#115 – Dick Bernard: Learning about South Asia from a South Asian….

Last week I was invited to one of those events that have hard and fast ground rules.  In this one, a prominent speaker speaks; the condition the listeners are asked to accept is to not breach confidentiality.  In some senses it is a very reasonable rule: a person would like some reasonable chance to be somewhat open and honest without inordinate concern of being misquoted, or quoted at all for that matter.  For the individuals privy to the information, the time can be very well spent.  Such sessions help to inform ones opinion.  These happen all the time, everywhere.
The downside is pretty obvious: only a tiny few have the opportunity to hear the insights.  At this particular gathering I was one of 22 enjoying a country club breakfast and informed comment.   (Five were women.)
Our speaker was eminently qualified: formerly (and at separate times) a very high military, and also an elected, official in his major south Asian country.  He was very well informed about south Asia, and very interesting as well.  But I’m not about to violate the rules, and tell you what his opinion was, or even what the questions were, save for the one I asked.
The questions were thoughtful, as were the answers.  In the eternal chess game that is international geopolitics there is never a black and white situation.  Behind the rhetoric is a never easy reality.
I had an opportunity to ask my question, and since it’s my question, I can bring it up, here, and then answer it myself without betraying the speakers response….
I observed that a recent poll – “our peculiar way of doing referendums on public opinion” – suggested that a distressingly large percentage of Americans, regardless of party preference, seem okay with bombing Iran.  What did our speaker think of that, I asked.  He addressed the question very well, but, as I say, I won’t tell you what his answer was.
But I can tell you what my answer – my reason for asking the question – is.
South Asia is a pretty big piece of geography.  The big countries are Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.  There are several smaller entities, and of course Russia and China are generally in the neighborhood as well.
When I got home I checked my trusty almanac.  Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan together have about one-third the land area, and one-third the population of the United States.  Toss Pakistan and India into the kettle and you’re up to a U.S. size territory with four times our population.
And here we sit at home, saying “bomb, bomb Iran” when we couldn’t manage our splendid little war in the smallest of the three “hot” countries listed above.  It’s as if we look on war as some video game; that somebody out in Fargo can bomb, bomb Afghanistan with a drone, and get the bad guys to wise up and come out of their caves with their hands up.  It worked for the John Wayne crowd….
Collectively we seem not to have a clue.
I thought my time was very well spent at the session.  I only wish everybody would have the chance.  One of the big problems in our society is that there is an anointed group of “big boys” (they’re usually still boys) who play the global chess.  They are upstream from the folks I was sitting with last week, but they, too, discuss and debate theories and ideas and gain perspective.  The lucky citizen elects leaders who’ll be willing to listen; the unlucky elects leaders who only tell.  We’ve had both types in recent years.  There is a big difference.
At about the same time I was having my coffee and eggs, reports were on about President Obama saluting the caskets of the fallen as they came back from Afghanistan, and Secretary of State Clinton having frank conversations in Pakistan with journalists and students and the government.  I thought both Obama and Clinton were class acts.
To the bombs and bullets crowd, Obama and Clinton are wimpy; to the peace types, they’re war mongers.
We take what we can, and work for better.
Thank you, source who cannot be named, for the invitation!  And thanks, too, speaker who is anonymous.   You did a great job!

