#78 – Dick Bernard: Back to school with the President

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Under ordinary circumstances I may not have heard that President Obama was going to give a televised talk to America’s school children at 11 a.m. today.  I’m long retired with no direct ties to public schools.
But these are no ordinary circumstances.  Last Friday morning, I got an e-mail, later withdrawn, in which the sender wanted to alert one of my mailing lists about her complaint about the President of the United States wanting to communicate with children, including her own, about their upcoming school year.  The speech was scheduled for today, September 8.  At the time of the e-mail, I had no context whatsoever.  
(The entire speech will likely be archived at the White House website  www.whitehouse.gov for anyone who is interested.)
The subsequent days were inundated with rhetoric.  For most school districts in my state, today is the first day of the school year.  It is an open guess as to what percent of the nation’s tens of millions of students will be allowed to see the talk live today, if at all.  When it comes to freedom of speech, apparently the President of the United States is, for some, off-limits, at least according to some who wish to shield their children from his thoughts (and in the process deprive the vast majority of the opportunity to hear what he has to say.)  
I spent an entire career in public education, so I know a bit about the reality of the public schools. 
A career public elementary school teacher, now retired several years, commented on the general situation on Saturday: “When I was teaching I would have been so happy to have the President reinforce my job by speaking to students.”  As to disrupting regular events on the first day of school, she said “The first day of school was always full of twists and turns.  Some kids haven’t slept all night because they are scared, some wish they were back home, some are worrying about their bus number, some wish they had a different teacher, some little ones are crying, some are hot (no air conditioning) some are very excited for a new year, etc.  I think it would be reassuring to have the President speak to them.” 
Of course, none of this matters to those who wish to shut down the opportunity for the President to communicate a positive lesson.  
Last Friday, after the e-mail brought the matter to my attention, I wrote to the heads of all of the major public education organizations in Minnesota, saying this:  “What I see is a flagrant adult example of bullying behavior, and you can rest assured that if the organizers of this nationwide protest feel they were successful in this campaign, you can anticipate much more aggressive moves on other fronts as time goes on.  This is not a constituency that will be satisfied with half-a-loaf.  Any sign of weakness you and your members show will be exploited and the problem will get much worse.
It is very ironic to me that this same President Obama, who some people apparently fear will influence their kids, is the same President who not-so-liberal Bill O’Reilly of Fox News wrote about in a cover story in the August 9, 2009, Parade Magazine, included in the St. Paul Pioneer press.  The article, very positive, is entitled “What Children can learn from President Obama”.  Read it.  It’s all very positive…about President Obama.  But now some folks don’t want their children to hear [that same President] speak, and are willing to sabotage the opportunities of other children to hear this message.”
What we are seeing goes far beyond mere hypocrisy.  
This story won’t end with today.
Now to watch the President’s talk to America’s students….
UPDATE: 11:23 A.M.
The ones who needed to watch this speech – the ones who campaigned against its being shown – probably will refuse to tune it in.  I hope they change their mind.

#77 – Dick Bernard: The political execution of Van Jones (and a possibility or two)

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

Van Jones is now history, at least insofar as an office in the White House is concerned.
I heard Van Jones speak in person twice.  The last time, in March, 2009, was apparently his last public speech before joining the Obama administration.  I bought his book, “The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems” (HarperOne 2008).  It comes with an all-star list of endorsers.  It’s well worth reading.  He is a phenomenal person.
Of course, Mr. Jones has now been publicly executed, resigning from his post within the Obama administration for what appears to have been two ‘sins’: signing a petition, and using colorful language about Republicans.  I’m quite certain I signed the same petition some time (questioning the truth of 9-11*); and as for colorful language, my guess is that Jones ‘executioners’ were at least equally colorful in their description of him in their private meetings.  But that is now simply history.  Jones would be a distraction if he remained on the White House staff.  Life goes on.
Jones ‘demise’ is just the latest example of a contemporary political reality: anyone aspiring politically is fair game for anything, whether true or not.  There is no such thing as a truly personal life for a political figure.  We are all quite literally surrounded by our past, remembered or not.  This is a matter of consequence for our version of democracy.  We need gifted people in government; many gifted people say “no thanks” to public life, and not only because they can make more money elsewhere.  The ‘costs’ of the job are simply too high.
Van Jones is a gifted speaker and visionary.  That was obvious the first time we heard him in June, 2008, at the National Media Reform Conference, and the second in March, 2009. At the conclusion of the 2009 speech (at the University of Minnesota) we were told that he would likely not be doing more public speaking. There was another assignment in the offing, we were told.  It was not hard to put two and two together.  Not long after we saw him, he appeared on the White House roster.
Now, presumably, Van Jones can again speak as an individual.
But I really hope that persons interested in nurturing and development of a “Green Economy” don’t sit back and expect Van Jones to do the heavy lifting.  There is a real danger that could happen; perhaps it already had.  After all, one can reason, he’s in the White House, we don’t have to do anything more.  Not true.  In fact, the opposite is true.  With the opportunity comes the work.    
What better a development than have a million or more advocates for the change that Van Jones sought doubling their personal efforts to make his dream not only stay alive, but grow more quickly?
Personally, I don’t need to hear him speak again, and I doubt many others do either.
What is needed are “boots on the ground” doing what needs to be done; putting in place the multitude of ideas he so well articulated for the future of this nation.
Perhaps the Republicans have done the movement a favor – if we make it so.
* – This reminded me of a 9-11 project I need to do: check the July 23 posting at this blog for details.  You may wish to participate as well.

