#47 – Dick Bernard: Driving up the negatives

/in , , /by

Less than 24 hours after I’d heard soon-to-be Senator Al Franken speak at the State Capitol, the home town St. Paul Pioneer Press carried a short article headlined “Poll: Franken’s national numbers are negative“.
Reading further in the six paragraphs, the numbers gleaned from the national survey (Rasmussen) showed 44% of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of Franken, 34% had a favorable view, and 22% didn’t have a view of him at all.
The article didn’t say how many were polled, but typically less than a thousand are asked to respond to such questions.  If that number is somewhat correct, 20 Minnesotans (out of 5,000,000) were asked to comment; how those 20 felt wasn’t part of the report: too tiny a sample.
The article was a waste of perfectly good newsprint.  Or maybe it served a more useful purpose: to drag down the public opinion of the new Senator before he even takes his assigned seat in the U.S. Senate.   As of a few minutes ago, he’s not even listed as a Senator by the U.S. Senate – I checked.
Negative politics is nothing new in this country.  I well remember touring the exhibits in the basement of Ford’s Theatre (where Lincoln was assassinated), and seeing an 1860 political poster for Lincoln with the caption “political campaigns of the mid-19th century featured parades and pagaentry and vicious attacks on the opposition.  Campaigns offered people a major form of entertainment.”
Tomorrow’s July 4th events will represent what passed for political theatre back then.
Of course,  there was no radio or TV in 1860, and political decision making was still made by the privileged few, basically white, male, literate, property owners.  In the 1860 election, only a few million out of the total national population of over 30 million were even eligible to vote.  Women, slaves and similar officially lesser persons were denied the franchise, and it was not until 1920 that women even secured the right to vote. 
The Nov. 2008 Smithsonian magazine had a most interesting article about the election of 1860, when Abe Lincoln won his first term as U.S. President at age 51.  

Among many interesting tidbits from that article: In 1860 the candidates for President did not campaign at all once the nominations were made by the respective party conventions.  About four million white men were eligible to vote in 1860.  Lincoln got about 40% of the popular vote, and a majority of the electoral votes.  (The remaining votes were split among three other parties.) 

Some would say, today, that those were really the “good old days”….
Today, of course, the environment is different.  Most everyone who is an adult has the opportunity to be well informed and a theoretical right to cast a ballot for his or her representatives.  There are plenty of efforts to disenfranchise certain kinds of people, but those efforts need to be more covert.
Virtually everyone is susceptible to bombardment by “information” conveyed through newspapers, magazines, radio and television, computers and other means.  We are awash in good information and bad, and the information is not always shared by people with our best interests at heart.
“Caveat emptor” – “let the buyer beware” – is good advice.  The public is daily played for fools, and needs to take responsibility for their own actions.
Polling a national audience, then publicizing the poll, about a United States Senator who has not yet even arrived in Washington makes no sense other than to attempt to drive up the negatives for future political advantage.
The soon-to-be Senator is likely well aware of this.
It is good for us to be aware of this as well.

Ford's Theatre Washington DC June, 2006

Ford's Theatre Washington DC June, 2006

#46 – Dick Bernard: Sen. Al Franken enroute to Washington

/in , , /by

This noon Senator Al Franken stood in front of the Minnesota State Capitol to acknowledge the end of the 238 day quest to ratify his election to the United States Senate.  
I went over to the event, and I was glad I took the time to attend.
The crowd was perhaps a few hundred.  Perhaps this was partly due to the reality that the Minnesota public has long ago become tired of the interminable delay in finishing this election contest – a delay which, depending on point of view, some would say was necessary, some not.  In the end the law was satisfied and the proper person, Al Franken, was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Al Franken (Franny at his right) July 1, 2009 State Capitol St. Paul MN