#105 – Dick Bernard: The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Institute website: #mce_temp_url#
Twenty-four hours ago, President Barack Obama was awakened to hear an announcement that caught him by surprise: he had just been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
It did not surprise me to learn that Obama’s enemies on the radical right were up in arms about his receiving the honor.  It did surprise me that many leaders in the far left were similarly critical, though for a very different reason.  (Their general mantra: he hasn’t done enough, he better do more, or else….).
Are we all going crazy, when such a huge honor is made into a political liability, almost an albatross, by both ideological “wings”?
Only the Committee knows why Mr. Obama made the cut.  My candidate for “ground zero” in the Nobel Committee’s profound respect for the President’s accomplishments, and the radical right wings revulsion towards his award, goes back to a phrase in a speech he gave in Berlin, Germany, in July, 2008.
In that speech, Obama began with this: “…I come to speak not as a candidate but as a citizen; a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.”  In a single phrase, he tore down the wall of American exceptionalism; and by his subsequent actions, he has begun to “walk the talk”, and it shows in the profound change in how the United States is viewed by other citizens in other countries.
He spoke this risk-laden phrase during his run for the U.S. presidency, before he was officially nominated as the Democrats candidate, before the U.S. economy officially collapsed (September, 2008), and at what turned out to be the bitter end of the dangerous dreams of the right wings Project for a New American Century, whose belief was, effectively, that the U.S. ran the world, and was not part of it.  It was politically risky for him to utter that phrase at that time in his campaign.
So, long before nominations were closed in February, 2009, Barack Obama had, thankfully, dramatically changed the national and international conversation.  Whatever comes after is simply an addition to a huge accomplishment made even before he was elected in November, 2008.
Does the President deserve the Award?  Absolutely.  Today’s first “Letter of the Day” in the Minneapolis Star Tribune said it as well as any will say it: “The Nobel Peace Prize committee recognized that President Obama is changing America from world hegemonist to world citizen.”  Jim Stattmiller
I am particularly aware of then-candidate Obama’s speech in Berlin because I am on the Board of two organizations, one founded in 1982 by my friend Lynn Elling; and the second co-founded by Lynn in 1995.  The first organization is and has always been called “World Citizen”; the second is the Nobel Peace Prize Festival at Augsburg College in Minneapolis.
World Citizen’s focus is on peace sites, peace poles and peace education.  One would think that such a focus would be non-controversial, but not in the “America first, and only” of the neo-con years of George W. Bush, and the earlier ascendancy of the radical right-wing in this country.
World Citizen became a suspected and (in some people’s minds) almost subversive organization, to the extent that last summer we had to write a specific faq for our website to counter the right-wingers who railed against what we were and are trying to accomplish for teachers and school children.  We have no secrets.  Look first at faq #13, the last one, and then wander anywhere at the website for more information about what we do #mce_temp_url#
At the World Citizen site is a section about the aforementioned Nobel Peace Prize Festival, which has from the beginning been a sanctioned activity of the Nobel Institute in Oslo.
The Nobel Peace Prize Festival at Augsburg is specifically for school children.  Each year, the Laureate for the previous year is invited to attend.  Often they do.  President Obama is now on the queue for invitation for the 2011 Festival.
This past March our guest was Prof. Richard Alley of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) #mce_temp_url#, which co-won, with Al Gore, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.  Three videos of the last March event are at #mce_temp_url#.  One is of Alley’s entrancing talk to a gymnasium full of school kids.  The Director of the Nobel Institute attended and spoke at this event.
This coming March, our guest will be Martti Ahtissari, the 2008 Laureate.  He has apparently already confirmed his attendance at the March 5, 2010, Festival.  (Commercial announcement: please let school personnel and parents know about this event.)
March of 2008, the 2006 Laureate, Muhammad Yunus, joined us.  In 2006, the 2004 Laureate Wangari Maathai came, but ended up marooned in a Minneapolis hotel room because the event was cancelled due to a snow storm.  And in 2004, the 2002 Laureate, Jimmy Carter, spent several hours with school children here.
Next week, our committee meets to begin planning for the March 5, 2010 event.  I’m pretty sure the topic of President Obama will come up.  As stated, he’ll be the invitee to the 2011 Peace Prize Forum and Festival.
Congratulations, President Obama.
Postnote:  In posts #35 and 36, June 5 and 6, 2009, I comment about President Obama’s speech in Cairo, and its implications.  Simply go to the calendar at right, back to June, and click on the dates.