#76 – Dick Bernard: "Taking Woodstock" (and "zipping to Zap")

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

UPDATE ON THE ZIP TO ZAP:  Subsequent to the September 6 update I received two most interesting items:  my brother, who had been involved in the event sent a research piece that was most interesting #mce_temp_url#   .  Then I ordered the 1991 documentary on the event, an equally fascinating summary of what happened during those interesting few days in rural North Dakota in 1969, a few months before Woodstock.  I’d recommend the 53 minute video to anyone with an interest in the topic.   It can be ordered through #mce_temp_url#
UPDATE September 6: see comment re Zip to Zap, as well as link references at end of this post.
Original Post:
Yesterday we went down the street to see the just released “Taking Woodstock”, a film I thought would give me a retro look at Woodstock 1969.  Maybe it would be a temporary release from the bizarre country we seem to be living in today:  A country where some people are terrified that the President of the country might have some unsupervised time with unsuspecting school children when school begins this week (more on that on Tuesday morning.)  A country where health care for all is somehow un-American.  One wonders where we’re headed, and my concern is not our President; my concern is the collective us.
“Taking Woodstock”  turned out to be a very good choice of movie.  It had a comedy aspect to it, and was not a documentary, but in the over two hours in the theatre it gave a pretty decent picture of how Woodstock impacted on small town New York state and the participants in the drama.  I wouldn’t call it an exciting movie – for a while I wondered where it was going – but it was interesting, and gave lots of food for thought.
In the end, it seems, Woodstock 1969 was an unintended very major event that was simply allowed to happen.  One wonders how such an event would play out today, with “cowboys” wandering the streets, armed and dangerous; moralists tut-tutting about immoral behavior, and all the rest.
The 1969 bottom line, or so it seems: in an atmosphere that could well have been chaotic and violent, Woodstock participants did their thing, peacefully, and the area recovered.  Even in the midst of a disastrous Vietnam War, there was a sense of sanity and civility that we seem to have lost today.
(There’s plenty of information available about Woodstock: a good source seems to be http://www.woodstock.com/1969-festival; for more about the film, http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_Woodstock )
For the record, I totally missed out on Woodstock in 1969.  I don’t remember a thing about it “back in the day”.  I remember hearing about the famous “Zip to Zap” in the spring of 1969 (my kid brother almost scored with Life magazine with photos he took there, in western ND); and about the moon-landing in the summer, but nothing about Woodstock.  Had I known about Woodstock, I would not have been interested. Wasn’t my thing.  Plus I was going to graduate school, building a new house, getting ready for a child who arrived August 25, 1969, etc.  On my priority list, Woodstock wasn’t….
Still, Woodstock has been an object of fascination for me over the years.  
I could grant that lots of the folks who hung out at Woodstock in the summer of 1969 – perhaps even most of them – engaged in one or another kind of dangerous or even self-destructive behavior.  But best as I know, their only potential victims were themselves.  They were surrounded by a genuine ad hoc community of sorts that cared whether the neighbors lived or died.  The atmosphere was live and let live.
Today the moralists would be out there with their National Guard troops and their blazing news releases raging moralism and hell-fire and damnation, and doing their best to quiet other voices.
The Woodstock.com site (URL above) gives a pretty decent summation of what seems to have been Woodstock 1969: “…a community of a half million people who managed to peacefully co-exist over three days of consistent rain, food shortages, and a lack of creature comforts. “Woodstock is a reminder that inside each of us is the instinct for building a decent, loving community, the kind we all wish for,” according to Joel Rosenman. “Over the decades, the history of that weekend has served as a beacon of hope that a beautiful spirit in each of us ultimately will triumph.”
If you can, see the film….
Note:  The person posting the comment on “Zip to Zap” has an interesting website #mce_temp_url#, which includes an astonishingly beautiful piece of music by San Franciscan Matt Venuti.  Do visit and share.