Al Franken (Franny at his right) July 1, 2009 State Capitol St. Paul MN


Today’s was an unusual political event in some ways.  The speechifying was serious; there was no blaming, at least none that I picked up.  The entire event was over in less than an hour, and basically began on time.  This is pretty remarkable these days. 
The usual array of celebrities were introduced, but introductory remarks were very brief. 
Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, who was heavily invested in making sure the electoral and post-electoral process went properly and legally, wisely chose to not attend.  Mr. Ritchie and his staff, both at the state and local levels, deserve immense credit for running an impeccable election within well-formed rules.  Nit-pickers had to greatly extend themselves to find even small points to criticize about the pre-, during, and post-election time period. 
The mainstream press (which was publicly complimented for its work during the time of the election) was there in force, as was the more informal grassroots media.
What Mr. Franken had to say today will be dissected by many sources, today and later.
Some of the things I saw and heard which impressed me:
1.  The obvious partnership of Al and Franny Franken.  She was a part of the event, rather than a part of the background.  She’s an impressive lady.  The incumbent Senator mentioned that they first met 40 years ago this summer.
2.  Franken talked from the perspective of supporting the middle class.  He acknowledged that decision making will be difficult and complicated, but he understands middle class issues, and acknowledged that it is the middle class that is really the key to the proper functioning of our country.  He acknowledged the importance of Unions, including in his own life.
3.  Sen. Amy Klobuchar talked briefly about the reality of having only one Senator representing Minnesota for the last six months.  Most of us never need a Senators direct assistance, but don’t say that to someone who’s having trouble with a specific issue, say a delayed adoption of a child from another country.  A fully staffed Senate is essential. 
4.  Sen. Franken will enter the Senate as a Freshman, and for all of us who have ever been a Freshman, anywhere, we know it takes time and effort to pay the requisite dues to become accepted.  The Senator is fully up to his task, I am certain.
5.  The new Senator made specific reference to his friend, Paul Wellstone, whose last major public appearance before his untimely and tragic death in 2002 was apparently made at the exact spot from which Mr. Franken spoke.  Wellstone acted with both courage and with common sense bi-partisanship during his dozen years in the U.S. Senate.  We would be well served to have a Franken that approaches public policy in a manner similar to Wellstone.  (I wore a Wellstone button to the event, today, and was reminded of the web-spot I have reserved to the memory of the Wellstones. http://www.chez-nous.net/wellstone.html .)
Near the close of the event, Sen. Franken made the single comment I wrote down: “I know for a fact that without you, we in Washington cannot succeed.”
Too often we view the people we elect as responsible for all the outcomes after their election.  What Franken was saying is that we, the body politic, have to do far more than just vote, or work for somebodies election.  We need to do the necessary work both ‘on the ground’ with neighbors, friends, family, as well as making sure our representatives know our opinions.
I predict that Sen. Al Franken will do a great job.  I wish him well.  Some general information about Sen. Franken is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken

#45 – Bob Barkley: Guns and America

/in , , , , , , /by

Moderator:  A previous writing on this general topic is at #3, published April 3, 2009.

Guns: Guns are used for sport. I have absolutely no interest in such sports. But as long as my safety is not seriously threatened, I believe individuals should have the right to engage in such sports and use any reasonable sporting guns they choose to.

 

On the other hand, I do not support guns in homes—and certainly not other than under lock-and-key – and in no way do I support assault or other military weapons in the possession of civilians. To paraphrase Bierce, “guns are instruments used by supposedly civilized peoples in order to settle disputes that might become troublesome if left unadjusted.” This points out the absurdity of violence as a means of generating peace. The use of guns indicates a reliance on force when there is little competence or inclination to rely on the power of more civilized means. I have little tolerance here, and the international data—viewed over time—demonstrates without question the ridiculousness of the US fascination both with weapons and with force.

To give a little context to this issue, “Guns Take Pride of Place in US Family Values” by Paul Harris, and published in the UK Observer on October 14, 2007 stated, “Guns, and the violence their possessors inflict, have never been more prevalent in America. Gun crime has risen steadily over the last three years. Despite the fact that groups like the NRA consistently claim they are being victimized, there have probably never been so many guns or gun-owners in America – although no one can be sure, as no one keeps reliable account. One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America’s gun culture thoroughly mainstream. An average of almost eight people aged under19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US – with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F. Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.”  
And later Harris adds, “But the key question is not about the number of guns in America; it is about why people are armed. For many gun-owners, and a few sociologists, the reason lies in America’s past. The frontier society, they say, was populated by gun-wielding settlers who used weapons to feed their families and ward off hostile bandits and Indians. America was thus born with a gun in its hand. Unfortunately much of this history is simply myth. The vast majority of settlers were farmers, not fighters. The task of killing Indians was left to the military and – most effectively – European diseases. Guns in colonial times were much rarer than often thought, not least because they were so expensive that few settlers could afford them. Indeed one study of early gun homicides showed that a musket was as likely to be used as club to beat someone to death as actually fired. But many Americans believe the myth.”
Recently it was reported that if you have a gun in your home there is 22 times as great a likelihood that it will be used against you or someone you know than against an intruder/criminal. And as the New York Times reported on April3, 2009: “Contrary to gun lobby claims, the evidence suggests that permitting concealed weapons drives up crime rather than decreasing it.”