#98 – Dick Bernard: Chicago loses its bid for the Olympics

Updated at end of original post.
11:45 a.m. Friday, October 2, 2009
The bulletin came in about 10:30 a.m. CDT that Chicago was dumped from consideration for the Olympic games.  It was the first of the four candidates to be thrown out of consideration for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games.  Tokyo was next to go; at this writing Rio de Janeiro and Madrid remain in consideration.
President and Michelle Obama were with the delegation making the pitch for Chicago.  The right wing noise machine was outraged that the President would leave his office to go to Europe to lobby for the event.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune editorialized, this morning, that “Chicago, Obama go for the gold.  2010 bid worth presidential prestige“.  #mce_temp_url#
Now the bid is gone.
I had no particular opinion on the Olympics matter.
The first Star Tribune bulletin on the rejection pointed to, among other things, the discomfort the International Olympic Committee had with the previous two U.S. Olympics: the bribery scandal at Salt Lake City 2002, and the violence at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.  Last I looked, the reference is still there, buried towards the bottom of the second story.
Here’s the Star Tribune update, which I assume is updated (changed) regularly.  The one I’m posting was up at 11:52 a.m.  #mce_temp_url#
I will await the right wing talking points, which will appear shortly.  My prediction: they’ll say Obama is a loser, and/or that it’s just another reason to distrust Europe.
Stay tuned.
Saturday October 3 3:45 p.m.
Oddly, Obam’s “losing bid” made the front page of the Saturday, Minneapolis Star Tribune, carrying an article by Peter Baker and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times.  The “Obama as loser” piece seems to have been the item for the right wing to celebrate, even though it would seem far more odd (and more subject to criticism) if Obama had not joined the delegation from his home city.  A “win” of the games would be very good for the local (as in “Made in the USA”) economy which we so revere.  So it goes….
There were doubtless many reasons for the International Olympic Committee’s vote.  One of the major ones, likely, is that the games in Rio de Janeiro will be the first ever in South America.
Three readers commented on the initial post:
Jeff: “They can try again for 2020…that is what happens.
Its all a big money making operation for all concerned.
Long ago [the games] lost its amateur hip hip hooray jolly good fair play and may the best man/woman win ethos…anyway.
Will: “Read [the October 2, 2009] editorial in the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune.#mce_temp_url# .  I interpret it as their first [move] toward gaining public funding not only for the Minnesota Vikings’ proposed new stadium, a $1 billion dollar scam, $700 million of which would be paid by us taxpayers, but that the structure also would be used for a Summer Olympics bid, all the stronger now that Chicago has been rejected.  And of course it would be located in sacrosanct downtown Minneapolis.  The Olympics are not all that they are cracked up to be for the host community: hear maverick sportswriter Dave Ziron on October 2 “Democracy Now!” #mce_temp_url# for the seamy side of the Games.  In its steadily descending social spiral, Minnesota must now lead the world in publicly-funded stadiums.  Some distinction.
Connie:  “I have a brief observation:  when the word came to my office that Chicago lost the bid (my office is in the Chicago area and is surrounded by quite a few conservatives), my head turned and these people stood up with faces that I swear had slight smiles on them.  I think they were glad and not because they didn’t want the Olympics in Chicago where most all of them are from, but because Obama had not been able to close the deal.  I just muttered something like “Oh, that’s too bad.   There could have been a lot of work and jobs generated here and elsewhere if Chicago got the games.”  Things quieted down a bit and that was that.  Just a sad personal comment.”