#75 – Dick Bernard: "Faith-based", as in Fraud and Politics

/in , , /by

These comments need a disclaimer: I am a lifelong Catholic, and active in my faith life.  Anyone who knows me would so attest.  This would make me a “Christian”, at least it would in the wake of John F. Kennedy’s election as President in 1960, though I would guess that there are still plenty of “Christians” out there that would consider me otherwise.  So be it.  
“Faith” and “authority” are not always a good combination.  It is not hard to find examples of abuse.
1.  The Sunday, August 30, 2009, Minneapolis Star Tribune, a paper with a circulation of over 600,000, carried a major front page story with the banner headline “False Prophet, False Profits?” about a local alleged swindler who “told listeners to a Christian radio network he could protect their wealth.”  He “called his worldwide radio audience [on more than 250 stations nationwide] “Truth Seekers”. ”  His pitch preyed on their fear and their greed.
The truth finally outed, and hundreds of his trusting flock lost millions through his network of lies.  He was not the first man of the cloth to have feet of clay in my part of the world, recently.  He joins an all-star gallery of higher profile slick pitch preachers who prey on people’s faith to make a fast buck.  His story is likely repeated everywhere.  An aberration?  Certainly.  But should one be cautious?  You betcha. The Bible in the hands of someone unscrupulous can be a dangerous thing indeed. (The entire story is likely available for a limited time at  www.startribune.com.)  
The shameless radio preacher damaged individual lives, but there are, in my opinion, even worse examples, where innocent bystanders are recruited to spread lies. 
At about the same time the swindler was exposed, two other unrelated stories surfaced about what I would consider misuse of authority to make unwitting church people agents of church people with a less than holy agenda.
2.  The September 1, 2009, Washington Spectator (www.washingtonspectator.com) carried a most interesting two page commentary entitled “Preying on Fear and Predicting the Final Solution”.  
The reporter had spent some time traveling rural Oregon with a Congressman who was holding town hall meetings in many counties in his Congressional District. This is, of course, the time of controversy over certain alleged aspects of Health Care Reform (demonstrable myths), and predictably at each location some nice (or not so nice) person would ask about things like euthanasia (“death panels”), legislated abortion and the like, issues which have been shown to be false indictments of the proposed legislation.    
The reporter talked in person with some of those raising the allegations, and it came to be clear that they were talking points provided by an outfit connected to a major “Christian” university, and disseminated through the website of someone who bills himself as “the pastor on the Internet”.   
The so-called “pastor” admitted there were errors in the talking points and promised they’d be fixed, but that is like admitting the barn door needs fixing after the horses have escaped.  The damage was done, and, I think, it was done deliberately – to make foot-soldiers of people whose fear (and trust) was exploited for ignoble ends.
3.  At about the same time I received the preceding items, the local Archdiocese (Catholic) newspaper came (we’re on the subscription list).  The Catholic Church I know is historically a pillar of social justice, and should be four-square in favor of health-care reform, and is, mostly.
But the local Archbishop, in a front page column headlined “Approach to health care reform speaks volumes about our values” really emphasized only limited value “Abortion, euthanasia…” to his own flock.  Indeed, the Archbishop went beyond the formal statement of his brother Bishops in the United States by adding to their list of concerns the long debunked “euthanasia” word.    (It should be mentioned that “Catholics” themselves basically reflect the general body-politic on these issues.  The Archbishop reflects a relatively small minority of zealots but is considered an authority figure nonetheless.)
When it comes to Authority, some authority figures abuse theirs, regularly, with not always pleasant consequences.  
Be cautious.

#74 – Bob Barkley: First do no harm

/in , , , /by

It is intriguing to observe our nation’s current on-going debate about medical care – a system that ostensibly follows the ethical principle of “first do no harm.”
It seems that medical care has now digressed to an un-American and unprofessional dictum of “first do not care for the unprofitable.”
How can we “first do no harm” when we have allowed medicine to denigrate into a profit motivated business rather than a basic human right?
When did not doing harm to a business take precedence over not doing harm to an individual’s health? Perhaps what seems so basically humane no longer applies to protecting our environment or caring for the sick.  Could I have missed that decision somewhere along the way?
When did we decide that corporations could tax us at will – through uncontrolled and outrageously escalating premiums – and do their taxing without representation of those being taxed?  Is this one of our great American values all of a sudden?
When did we decide that we could harm the poor by rationing medical care only to the wealthy and fortunate? Does “America the beautiful” pertain only to our scenery or should it apply equally to our compassion?
Isn’t one of the basic premises of government in a civilized society to protect its citizens against excesses?  How does allowing the continuation of a broken system of unconscionable medical care excesses in profit and privilege fit with being civilized?
When did we first decide that we could tolerate armed citizens behaving like terrorists in disrupting civil discourse?  What statute was it that slipped by us and sanctioned that sort of threat to our liberty?
Who was it that first proposed that America should slide to the bottom of the developed nations and allow so much harm to be continued? Why have those who call themselves American conservatives become so enamored with the existing evils of our medical care system that they fight so relentlessly not to change them?
What true American is it that would stand in the way of authentic and fundamental doctor-patient care rather than first fret over who might have coverage versus who will not be so lucky?
I don’t recall when we decided to let insurance companies govern our lives and determined that our democratic government should allow such harm to continue.  How is it that the huge bureaucratic waste that resides in these companies is somehow tolerable to those who lash out so vociferously at the mythical ineptitude of government?
“First do no harm!” is apparently the biggest myth of all.  Providing adequate and affordable medical care to all Americans is both necessary and feasible.  We will all need to share in its costs according to our means.  Providing for those costs are simply the dues true Americans have agreed to pay to be citizens of our great country and members of our great society.
I have excellent medical coverage – much of it well run by our government.  I would do just fine if nothing changed.  But “first do no harm” seems fundamentally American to me.  Consequently, the system that rewards me so well should be extended to all my neighbors alike. I thought that was what made our country so cherished.  Surely civility and rationality will prevail.  Surely we can do better. Surely we wish to do no harm. Am I wrong?  I guess I will know shortly.
 Robert Barkley, Jr., is a counselor in Systemic Education Reform, retired Executive Director of the Ohio Education Association, and began his career as a teacher and coach. He is the author of Quality in Education: A Primer for Collaborative Visionary Educational Leaders and Leadership In Education: A Handbook for School Superintendents and Teacher Union Presidents.

