; we have the responsibility to vote well informed.”

#254 – Dick Bernard: A DVD Drama at the Basilica of St. Mary

/in , , , , /by

Last Sunday on the way into Minneapolis’ Basilica of St. Mary for Mass I stopped by a small group of people collecting a DVD Archbishop Marriage001 earlier sent to all Archdiocese Catholics. The DVD lobbies against the supposed threat of Gay Marriage, and promotes a Minnesota Constitutional amendment mandating that marriage be restricted to one man and one woman*.
I dropped off my DVD and asked Lucinda Naylor, who ordinarily sits near us in the Basilica, if I could take her picture (below).

Lucinda Naylor, at right, October 2, 1010, Basilica of St. Mary, Minneapolis


Lucinda had unintentionally become famous a few days earlier when she had written a Facebook entry about the DVD. The entry came to the attention of her employer, the Basilica of St. Mary. There was a meeting between the Pastor and Lucinda, and the result was her suspension from her part-time job as artist for the Basilica. Her liturgical art work for years has been a staple part of the Mass booklets distributed each Sunday by ushers like myself. The DVD issue, I am convinced, was not created by either the Pastor or Lucinda. It was dropped on both of them from outside.
The suspended employee, Lucinda, established a website which gives people an opportunity to recycle the DVDs into a sculpture she plans to make. The collection of the DVDs began Sunday, October 2. Similar collections took place at other churches.
At this writing, the drama continues. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Lucinda; and for the Pastor as well. I know both people. She acted courageously on her convictions; the Pastor, whether he can admit it or not, was without doubt caught between “the proverbial rock and a hard place”. Basilica is not ‘his’ Church, after all: it is, like all Catholic Churches, real estate of the Archdiocese, and the Archbishop is the Pastor’s boss.
After depositing my DVD in the curbside box, I went inside for 9:30 Mass. More on that in a moment.
The next day, Monday, a very large photo, taken from the identical vantage point and essentially identical to mine, appeared on page A11 of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The headline said “Taking a Stand Against the Church“, and showed Lucinda Naylor waving on Twin Cities Marathon Runners as they passed by the Church. The accompanying text included the phrase: “A spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis called [her action] a publicity stunt.”
Sunday morning, inside Basilica, the Mass booklet said that the presider at all of the six weekend Masses would be Pastor John Bauer. This is highly unusual. Normally there are two or three presiders.
I am sure the vast majority of us in Basilica on Sunday were waiting to see what the Pastors Homily would be. There was little doubt about the topic; the only unknown was exactly what he’d say.
Basilica is a welcoming and diverse place, and Fr. Bauer made specific reference to the greeting at every Mass: “Whatever brings you here and wherever you are at on your faith journey, you are welcome here.” It is a theme that the Basilica lives. It fits my Parish.
The rest of his brief message spoke gently to the issue that had Lucinda out on the sidewalk: “Parishes are much like families“, he said, alluding again to something he’s said before: that in his own family, members tend to cancel each other out in Presidential elections. He pulled a quotation from, he recalled, James Joyce: “The word ‘Catholic’ means ‘here comes everybody’ “. And then he quoted from an e-mail someone had sent him during the tense few days preceding this Mass: “I stay [in the Church] because I want the Church to be the Church I want the Church to be.”
Finished, Fr. Bauer received warm applause (unusual in our setting, regardless of the preacher or message). I was among those who applauded.
But that applause doesn’t mean this issue is over; by no means.
As I was drove home I thought in particular about Fr. Bauer’s “family” analogy.
In this case, there is a huge difference: the Archbishop, with the help of what had to be a huge anonymous donation, sent out hundreds of thousands of these DVDs which spoke from Power to Peasant, as it were.
Lucinda is one of those Peasants; I another.
The Archbishop didn’t ask our opinion. He didn’t care. His wealthy financial benefactor hid in the shadows of anonymity. So be it.
For some reason I thought about action organizing in such a case of power versus powerless and I thought back to a favorite book from childhood, Gulliver’s Travels. Gulliver, as most will remember, traveled to a place called Lilliput, which was inhabited by ant-size humans who were no match in any way for the gigantic normal sized human, Gulliver.
At least, the Lilliputians were no match for him on his terms.
But one night Gulliver fell into a sound sleep, and the next day when he woke up, he was tied to the ground, and couldn’t move.
The Lilliputians had put Power in its place.
“Publicity stunt” indeed.
Go, Lilliput!
Postnote: a YouTube link from a friend, a Dad, whose son is Gay.
*The Archbishops DVD can also be found on YouTube.
Watch this space in coming days for a commentary on a Marriage in Quebec in 1730.