#79 – Dick Bernard: President Obama speaks to the nation on Health Care

Since anyone and everyone is predicting what Pres. Obama will say tonight, and what he means by what he says, I have my right to my own opinion, which is, I would say, as informed (and uninformed) as that of anyone else.  
I am deliberately posting this before Obama’s speech, rather than after.
As time has gone on, I am more and more of the opinion that what is happening now in the debate on Health Care Reform is very similar to what happened as the tide turned against the Vietnam War in the late 1960s early 1970s.  There came a tipping point in that conflict when public opinion turned against the war.  Nixon won a landslide victory in 1972; by 1975 the last frantic refugees lifted off from the U.S. embassy in Saigon; Nixon was already history.  The turn started earlier, but reached a crescendo quite rapidly.  The end wasn’t perfect, and the future wasn’t either, but for certain, change began to occur.  The past began to end…and lasted till we got mired in our next war – Iraq/Afghanistan.
If I’m correct, the current divisive atmosphere is a very good omen for the beginning of long term and very substantive change.  The Health Care Reform debate is being waged in the Congress, but far more importantly, it is being waged in the public square.  By no means is Health Care Reform “dead on arrival”; nor will it get stuck in cement after the first round of legislation is passed this fall.  
(On August 31, I was among those senior citizens who spent some time in the DFL (Democratic party) booth at the Minnesota State Fair.  I have done this before.  This time we were concerned about being attacked by irate people, to the extent that we had a training session before hand.  The training was a waste of time.  If anything, the people were more polite and serious minded than in previous similar events.  Sen. Al Franken was very politely received.  The people, I think, get it.)
I am not particularly concerned about what finally ends up in this first Health Care Reform bill.  There never was, and there will likely never be, a massive sea change in the general attitude of the body politic. So many of us, and so much of our economy, is wrapped up in the business of medicine that it would be unrealistic that revolutionary change would occur (though I think such a change would ultimately be for the betterment of all of us.  Who would miss those endless television ads for this or that pharmaceutical or treatment – the true cost of “competition”.)
A friend predicted earlier today that Obama would throw the progressives “off the bus” tonight.  
I am certain that, whatever he says, he will be interpreted as having gone too far, or not far enough, or this, or that, or the other.   Whether he throws progressives off the bus or not is going to be strictly an item of interpretation by the viewer, and we will have an opportunity to hear and see lots of comments about what it all means afterwards.  I will take every comment with a grain of salt, particularly if it comes from someone with a particular vested interest in the outcome of the debate.
Personally, I hope the advocates for revolutionary change prepare themselves for some realistic response, and rather than saying “we were sold out”, treat whatever positive changes which end up being made as the positive changes that they are, and then redouble their efforts for more and better changes down the road.
The debate is being waged, and we can thank the President of the United States for this.  
If we want “change we can believe in”, we now have an opportunity to help make it happen, one small and difficult step at a time.
To those tempted to throw the President “off the bus”, I don’t wish you well.

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

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)

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")

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.

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

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.

#65 – Dick Bernard: The latest Poll…and the "protests".

Other posts on this topic: July 24,26,27.29,30,31,August 1,2,6,7,10,15
The latest Poll.
Towards the end of last week news reports were that the public was becoming disenchanted with President Obama’s performance on the Health Care Reform issue. 
His poll numbers had dropped to the point that as many people disapproved of his performance, as approved: 46% to 46%.  He had gone from superhuman to merely mortal.  Basically, that was where the visible coverage (the coverage people notice because that’s what the media intend) ended. 
I decided to look up the specific poll.  It seems to have been a TIME Poll for July 27-28.  1002 people participated in the poll, with the results + or – 3%.  In other words it was a statistically valid poll.
You can probably still see the complete results of the poll, if you wish, at the  website pollingreport.com, then go to the surveys on health.
The TIME poll appears to have been one of those mind-numbing polls to answer, with Health Care Reform only one portion of the poll, and the Health Care portion having as many as 21 questions.  Whoever agreed to participate spent a long time on the phone, hopefully at a time they weren’t busy with something else. 
The specific question whose responses led to the headlines was apparently the first one in the Health Care Reform category: “Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Obama is doing in each of these areas…handling health care policy.”   
The questions all appear to have been forced choice, rather than graded response (“on a scale of 1 to 10, etc.).  Judging from my own very limited experience in responding to such phone polls – I can recall one seemingly interminable one some years ago – there is no room for reflection, or changing one’s mind.  It is a test of first impressions given to a sample of about a thousand people nationwide.  Valid?  Sure.  But truly useful information?  Probably not, unless you want to find some way to formulate the questions and then interpret the information to fit your own bias.
Down the road in the 21 poll questions is this one: “Who do you trust more?”  Obama 46%, Republicans 32%, Unsure 14%.  Error + or – 3%.
The “Protests”
The days of rage” have apparently returned, NOT.
I put the word “protests” in quotes because the assorted expressions of anger at the back-home meetings, all breathlessly reported, are not protests at all…they are scripted, orchestrated and probably rehearsed street theatre. 
Personally, I think these “protests” will backfire on the organizers – most people want to hear rational discussion of the issues – and my guess is that as the month goes on the “protests”, while they will not disappear, will become less visible, including in their local areas.  I doubt that any of the politicians being targeted are befuddled by the protests.  Stay tuned.
“Protests” are not an exclusive province of the Right, of course.  Neither is the long term tactic of “P. R everything – disrupt – confuse – display anger” something new and innovative.  I put those words in quotes because they were part of an organizing strategy used against an organization I was part of in 1974, 35 years ago.  Years later I became a colleague of one of the organizers who had used those and other organizing tactics against us, and he gave me a copy of the notes he had taken at a training session he had attended in another state.
So, the protests we are seeing are really very old (and very tired) tactics.
Were I to be in a position to plan counter-“Protest” strategy, I would organize things to dissipate the energy/effectiveness of the protestors, without making the “protestors” seem like victims.  There are things that can be done.  I’ll feed in some suggestions….