#73 – Dick Bernard: Sen. Ted Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr.

/in , , /by

I awoke to a New York Times on-line headline “Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Stalwart, Dies at 77.”  He passed away late Tuesday night, August 25, coincidentally, my daughters 40th birthday.  He was a veteran U.S. Senator when she was born in 1969.
Today and following days, there will be endless commentary about this larger than life actor on the American political stage.  The comments will speak for themselves.  Everyone will have their own spin on this very public life.
The Times headline basically signalled what is to come. The headline continued:  “Gifted and Flawed Legislator, 77, From a Storied Family.”  Some will emphasize the gifts, others the flaws.  In Kennedy’s case, the entire family history will again become news fodder. 
The first “real person” e-mail about Sen. Kennedy’s death came from long-time friend Mary.  I resonate with what she has to say: “I am sad today with the loss of one Senator who stood for the poor and his convictions while respecting the other side.  Always feel I have that lesson to learn and it is a hard one  (respecting the other side).”
I tag in Martin Luther King, Jr., with Senator Kennedy in the subject line because in a political sense they were, in my opinion, very similar.   They knew politics.
Not everyone looks back to MLK with reverence.  Even today one can google his name and one of the first page references is to a website devoted to attempting to destroy his image and legacy, and promoting its materials for use in American classrooms.  This will happen with Senator Kennedy as well.
But there is another more important reason for include King’s name in this essay, and it goes to Mary’s comment .
In 1964, MLK wrote “Why We Can’t Wait”, a chronicle primarily of the watershed civil rights year of 1963.  King was 35 years old when he wrote his book.  Edward Kennedy was in his first year in the United States Senate.  President John F. Kennedy had, just a few months earlier, been assassinated. Now-U.S. President Barack Obama was two years old.
In the last chapter of “Why We Can’t Wait”, King talks politics.  I’m drawn to a particular section of the book (which is still in print) which I think is very pertinent and indeed instructive for today’s issue du jour and Ted Kennedy’s passion: Reform of Health Care in America.  Change the political names, and replace Civil Rights with Health Care Reform, and muse a bit about the present in context with the past….     
King:  “I have met and talked with three Presidents, and have grown increasingly aware of the play of their temperaments on their approach to civil rights, a cause that all three have espoused in principle.
No one could discuss racial justice with President Eisenhower without coming away with mixed emotions.  His personal sincerity on the issue was pronounced, and he had a magnificent capacity to communicate it to individuals.  However, he had no ability to translate it to the public, or to define the problems as a supreme domestic issue.  I have always felt that he failed because he knew that his colleagues and advisers did not share his views, and he had no disposition to fight even for cherished beliefs.  Moreover, President Eisenhower could not be committed to anything which involved a structural change in the architecture of American society.  His conservatism was fixed and rigid , and any evil defacing the nation had to be extracted bit by bit with a tweezer because the surgeon’s knife was an instrument too radical to touch this best of all possible societies.
President Kennedy was a strongly contrasted personality.  There were, in fact, two John Kennedys.  One presided in the first two years under pressure of the uncertainty caused by his razor-thin margin of victory.  He vacillated, trying to sense the direction his leadership could travel while retaining and building support for his administration.  However, in 1963, a new Kennedy had emerged.  He had found that public opinion was not in a rigid mold.  American political thought was not committed to conservatism, nor radicalism, nor moderation.  It was above all fluid.  As such it contained trends rather than hard lines, and affirmative leadership could guide it into constructive channels.
President Kennedy was not given to sentimental expressions of feeling.  He had, however, a deep grasp of the dynamic of and the necessity for social change.  His work for international amity was a bold effort on a world scale.  His last speech on race relations was the most earnest, human and profound appeal for understanding and justice that any President has uttered since the first days of the Republic.  Uniting his flair for leadership with a program of social progress, he was at his death undergoing a transformation from a hesitant leader with unsure goals to a strong figure with deeply appealing objectives….
I had been fortunate enough to meet Lyndon Johnson during his tenure as Vice-President.  He was not then a Presidential aspirant, and was searching for his role under a man who not only had a four-year term to complete but was confidently  expected to turn out yet another term  as Chief Executive.  Therefore, the essential issues were easier to reach, and were unclouded by political considerations.
His approach to the problems of civil rights was not identical with mine – nor had I expected it to be.  Yet his careful practicality  was nonetheless clearly no mask to conceal indifference.  His emotional and intellectual involvement were genuine and devoid of adornment.  It was conspicuous that he was searching for a solution to  a problem he knew to be a major short-coming in American life.  I came away strengthened in my conviction that an undifferentiated approach to a white southerner could be a grave error, all too easy for Negro leaders in the heat of bitterness.  Later, it was Vice-President Johnson I had in mind when I wrote in The Nation that the white South was splitting, and that progress could be furthered by driving a wedge between the rigid segregationists and the new white elements whose love of their land was stronger than the grip of old habits and customs….”
MLK had much more to say in this powerful book.  “Why We Can’t Wait” is a masterful primer in politics, as well as a window into a critical year in our nation’s history.  Buy a copy and read it.