The second amendment recognizes the need for a “well regulated militia” being the only basis for the possession of arms. With the abundance of formally organized and regulated police, safety, and military forces in the US—none of which existed at the time of the amendment—it is a huge stretch to use this amendment to suggest that it provides for random and indiscriminate individual possession of arms. It does not. And the Supreme Court, is dead (no pun intended) wrong! We must move into modern civilization and seriously regulate arms possession and use. However, the fundamental right to bear arms—as long as they cannot be used to threaten me and mine—remains a matter of individual choice and intelligence. We cannot legislate wisdom – or even common sense it appears.

 

And to expand on the Second Amendment arguments, it is only those who are ignorant of, or choose to ignore history, that fail to recognize that the founders were strongly set against a standing army.  They considered it a horrendous threat to the future of the democratic republic they envisioned.  And it was solely because they anticipated no standing army that they endorsed ordinary citizens owning and learning to use muskets so that they might be called upon to defend our country if needed.

 

Thus, we have ended up with two violations of our founder’s intentions: 1) the presence of a standing army of gigantic excess, and 2) the support of the people’s license to possess arms of unlimited dimension for reasons that no longer exist.

 

Jane Smiley, novelist and essayist, in April 2007, had this to say about the subject, “…guns have no other purpose than killing someone or something. All the other murder weapons Americans use, from automobiles to blunt objects, exist for another purpose and sometimes are used to kill. But guns are manufactured and bought to kill. They invite their owners to think about killing, to practice killing, and, eventually, to kill, if not other people, then animals. They are objects of temptation, and every so often, someone comes along who cannot resist the temptation–someone who would not have murdered, or murdered so many, if he did not have a gun, if he were reduced to a knife or a bludgeon or his own strength. I wish that the right wing would admit that, while people kill people and even an “automatic” weapon needs a shooter, people with guns kill more people than people without guns do.”

 

But above all else, I am swayed to my negative thinking regarding guns by the following: “In the U.S., 12 children each day die from gun violence. Homicide was the second leading cause of death for people ages 10 to 24 in 2001, with rates 10 times that of other industrialized nations.” (Source: Marianne Williamson of The Peace Alliance.) No sporting interests can trump that revelation.

 

I also believe that everyone that purchases or owns a gun should be forced to buy special insurance to cover its misuse or accidental injury. Why not? Isn’t auto insurance the same thing?

 

Individual rights—particularly when it comes to minority interests—are what our nation was founded upon and those rights must take precedence over ideological preferences. Nevertheless, it is my considered belief that many people are pretty dumb and guns have a way of helping those people prove it.