#253 – Dick Bernard: A morning meet-up with Joe Biden

/in /by

The offer of a free opportunity to see Joe Biden in person this morning was more than I could pass up, even if it meant, as it did, 3 1/2 hours standing. Such is how it is with political rallies, this one at Macalester College in St. Paul. Coming early meant that I got a good vantage point – maybe 15 feet in front of the podium.
I should give Vice-President Biden the deference and the title he so richly deserves. He is a powerful person. But more than anything else, and it comes across as he speaks, is that he is Joe Biden of Scranton PA, who’s lived the hard-knocks that come with a common persons life. To acknowledge his ordinary roots, is to show the greatest of respect. In his case, he became a U.S. Senator in 1972 at the age of 29, and when Sen. Mark Dayton came to Washington in 2001, Biden was already third in seniority in the Senate, and Sen. Dayton was 100th (or so Mark Dayton himself said, when introducing his former colleague). Biden is a powerful speaker and had a substantive message.

Vice-President Joe Biden at Macalester College St Paul MN October 5, 2010


The circumstances of such an event do not lend themselves to note-taking. There will be plenty of reports of what the Vice-President and other dignitaries – there were many – said. My preference is to give a couple of impressions.
I’ve been to sufficient political events to know that an essential virtue is patience. This was true this morning.
The warm-up speakers, mostly political leaders, had completed their remarks (the event started on time), and then there was a lag of I would say 45 minutes before Mr. Dayton and the Vice-President came on stage.
I heard somebody to my right, an adult male sounding voice, angrily and loudly say “stop wasting our time” during a brief interlude in the very loud music which filled the gap before the Vice-President appeared. I looked, and almost certainly it was that 40ish guy in very dark sunglasses that I saw. He didn’t look like a happy camper. A few minutes later I looked again and he was gone. The rest of us just hung in there. The young people in front of me – there were lots of young people – were chatting it up and seemed not to be terribly concerned about the wait.
I remarked to a couple of high school kids behind me that anybody who’s ever been in the military knows all about waiting. A guy next to me chimed in that this was normal operating procedure in political events. It is just how it is, and no amount of ‘reform’ will ever truly reform it.
The episode caused me to think about what I believe to be a trait we Americans seem to share: impatience.
We want it all, yesterday.
I don’t know anything at all about the angry guy in the sunglasses, but my guess is that he represented the uglier side of our societies tendency to be very demanding of others, and less demanding of ourselves.
Indeed, the big issue in this election, from some of those who would be considered Biden’s base, is that not enough has been accomplished, fast enough.
Recently I saw, somewhere, that the Obama administration considered itself to have accomplished 73% of its promises in its first two years in Washington. That’s pretty remarkable.
But the problem with such data is that many will say, “well, what about the other 27% you didn’t accomplish”; and others “yah, you say 73%, but lot of that 73% you didn’t totally accomplish: you only got part.”
At the end of his speech, Biden recalled a quote someone had shared with him attributed to an old Mayor of Boston, a man named Kevin White. Mayor White was apparently running for reelection, and somebody was railing on him for not having done enough as Mayor. White retorted to the effect “don’t compare me to the Almighty; compare me with the alternative“. I like that characterization.
November 2 the people have a clear choice: back to the past, or continue into a more positive future.
It’s the people’s choice, by not only how they vote, but whether they vote, and how much they work to get their choice selected. “Boots on the ground” will make the difference, four weeks from today.
I’m thankful I went to hear Joe Biden today.

#252 – Dick Bernard: "Waiting for Superman"