#72 – Dick Bernard: Lindsay's 23rd birthday, and some other 23rds

/in , , , , /by

Today is my oldest grandchild’s 23rd birthday.  This birthday causes me to think back…and ahead. 
August 22, 1986, when Lindsay was born, means of communication differed from today.  There was no public access internet; public e-mail was several years in the future; cellular phones were just beginning to be talked about.  When I called to congratulate Lindsay’s Mom and Dad on August 22, 1986, I used a pay telephone in downtown St. Paul MN.  Pay phones?????  They are few and far between in this day of cell phones.

Calling Congratulation August 22, 1986

Calling Congratulation August 22, 1986


The number “23” doesn’t stop at 1986.
23 years earlier, in August of 1963, I was newly married, a soldier in the U.S. Army playing war with the 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized).  We were on maneuvers in the state of South Carolina.  I would guess that few of us in that Division realized that we were helping prepare for the Vietnam War, which was then still cool (in more ways than one), but which would soon erupt into a twelve year conflagration in southeast Asia.  We lost that war; today efforts are being made to ‘rehabilitate’ that history, and make it seem as if we won.
While we were slogging through rural South Carolina, learning first-hand about what segregation really was, elsewhere preparations were being concluded for a massive civil rights demonstration on August 28, 1963.  It was on that date that a young Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech before a massive audience on the National Mall in Washington D.C. It was truly a watershed moment.  You can revisit that major event at http://tinyurl.com/5f46w9. 
1963 was an important year for the American Civil Rights Movement .  It was the year of Martin Luther King writing his famous “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”, and many other events.  He wrote about 1963 in his 1964 book, “Why We Can’t Wait”.  I wonder what Dr. King would be thinking and saying today.
Go 23 years further back, to 1940, and I made my appearance in the world, in the time right after the Great Depression, and right before the U.S. entered World War II.  People of my generation are called the “Silent Generation” – we were too young to impact on WWII, too young to have lived through the Great Depression.  But we were deeply impacted by those events through our parents, relatives and surroundings.  Those really hard times became part of our very beings.
I wonder, this day, what things will look like for Lindsay and her generation, and their children, 23 years from now. 
The odds are almost certain that I won’t be around to see 2032.  Without the very active engagement of Lindsay’s generation, the times ahead promise to be unsettling and uncertain.  I’d like to feel hopeful.  But we’ve made a big mess of things, generally, especially the future, and those following us have got to turn things around for themselves.
Whatever I can do to help Lindsay and her cohort, I will do.  But we need to work together.
Happy birthday to you, Lindsay.
Happy future to you and all now and tomorrow.
A car with a message: LaMoure ND August 18 2009

A car with a message: LaMoure ND August 18 2009

#71 – Dick Bernard: Dixie Chicks, on the road…with fascism?