#42 – Claude Buettner/ Dr. Joseph Schwartzberg: A new dawn for Thinking Globally

/in , , , /by

Tonight is the annual meeting of the Minnesota Chapter of Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS-MN, formerly known as World Federalists.)  This is an important organization with a long and honorable history of advocacy about global interdependence, and “developing proposals to create, reform and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations.” (from CGS Mission Statement www.globalsolutionsmn.org).
The following commentaries appeared in the May, 2009, Newsletter of CGS-MN.  Claude Buettner is current President of the chapter (a previous writing of his is found here at  April 12, 2009 .  Dr. Schwartzberg, professor emeritus of Geography at the University of Minnesota, is a former President of the local chapter, and very knowledgeable and well known as an expert on United Nations issues.    Both commentaries are reprinted with permission.
GOING MAINSTREAM WITH GLOBAL THINKING by Claude Buettner
It’s easy to fall into the trap of obsessing over the latest litany of bad news the media obligingly provides.  Yet, looking back on one’s lifetime, one can see real positive changes in attitudes and therefore in the prospect for solutions to whatever problems the future might bring us.
Over lunch on Earth Day [April 22] I was watching the favorite soap opera of my 80-something-year-old mother.  A ten-second public service spot at the end of the episode had one of the main actors out-of-character remind viewers of the importance of Earth Day and of our stewardship of the environment.  Encouragement, like beauty, is where you find it.  Nonetheless, I was surprised and uplifted that this message seems to have gone mainstream during the thirty-odd years since the first Earth Day [1970, more at www.earthday.net ].
Perhaps in another third of a century an out-of-character actor will remind daytime TV viewers that their carbon tax is less than 1% of energy costs and allows the UN to do its work to help ensure our secure future.
THE TIDE IS TURNING by Dr. Joseph Schwartzberg
Reflecting on what Claude observed in the note above, I’m struck by the many changes for the better – some subtle, others obvious- that the past year has brought.  The biggest, of course, is the sense of hope generated by the election of President Barack Obama, in regard to international affairs in general and our relationship with the United Nations in particular.  It looks as if the United States will, at last, ratify the UN Comprehensive Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS)*, likely pay up its arrears in UN dues, and try to address the economic chasm separating the global North from the global South.
Change is also evident in non-governmental circles.  Last month I took part in an excellent conference on United Nations reform at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC organized by the United Nations Association [UNA www.unausa.org] , with the co-sponsorship of a number of other prestigious NGOs.  Previously, the UNA steered clear of serious discussions of UN reform because (in my view) it had all it could do to muster support for the UN in its present highly imperfect form.
The emergence of World Savvy [www.worldsavvy.org] is another very positive development.
Equally encouraging was Thomas Weiss’ Presidential address this February before the International Studies Association [www.isanet.org]: “What Happened to the Idea of World Government?”  Until recently, speaking approvingly of the prospect of world government in the political science and international relations communities of academia was a sure way of getting oneself labeled as “hopelessly naive”; but Weiss bravely cited much of the literature on the subject that animated the World Federalist movement prior to its being undermined by the likes of Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s.  Weiss reminded his audience that the worldwide movement until then was led by the United States.  He noted that in 1949 111 members of Congress, two future presidents (John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford) and a host of other eminent political leaders put forward a “sense of Congress” resolution that argued for “a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation.”  Additionally, resolutions were passed in 30 of 48 state legislatures supporting “pooling of American sovereignty with that of other countries**.”
We have a long way to go before we recapture the exciting spirit of the early World Federalist movement, but we are, at last, moving in the right direction.
From moderator:
* – Ratification of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is still pending.  More information http://www.globalsolutions.org/issues/unclos
** – We Americans are only months out of  a long period of years dominated by the philosophy of U.S. exceptionalism and unilateralism, so it may be hard to imagine that even in recent American history there was a strong and rich bi-partisan effort promoting the notion of World Citizenship.  Indeed, in 1971, Minnesota and a number of other states, adopted Declarations of World Citizenship with the support of major leaders from both major political parties.  Minnesota’s declaration, including its signers, can be seen at www.amillioncopies.info .  In particular, note the list of who signed this declaration.
In recent days Newt Gingrich, probably inadvertently, called attention to another very significant commentary on this topic.  In June, 1982, at the United Nations, then-President Ronald Reagan, in the very first sentence of his address, said this: “I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the World.”  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42644