/in , , , /by

UPDATE: February 7, 2011: see end of this post.
Were it in my power, I’d require every American adult to spend the one hour 42 minutes needed to watch the documentary “Waiting for Superman“; then I’d assign them to a working group with ten of their peers of differing points of view, with the assignment to dialog at length about what they’ve just witnessed and then try to come to consensus on how to remedy the problem.
Such is not in my power, and in contemporary society people don’t much like to dialogue with people who might disagree with their view, so my idea is just a fantasy. But it would be nice….
My entire life has been in and around public education. I grew up in a family where both parents were public school teachers; I went to a great, tiny, teacher’s college; I taught junior high kids for nine years; I represented public school teachers in one of those “teacher’s unions” for 27 years; in retirement, I’m still engaged, with children and grandchildren still hanging around public education as employee or student. I know something about the topic.
Still, when I was waiting for show time at the Uptown Theatre in Minneapolis yesterday, I almost passed on going into the theatre, almost opting to sit on the bench outside and watch the world go by on Hennepin Avenue. It was a beautiful day, too nice to waste on a movie that I had heard emphasized bashing public schools and teachers unions. Life is too short.
I’m glad, though, that I went in.
There was much to learn beyond the reviews.
There was a surprisingly large crowd in the theater for the 1:30 showing of Waiting for Superman. This was not a film to allow distractions. We were a quiet and by all indications attentive bunch. When we filed out at the end of the showing, there seemed to be a pretty general reflective silence:
“What does this all mean, and what do we have to do?”
Yes, unions, including mine, were bashed, and I thought the movie overreached. But this film has villains in abundance, including our supposedly great society. What had me in tears for the last few minutes of the movie is what our society has created and nurtured particularly in the last forty years in this country, and then blamed on some ‘other’ (take your pick).
Go ahead, eliminate the teachers unions and take a shot at the “bad” teachers…but don’t think that will solve the problem. There’s a great plenty of other culprits, including some of those who seem to have been anointed as saviors in the film. Take a look, for instance, at the 100,000 or so local superintendents and school board members running America’s 14,000 or so school districts, and the abundant opportunities for dysfunction and malfunction. Or the politicians who play politics with the very large target that is presented by perhaps 45-50 million school age children and the people employed to work with these children in public schools. Or the citizens who pay zero attention to who they elect to make or implement local, state and national education policy (see end note four).
We’ve all created the disaster that made the film possible. We need to do a whole lot more than just talk about it, and find scapegoats.
But I’m not looking for miracles. Finding solutions takes work and compromise. Who wants to work…or compromise?
Please. Do. It’s our kids futures.
*
End note: I was curious about the title, “Waiting for Superman”. The answer comes at the end of the film. You need to see it for yourself.
End note two: I’d invite readers to visit the website of my friend, retired educator and writer Marion Brady, to see his ideas about solutions and reform of public education. Marion takes this issue seriously.
End note three: Here’s what I wrote about the topic of community and school four years ago. This writing is within a website I created eight years ago, specifically to convey ideas to public educators about better connecting with we folks “outside the walls” .
End note four: I live in a community which would be considered suburban and affluent. In the school board election one year ago, with four openings, the top vote getter among the ten competitors, was elected by 3% (1 of 33) eligible voters in the district. The total turnout was less than 10% of those eligible. Nine out of ten residents didn’t even care enough to vote. And our district has a large student population. It is a disgrace.
UPDATE February 7, 2011:
1984 Program ideas for “Ah, Those Marvelous Minnesota Public Schools”: 1984 Revisited001. This program was a cooperative venture involving private and public sectors which commenced with a kickoff event in August, 1984, featuring Astronaut and Willmar MN native Pinky Nelson as keynote speaker.
1984 Report of Mn Business Partnership “Educating Students for the 21st Century”: 1984001.
This report was issued as a criticism of Mn Public Schools and to my knowledge has never been assessed in terms of long term outcomes.
Personal Observations on Firing Bad Teachers, by Dick Bernard, blog post and Minneapolis Star Tribune column March, 2010: https://thoughtstowardsabetterworld.org/?m=20100318

#251 – Dick Bernard: Campaigning.

/in , , , /by

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

#250 – Dick Bernard: a troubling sign among Signs

/in , , /by

Certain at this time of year in Minnesota is change in the appearance of nature. Leaves change colors and ultimately drop off; Fall flowers erupt in all their glory, including some absolutely brilliant wildflowers on my daily walk.
Every other year, Fall brings with it a new and odd biennial ‘foliage’. Locals call them campaign signs, and they erupt along the area roads. In recent days I have begun to look at them with increasing interest, largely because of a new species I have observed for the first time.
Lawn signs for political candidates are essential, even though they do not inform. Note a lawn sign driving along a road (where most of them are found) and normally it will emphasize only a single word, either the candidates first or last name. The hope is that some befuddled voter will see the name and remember “Scotty” (or whomever) when they enter the booth on November 2, and vote for him because they saw his name on a sign. Certainly, the sign has no other purpose than name recognition. One would hope that we don’t elect our local candidates based primarily on what their name is….
But this week I saw a new sign, one which I haven’t seen before, along the streets I traverse each day.

Lawn sign Woodbury MN September 29, 2010


I noticed two things about that sign: the candidate is running for Judge, and he is proudly advertising his endorsement by a political party.
Rarely on lawn signs do I see any reference to political party, particularly for local office.
In this instance, the candidate is one of 24 candidates for a single judgeship in Minnesota’s 10th Judicial District. I am not sure what caused this tsunami of candidates in this district, but the fact of the matter is that each of us who vote on November 2 will have to select one of these 24, either somewhat informed or at random, or not cast a vote at all. This particular candidate seems to be looking to get a leg up on his competitors by getting a partisan endorsement, and that concerns me, especially in an election for a Judge. The opposing party is in a quandary: it must similarly engage.
Questions abound on an endorsement of this sort. The endorsing party is, first of all, currently a party of fragments, from fanciers of Tea to moderates and even progressive in attitude. When the label is placed on the lawn sign, which party members actually did the endorsing? It makes a big difference. But all we know is the name on the sign.
What risk am I to take if I happen to be of some other party, and end up in a contest before this particular person, if he is finally elected Judge in November? He has telegraphed his bias. There is no law that says Judges cannot be partisan; but they should not be seated at the bench in, say, Red or Blue robes. Achieving justice in our system is hard enough to have to deal with an avowedly partisan judge, who likely sought the endorsement he now proudly advertises, and implicitly is beholden to.
In a race with as many candidates as there are in this one, odds are that this guy will be wearing Judge’s robes come January.
This is not an outcome even the endorsing party should welcome.
The judiciary should not be an arm of one party or another. It should do what it is supposed to do: interpret the law.
This sign is one of many that certain groups are attempting to undercut and subvert the neutrality of the legal Bench.
This is not good news for our democracy.