/in , , , , /by

Enroute to and from North Dakota last week, I listened, twice, to one of my favorite CDs, the Dixie Chicks 2006 release, “Taking the Long Way”.   I’ll listen to it again on Monday as I take the same trip back to my home state.
The CD is an inspirational one for me.
I knew of the Dixie Chicks before 2006, but barely.  I knew they were very big in country music circles. 
In mid-March, 2003, in London, “the top of the world came crashing down” on their career (quote from the title cut of the CD).
The George W. Bush administration was preparing to officially go to war against Iraq, and ten days before the bombs began to officially fall, lead singer Natalie Maines, a Texan, said “We don’t want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”
The Chicks “paid a price” for that simple expression of free speech alright (the quote is from another cut of Taking the Long Way.)
Almost instantly, the group went from hero to goat amongst many of its “fans”.  It was labelled unpatriotic.  My recollection of the time was that tour dates were cancelled, threats were made against their lives (“shut up and sing or your life will be over“), radio stations black-listed their recordings, “fans” burned their CDs in public….  It was an awesome display of suppression of free speech, by people who supposedly are the proponents of freedom and free speech and liberty.
“Taking the Long Way” is the Dixie Chicks response to what happened to them in 2003, simply because one of them expressed an opinion.  They were subjected to a collective act of bullying and it worked.
I have no problem with demonstrations.  I’ve been in plenty of them myself.  They’re a hallmark of democracy.  But somewhere a line must be drawn.  Are we to wink at the guy in New Hampshire who shows up at a demonstration against President Obama, wearing a fully visible loaded gun?  Are we to sit idly by while local protestors stay on message by trying to drown out others who might have a different point of view, or try to intimidate people into not participating in town hall forums.  Or are we to cheer on media that glorify small groups of protestors by giving them publicity they really don’t deserve?  “Fascism” (a word that is being tossed around by the radical right these days)?  We’re not there…yet…but we’ve gotten far too close for comfort. 
Surely the people who, in 2003,  did in the Dixie Chicks,- at least temporarily, as well as the current bunch of organized disrupters, will declare their right to do exactly what they are doing, and did.  But do they represent anything different than the hooligans who made fascism work in Italy, and the brownshirts who were boots on the ground stormtroopers in Nazi Germany, scaring local citizens into submission? 
In the end, things turned out mostly okay for the Dixie Chicks.  That CD I’ll play in the car today, “Taking the Long Way”, won five Grammy awards in 2007.  Nonetheless, the Chicks paid a very big price – and likely are still paying a price – for expressing a political opinion.
And the Iraq War, six years after March, 2003, still drones on….
Here’s more about the Dixie Chicks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_Long_Way.
As we need to take on playground bully’s, we need to take on public bully’s as well, including those nefarious groups that help organize and in other ways encourage them.
If you don’t have “Taking the Long Way” consider purchasing it.  Its 14 cuts tell a powerful story.  It’s last cut, “I Hope”, says it all for me.