#41 – Dick Bernard: Lobbying

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

I watch commercial television infrequently, usually local and national news programs in the early evening.  Some times I’m stuck with it, as when we draw baby-sitting duty and some kids channel is on.
For a lot of years I totally boycotted the medium (I didn’t lose anything; on the other hand, it was probably over-kill on my part.)  But what I noticed is that the main purpose of commercial television is to advertise, which is to say, manipulate public opinion.  I had to get away from the medium to see this.
Advertising (lobbying) is incessant.
In the last few days, I have noted from assorted sources something that has long been obvious: Big Business through individual entities like the energy companies, pharmaceuticals, the American Medical Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, etc., is set to launch major and expensive lobbying campaigns to, essentially, assure that their own status quo (profit making machines) is minimally changed, if at all.
Their target is lawmakers, yes, but really the main target is every one of us.  Prepare for the 2009 version of “Harry and Louise” (the immensely successful 1993 advertising campaign to stop health care reform.)  
Those who we elected to serve us will be bombarded with finely tuned positions.  So will we.
The constant temptation for citizens is to say, in one way or another, “I can’t make a difference anyway”, and then proceed to prove our point by not getting on the court.  This is a dangerous attitude.
The process is easy enough: find out who your own elected representatives are, their local phone number and address, etc., and send them your own brief and polite messages frequently.  It is ideal if they actually know you as people (you’ve worked for them in campaigns, donated or etc.) but regardless, they all know you as the most important person of all: “potential voter”.      Recognize that they have an exceedingly complex job: many constituencies, many priorities. 
Too many of “we the people” still have the attitude I once saw at a polling place: a very grumpy guy went into the booth next to me, came out and said, “now I’ve voted and I have the right to complain.”  I don’t know what he meant by this declaration: was he voting for (or against) somebody; did he mean that all he had to do was vote, and that ended his role in making decisions: did he feel his vote reserved his right to gripe about how terrible things are, but not work to change them? 
He seemed to be leaving the most important part of his job as a citizen behind.
Everything I remember about his attitude that day indicated that he thought he had absolved himself of any responsibility for the outcome between the elections.
Not true.
There are endless sources of information about how to more effectively lobby for your issues.  Here’s one worth looking at: http://www.wellstone.org/organizing-tools/being-successful-citizen-lobbyist.
Get on the court.

#40 – Dick Bernard: Dr. George Tiller May 31, 2009; Stephen T. Johns June 10, 2009: Some thoughts about a conversation

/in , , , , /by

I think I might have a somewhat unusual “spin” on the tragic deaths of Dr. Tiller and Mr. Johns.
What Dr. Tiller and Mr. Johns have in common is that they were gunned down in public settings by cold-blooded killers who doubtless felt they were righteous in their deadly actions.
After Dr. Tiller was gunned down while ushering at his Lutheran Church in Wichita KS,  I heard a tidbit of information that I hadn’t noticed before.  The same tidbit was in the news again on June 10 when Officer Johns was killed at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.  It jogged my mind back to an angry  conversation a few weeks earlier.
More on the tidbit in a moment; first, a personal “back story” about the angry conversation….
Wednesday, May 6, the local paper in my town published a letter I had written, challenging my local Congresswoman’s deliberate lying about a simple fact relating to the outbreak of the Swine Flu.  I wrote on “the false “coincidence” connecting two [Democrat] presidents [Carter and Obama] to the Swine Flu.”  It wasn’t even a clever lie.  It was exceedingly easy to disprove. 
I closed by saying “Lies are no little deal“.  (The entire letter is at the end of this post.)
I have noticed that the more “local” the “politics” is, the more “down and dirty” it can be.  
The afternoon the newspaper arrived in our mailboxes I received a phone call from a neighbor down the block.  The lady – let’s call her Jane – is a prim, retired, church-going lady.  We know her.  She’s a nice lady. We knew her politics.  But, while firm, she was anything but argumentative.
This particular afternoon, though, was different.  She had read my letter, and she was outraged.   It took me aback, it was so unlike her.  I think I might have inadvertently set her off by saying, in my letter, that my Congresswoman spread “viral messages” which she hoped would “stick in the minds of gullible consumers“.  Nobody likes to be called “gullible”. 
The neighbor went on a rant, including being  incensed that Obama’s Homeland Security had, she said, a list of Christians they were watching, and that she’d heard that on Fox News.  Things settled down, but I wouldn’t call what we had a “civil conversation”.
There have been no followup calls, nor rebuttal letters to the editor on my topic.  Next time I see “Jane” we’ll get along just fine.
I was puzzled by her Homeland Security assertion, until Dr. Tiller was gunned down, and then Mr. Johns.  In the wake of both killings the Homeland Security Assessment, released in early April, 2009, became a topic of news commentators.   It created such controversy at the time that the Secretary of Homeland Security felt a need to apologize.  The problem, it is now clear, is that it was and is a very prudent document, no apology needed.
We will never get rid of extremists in this country.  We have a large population, and there are plenty of very well-armed and very angry folks who exploit their freedom, targeting people with whom they disagree.  Our domestic al Qaeda has been known and in existence for ages through vigilante and terrorist groups and individuals like the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and their ilk which target certain “others”.  Most of the member of these groups seem a lot like me – almost all white men.  They would be outraged to be called “terrorists”, but that is what they are, and they depend on people like all of us to not take a stand.
I hope that the two assassinations, less than two weeks apart, are not harbingers of a trend.  At the same time, this is definitely a time to be vigilant and to be in dialogue about our own very real problems within our own society.
I take some lessons from the above recounted events:
1.  However “ragged” it was, my neighbor and I were in conversation, even dialogue, something not usual enough in our polarized society.  We were polar opposites, but we were talking.
2.  My letter to the local paper, and their willingness to publish it, helped facilitate the conversation that otherwise would never have happened.
3.  It is by small steps that big changes come about, but we need to take the small, sometimes frightening, steps.  My letter, and Jane’s phone call, were probably equally scary for us.  I appreciate her calling me.
We learn from those views we resonate with; we also learn by crossing boundaries, and listening to others with different points of view.  Make the opportunity to engage with others.   
*
The letter, published May 6, 2009.
“It would be nice to dismiss Rep. Bachmann’s assorted factual errors as amusing, but what she and her advisers are about is dead-serious: they wish to implant in the public mind sundry lies, such as the false “coincidence” connecting two Presidents to the Swine Flu.
Bachmann seems more than willing to carry these viral messages, which are then duly reported, hopefully to stick in the minds of gullible consumers.
I happen to be from a Christian tradition, where we were taught that one can lie either by omission (leaving something important out) or commission (telling a whopper).
It is my understanding that in the Jewish tradition, a lie was an even bigger deal: assassination of one’s character was a potential capital offense.
This is no laughing matter.
Three years or so ago my best friend in [this town] left town solely because his teenage daughter was being hounded by teenage “friends” who did everything in their power to malign her.
Lies are no little deal.”

#39 – Dick Bernard: A new Farmer's Market in New Hope MN

/in , , , , /by

Yesterday’s e-mails included a post from a good friend, Leslie Hendricks, calling attention to a local newspaper article about the opening of a new Farmers Market in her suburban community.
Leslie had good reason to be excited about the article (http://tinyurl.com/mjhlh2) since the New Hope Community Farmers Market is her idea, tirelessly promoted beginning in the Fall of 2008.
(The market opens tomorrow, Saturday, June 13, and will be open every Saturday through October 17.  Hours are 8 a.m. to 1 p.m.  It is located at 4300 Xylon Avenue N in the parking lot by Kmart.  It has a very eye-catching website at www.newhopemarket.org .)
The news article in the local paper (link above) gives all the details of the birth of this venture.
As is always true with any enterprise, it begins with someones idea, but it takes more than an idea to bring success:  a great deal of work is involved, including negotiations, consensus building, selling…. 
Leslie has all those skills, and more.
We’ll take the trip across town Saturday morning to visit this new addition to the twin cities landscape.   Spread the word.
Oh, yes…we should mention that in the midst of all of this hard work to build the Farmer’s Market, Leslie was laid off from her job, and had to find another one (she succeeded), and she’s raising two teens as well.
As I said to her in response to her e-mail yesterday: “WAY TAH GO!!!!!!!!”
Leslie can be reached at leslie102896AThotmailDOTcom.  Ask her about her “Turn Up the Peace” (c) tee-shirt, which is how I met her in the first place.  She walks the talk.

#38 – Dick Bernard: Seeing Community (it's all around us)