#70 – Dick Bernard: Health Care and Government in LaMoure

/in , , , , /by

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27,29,30,31,August 1,2,5,6,7,10
See Update at end of post.
Friday I was in LaMoure (county seat of LaMoure County, ND, pop. 900). 
As is usual on my visits there, I was an early customer for coffee at the gas station on the east edge of town.  I got my coffee, picked up the daily Fargo Forum and the weekly LaMoure Chronicle.  The Forum front page was dominated by a large photo and headline “Conservatives rally in Fargo for ‘Tea Party’.  Speaker Hennen says ‘freedom is under attack’.”  (That phrase,’freedom is under attack’, would be amusing, were it not so tragically wrong.) 
As I paid for my small purchases, I noticed on the counter a newsletter, “Recovery Times”, put out by FEMA, the natural disaster section of the Department of Homeland Security.  A few months earlier LaMoure had indeed been ‘under attack’ by a near catastrophic spring flood, and at that time,  ‘government’ in the form of outside assistance was very, very welcome in LaMoure, North Dakota.  Indeed, Fargo, where the Tea Partiers were conclaving, had also had great need for FEMA in its own disaster a few months earlier. 
When in LaMoure, I always pick up the LaMoure Chronicle because I’m  a fan of publisher Gerald Harris’ Comments column.  He always seems to call it like he sees it, whatever the topic, and I enjoy his passion even though, I would guess, we are not ideological twins.  He seems to have no problem with disagreement, and has printed my letters in response to something or other he’s written.  If I’m correct, I like it that he’s willing to consider and even publicize other ideas.  Maybe, even, he can accept other points of view, and maybe even change his mind…not at all a bad trait.
Harris’ August 12 ‘Comments’ column was on Health Care.  I’ve retyped it in its entirety at the end of this column.  It speaks for itself. 
No question, the Health Care debate has taken on the cast of ‘government’ versus the people…and I always find that odd.  The people are, after all, the government.  Whatever the final results of the Health Care debate, the private sector will continue to reap the benefits.  Even if we went socialist (not a swear word to me), the government would be the health care industries biggest customer.
(Come to think of it, in the area of military expenditures, we are already ‘socialist’ – without huge government expenditures for ‘defense’, the massive defense industry would be treading water.  There’s apparently good socialism and there’s bad socialism, and it’s all around us.  Indeed, little LaMoure has a small operating military facility just outside of town.  It’s a piece of pork that goes way back to the time when a local boy was United States Senator from North Dakota.  There’s an old rocket on display right beside the motel I stay in when I visit….)
So, the Health Care debate rages on, as well it should, given the immense size and complexity of the entire Health care complex.  It is not an easy debate.  A couple of days before LaMoure, I was sitting with a group of 14 “birds of a feather” (Mr. Harris would likely observe we all were like thinkers), but what was striking when we talked about Health Care was that there were, even among ourselves, many points of view about what needed fixing, and how it should be fixed. 
What seems clear is that a fix is desperately needed, and continuing to deny reality is like putting off the operation for a cancer until next year, when we know more about the specific disease.  By then it’s too late for the patient.
What’s needed in this debate is not only ideas, but an ability on all sides to really listen, rather than getting stuck in some ideological cement. 
I appreciate Gerald Harris’ point of view.  I hope he appreciates mine, too.
COMMENTS by Gerald Harris, Aug 12, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle
The health care business is becoming a contentious issue in this country today.  There are those that think health care is a right and there are those that think if you can’t pay for it you have no right to it.  I happen to be one that thinks that children and those incapacitated should be taken care of no matter what parents and others can afford to do.  What I don’t think is a solution is for the federal government or state government stepping in to turn our private health care industry into a government controlled industry.  The thing that will do is take away the incentive to improve health care because there will be no reason to do so.  The reason people keep looking for ways to improve things, whether in the health care field or any other field, is they have a monetary or other incentive that drives them.  There has to be something that a person gains from improving things or they won’t do it.  For the most part people don’t look for better ways to do things just for the fun of it.
This is a nation that spends upwards of $3 trillion a year on medical care and that may indicate that we are a nation of hypochondriacs.  It may also mean that we are becoming an aging population has has never taken good care of itself physically.  There are many reasons for poor health and some can be prevented and some can’t and it is up to us to prevent as much of it through diet, exercise and sleep as we possibly can.  This in itself would lower our health care expenditures.
The problem that we face now is that all of our energy to solve the health care problem is focused on health insurance.  The federal government’s efforts are aimed at getting everyone insured through some sort of health insurance policy whether they can pay for it or not.  As I see it this is entirely the wrong approach.  If government wants to get involved at all, and they sure seem to, they should look at making health care available to all citizens young and old through a two or three tier system.  The Number one effort should be protecting those who can’t protect themselves and that is, for the most part, the young and the mentally and or physically infirm.  The country should see to it that all children age 0-18 have free health care.  The second thing is to leave the private health care industry, including the insurance industry, alone to provide health care as they see fit.  The third thing would be to provide a public health care system by expanding on the Veterans Administration health care system to include all those that can’t or won’t afford the private system paid by insurance or by the individual without using insurance.
Ths would provide competing health care systems that the federal government seems to want and it would provide health care to all.  The details of this could easily be worked out and it would be interesting to see what the general populace would do.
By providing for children we have solved the problem of seeing to it that most of those that have no choices have a chance at growing up healthy.
What the government is proposing will eventually cost a lot more money than it does now and probably be no more effective than what we have now.
**
“As I see it, every day you do one of two things: build health or produce disease in yourself.”  Adelle Davis, 1904-1974.
Moderator Comment:  I certainly don’t carte blanche agree, or disagree, with Mr. Harris.  But the suggestion that the government is the problem brings back the comment about FEMA in LaMoure.  When there was a threatened flood, FEMA was there, even though it may well have been smarter for the town of LaMoure, and particularly the farms in the James River Valley, to be built on higher ground.   Government Health care (i.e. Veterans Administration) IS efficient…probably too efficient…it cuts into profits….
Letter to the editor published in August 19, 2009, LaMoure Chronicle:
I’m in and out of LaMoure from time to time, and when in town I always look for and appreciate Gerald Harris’ Comments in the Chronicle.  They make me think, even though I don’t always agree with them.
The August 12 column on Health Care is no exception.
I have a lot of experience with Health Care over many years; luckily I’ve been pretty health, personally.  Were it as simple as Mr. Harris and others assert.  As currently organized, medicine is extremely complicated and inefficient.
“Government” which seems to be, often, a hate-word, is all of us…not some sinister “them”.  Anyone on Medicare or who has ever been in a VA Hospital or in any way has been visited by catastrophe (your flood a few months ago) knows and appreciates the good side of “government” in Health Care.
The massive middle class – most of us, from lower to higher income – is the group that desperately needs reform of Health Care, and protection from the whims of private enterprise and economic downs.  Ironically, it is that same middle class that is mobilized to defeat the very reform that is needed.
So, you have insurance?  You can lose that job which has the insurance, or the rates or the coverage can change, or you move somewhere else.  What stability is there for the common citizen in our current system?  Precious little, I would submit.
I type this letter on an old computer that needs replacing due to innumerable upgrades, etc., over the years.  It was top of the line when I bought it, but no more.  In many ways, American Health Care policy is like this old computer.  It has patches on top of patches.  It needs, badly, “reform” (replacement).
The bottom line mitigating against reform is, I feel, the preoccupation with profits.  That is the main reason for the blizzard of misinformation about keeping what should be public, private.  There’s lots of money to be made from keeping the current system, and the prime beneficiaries are people living a life style that we cannot imagine.
Thanks, Gerald.  I have my own blog, and have written quite a lot about this topic in the last month. www.thoughtstowardsabetterworld.org is the address.  Start with August 15, where I write about the visit to LaMoure last week.
Dick Bernard

#69 – Dick Bernard: Eunice Kennedy Shriver, Heather, and "…the land of the free, and the home of the" Rave!