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

Last night I was at a celebration dinner for an organization, World Citizen http://www.peacesites.org .  World Citizen is a good group to get to know.  It’s Mission Statement: “Empower the Education Community to Promote a Just and Peaceful World.”
At the celebration, one of my table mates was a new acquaintance, Abby, irrepressible, four years old, an aspiring ballerina with a tee-shirt to match: a ballerina dress and ballerina shoes on the front. 
Abby was the only small person at the meeting, a fact she doubtless noticed.  Her great-grandpa, Lynn Elling, who founded World Citizen in 1982, got up to speak.  Lynn, now 88, still strong in voice and vision and ideas, remembered again how he began his quest for world peace, for the children of the world.  He remembered being a young officer on an LST, arriving at Tarawa  beachhead some weeks after the carnage there in November, 1943.  He remembered walking on the beach, finding the horrific remains of some Japanese soldiers killed by napalm; he remembered GIs bringing back remnants of the battle: clothing, skulls, etc.   It was there his life changed, and his commitment to peace for coming generations was sealed.
Abby danced around a bit.  At one point she said a bit too loudly that great-grandpa’s speech was “boring”, though that certainly didn’t change her obvious love for great-grandpa.  Such is how it is for youngsters.  For Abby, dancing was much more fun than listening to a speech!
A little later in the program, Rebecca Janke, herself a grandmother, who’d been awarded the Outstanding World Citizen award, rose to speak.  Lynn’s memories brought back her own: her father, she said, was also in WWII, and one of his duties was to put dead bodies in body bags.  He never really recovered from the trauma of that duty.  His war-time experience haunted him his entire life.   He was one of those countless uncounted casualties of war.
The program over, I reflected on the last few days which were full of “community” kinds of experiences: people, often  unknown to each other, getting together for one reason or another.  The organizing mantra: “food, fun and family” usually identifies essential components of these successful events, small and large.
Last Thursday, for instance, in the afternoon I was at a gathering to recognize volunteers at an elementary school in a nearby suburb.  I met, there, a lady who likes to dress up in costumes, and read to first graders.  My grandkids go to that school.  Thursday, the kids had to wait while the elders had first pick at the assorted goodies…the storyteller knew this wait was excruciating for the tykes, and parcelled out some of the M&Ms in a dish at our table.
A couple of hours later, I was with about 30 parents of school age kids who have organized a growing organization to lobby for adequate support for public education – a difficult issue these days.  These were people who truly care about the future for the Abby’s of the world, their own and others. http://www.parentsunited.org .
There were other events as well, before and in between, which basically helped, once again, to define “community” for me. 
“Community” is all of us together, working for a common good.
A final note on World Citizen, whose celebration I attended last night:  I first attended its annual celebration just two years ago.  I went there on a whim, when I heard about it at another meeting I had just attended.
At that celebration, the same Lynn Elling got up to speak, and led us in a rendition of a song John Denver made memorable in the 1960s: “Last Night I had the Strangest Dream”, (ca 1950 Ed McCurdy).  I was hooked.
The song, sung by John Denver, and Lynn Ellings dream, live on at http://www.amillioncopies.info .  Take moment to visit.  And, again, visit http://www.peacesites.org.
And speaking of “food” and community, here’s a gift recipe received yesterday from a friend:
Carol’s Caramel Corn (use big kettle)
2 cups brown sugar
1/2 cup light syrup
2 sticks oleo (margarine)
1 teaspoon cream of tartar
Stir/boil for 5 minutes
1 teaspoon soda
Pour over 5 quarts popcorn.  Mix.
Put on cookie sheets and bake at 250 degrees for 45 minutes.
Dump out.  Break apart.
(The recipe doesn’t say what to do after it’s prepared.  I guess I can figure that out!)

#36 – Dick Bernard: President Obama builds a wall behind U.S. (and everyone else)