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

Note comments following this posting.
Yesterday afternoon, August 11, enroute home from a meeting, I listened to a portion of a public radio talk show about the death of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, she of the Kennedy family, and founder of the International Special Olympics.   http://www.eunicekennedyshriver.org/
An hour after I got home, we headed out to suburban Lakeville to see the final festivities of the season for my daughter and the Rave softball team.  Heather is, as described on the Shriver tribute, “intellectually disabled”, and the Rave is part of a league of similarly situated adults in suburban Minneapolis.  The three hours in Lakeville was a delightful end to a long and tiring day.  The Rave lost, but they won fourth place in the final game.  Heather had one at bat and struck out (unusual for her), but it was exciting, nonetheless, to watch these special adults and their extra-special coaches have fun together.  (Three photos from the game at end of this post.)
The juxtaposition, on the same day, of Eunice Shriver’s death and Heather’s final game of the season, with all the trappings: the Star Spangled Banner, a fried chicken dinner, and genuine 4th place ribbons for everyone on the team, presented personally to each of the players, on the field! , made for a nostalgia filled day for me. 
Eighteen years ago, in July, 1991, the International Special Olympics came to Minneapolis-St. Paul, and I made the very lucky decision to take a few days of my vacation and volunteer with whatever for a state delegation.  (There were delegations from around the world at this event.) 
It was a hugely inspiring few days, going here and there with the team, running errands, generally just getting next to the participants and the coaches as they were involved in their activities.
There were many high points in those few days, but nothing higher than the closing ceremony at the Minneapolis Metrodome.  I was among the sea of folks, partcipants, coaches and volunteers, who waited for what seemed like hours for the opportunity to walk into the Metrodome to what was a tumultuous welcome.  Even as I write, 18 years later, I get teary-eyed remembering that extraordinary evening to honor not only the competitors, but the entire “intellectually disabled” community worldwide.   The below photo I took that 1991 evening catches the mood for me.  I am sure, that night, that Mrs. Shriver personally and powerfully declared her signature phrase, “you have earned it“, to each and everyone surrounding me on the field, and to those in the stands and in the greater world as well.  It was awesome. 

Closing Ceremony, International Special Olympics, Minneapolis Metrodome, July, 1991.

Closing Ceremony, International Special Olympics, Minneapolis Metrodome, July, 1991.


It used to be that persons like Heather would be relegated to places like the “School for the Feeble Minded” we used to see when we visited our grandparents in North Dakota years ago.  Until yesterday, I had not heard the term “intellectually disabled” attached to this very special group of citizens. 
It has not been an easy transition from the good old days to today, but legions of people in very small and very large ways have, indeed, effected change in how special persons like Heather are treated by society.  They – the special people and their helpers – are all around us.  In Heather’s case, special recognition goes to her sisters Joni and Lauri, and her Mom, Diane.  “Thank you” does not suffice, but its the best I can do.
At the “Field of Dreams”, Aronson Park in Lakeville MN, I felt the same thrill, last night, that I felt at the Metrodome eighteen years ago.
I am grateful to Eunice Kennedy Shriver, but most especially grateful to the very special people, parents, coaches, staff, who make life a whole lot better for people like Heather, and bring lots of personal satisfaction to people like me.
Thanks, especially, Coach Pricco!
Heather being introduced to the spectators at the game

Heather being introduced to the spectators at the game


The Rave August 11, 2009

The Rave August 11, 2009


Emily on first, Dad first base coach

Emily on first, Dad first base coach


Comment on a phrase used in this post from a reader:
Just a personal pet peeve:
Not to discount the wonderful work of Shriver, but I really dislike the term “intellectually disabled.”  In fact, I very much detest the word “disabled” as applied to people.  It defines us by what we can’t do.  It’s negative.  I’d much prefer the term “differently abled” as cumbersome as it is.
We are all in a sense “disabled” in some ways, whether by age or ability or aptitude.  Setting people apart by what they cannot do does not bring all the various wonderful people, like Heather, into the mainstream to be appreciated for who they are and for what they can do and what they can be in our lives.
Words are powerful and convey messages, intended or not.
On a more positive note, it’s wonderful that Heather can have such a wonderful time with others who can watch and appreciate them.  Certainly not like “the old days.”  Carol Ashley
Brief Response:  I simply repeated the words I heard several times on the MPR program.  It was an interesting exercise to search the internet for the words “intellectually disabled”, and see the points of view there.  I agree, words are very important.  There are differing interpretations of their significance, I suppose.  Dick Bernard