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

For previous posts mentioning President Obama, see Categories.
A reader comment follows this post
Today President Obama is at Normandy; yesterday at Buchenwald; Thursday at Cairo….
The analysis of the Presidents words is and will be unending, but one particular piece of analysis by a single “special interest” group, and some more general articles about what the speech meant have most caught my attention:
At Cairo, the President, glaringly,  seems to have not used the “T” word, not once.  This has caused great distress in certain circles in our country and elsewhere.  Symbolically, I felt, with his speech he seemed to deliberately end the War on T, the war on a word and the war on everybody, everywhere….
Also, in more than a few instances in that speech, he had made promises – commitments – such as closing Guantanamo, which are politically extremely difficult.  And he challenged others in other countries to figure out  how to solve their problems, with our help.
President Obama’s rhetoric is solutions driven, not problem centered.  Solutions by their nature require cooperation, working together towards a common goal.  They do not presume delegation to someone else or defending the status quo.
The more I think of his words during, and the symbolism of, this most important trip to Europe and the Middle East, the more I am convinced that his administration is consciously and deliberately building “a wall behind” all of us, to at minimum make it more difficult for each and every one of us to retreat back to the familiar, of what was, however dismal that past might have been.
For those whose reputation was made, and whose future relies, on the war on “T” , that “wall behind” has a certain meaning.
For those who railed against that mindset, the same “wall” is as certainly built behind them.  They can choose to take the risk of moving forward into an uncertain future, learning new ways of engagement; or to turn around and try to tear down that wall to go back to the comfort of what was.
Likely each of us can remember some time or circumstance when we built a “wall” of some kind behind us which forced us to go forward, doing something we didn’t want to do.  (Sometimes this is also referred to as “burning bridges behind us”).  This is a good time to reflect on what our “wall” (or “bridge”) might have been, and how we grew when forced to move forward rather than able to go back.
George Santayana was correct in his famous statement “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it“, but there are certainly equally persuasive arguments about the folly of becoming mired in the past and refusing to move on.   It is hard to move forward while always looking back.
We need to look forward, and personally own the future we’re all creating.  The future for ourselves and our fellow world citizens is a future that we build, together.  We depend on this forward looking and acting; even more so, the future of the generations which follow us depend on us.

#35 – Dick Bernard: President Obama speaks from Cairo

/in , , , , , , , /by

Yesterday afternoon I made a spur of the moment visit to an administrator at a Minneapolis college.  I found his office.  Luckily he was in.  I knocked.  “Come in”, he said.  He was looking at his computer screen, watching a replay of the President Obama speech in Cairo from some hours earlier.
My visit to this college office was not to talk about Obama or the Middle East or such.  I did the business I planned to do, and departed.  We didn’t even mention the speech.  He and I have never talked politics.  I don’t know what his politics is. 
But one of my enduring memories of Obama’s speech in Cairo will definitely be walking into that office, and seeing Tom watching the President speak on his computer screen.  It will remind me of those iconic photographs of families sitting around their radio listening to President Roosevelt address the nation on some critical issue or another in the 1930s or 1940s.  Roosevelt, too, was a master of the art of communications with a distant public. 
My guess is that the scene I witnessed yesterday was repeated  in countless and varied settings here and around the world, particularly in the Muslim world.
As is predictable, every word, every facial expression, every single nuance of the Presidents long speech will be dissected, analyzed and interpreted for its meaning.   The interpreters will focus on their own particular favorite issue, whether he said the right or wrong thing about it, and then “spin” it to their particular preference.
It was an international speech, to the Muslim world in particular, and because of the miracle of technology it can be watched and re-watched over and over and over again.  What Obama said, yesterday, he knows he will be held to.  This was not a campaign speech; rather it was the leader of a powerful country speaking to the entire world. 
Personally, I think the key facets of this speech, yesterday in Cairo at about this time of day U.S. time, were its symbolic aspects:
A.  that it was specifically addressed to the Muslim world;
B.  that it was given in the Muslim world, in Cairo;
C. that it specifically acknowledged and honored the Muslim tradition and the people who are part of that major world religion;
D. that he chose specifically to publicly acknowledge the role of the United States in the overthrow of the elected government of Iran in 1953.
Yesterday, today and beyond there will be endless analysis of the Presidents speech. 
While there are endless and immense problems which no speech can pretend to solve, my own prediction is that President Obama’s speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, is historically very significant, and can give impetus to a major shift in global relationships.  It provides a floor for new conversations; an opportunity to think in different ways.
He was speaking to world leaders, yes; but he was speaking even more to those ordinary people who in many settings throughout the Muslim world were watching his image on television and listening to his words, perhaps much like common Americans listened to Roosevelt during the Great Depression and World War II, and then went out and contributed to the necessary effort to accomplish the tasks at hand.
My hope is that all of us will use this speech as an opportunity to move forward, rather than to get mired in the “same old, same old” of focusing on what was or wasn’t said, and how precisely the administration follows through on the text, or not.  Certainly it is important to be vigilant, and to even be critical, but this speech was an entire “book”, more than simply a chapter or a few paragraphs.   
http://www.whitehouse.gov to access a video or transcript of the entire speech