#61 – Dick Bernard: VA and Medicare

This is post #5 of 13.  The others: July 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, August 1, 2,5,6,7,10,15
Side note: I notice that the presentation of the FEAR case against Health Care  Reform is intensifying.  This was expected.  The anti-debate will concentrate  on the emotional.   Most of the campaign will be through dishonest and misleading marketing techniques, like television ads, talk radio, internet stuff….  The pressure on legislators to “kill the bill” will intensify. 
Along with Social Security, Veteran’s Administration Medical care and Medicare are crown jewels in America’s social safety net.  Because they are federal programs and susceptible to the epithet “socialist” the opponents of single payer option and universal coverage for all would like to hide them in a closet, or slowly amend them to death.  But they are difficult to hide, and likely impossible to kill.  They’re all around us…and they’re big success stories.
MEDICARE:  I’ve been on Medicare for four years, which gives me a bit of experience from the consumer end. 
A couple of days ago, Medicare celebrated its 44th anniversary.  President Obama celebrated the occasion at a gathering of the American Association of Retired Persons, and got a good laugh when he told about a letter he received from a lady who was against his program, and against socialized medicine, “keep your hand off my Medicare“.    That’s how confusing this topic gets.  People can rail against the government, but in one way or another, if they are of a certain age, “keep your hands off my Medicare” is a pretty firm retort whether conservative or liberal.   Some history at http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568111/Medicare_and_Medicaid.html
I’ve had a good experience with Medicare so far.  There are well documented instances of fraud, but they don’t reside with the consumers of the care like me, rather with alleged providers (“entrepreneurs”?) who game the system…criminals.
It is not necessary to go on at much length about Medicare as most everyone knows someone who’s on Medicare.  It is absolute proof positive that you have turned 65.  The people who want to get rid of Medicare generally talk very softly or obtusely.  They can’t go after it, at least not directly.  “Keep your hands off my Medicare“. 
Medicare isn’t perfect and it isn’t free.  Tens of thousands of dollars went into my Medicare account during the last twenty-four years of my working career.  Medicare recipients pay a premium for the insurance (it’s deducted from Social Security).  It has a deductible ‘out of pocket’ amount to be satisfied, and people who can afford to are well advised to buy supplements to fill the holes in coverage.  People on Medicare without other financial means are vulnerable.  The program is subject to quiet legislative mischief.  What you thought was covered, may be changed, information buried inside the big book of benefits you receive once a year.
What is very well hidden by the Free Marketers is that every Medicare dollar goes into the economy, just like their dollars.  It is not money down a black hole.  Simply, Medicare is an efficient competitor without the profit motive.
The major 2003 Medicare amendments, which basically prohibited competitive bidding on things like drugs, have proven to be an immense burden on the system, but these amendments were enacted for the primary benefit of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, not to enhance the efficiency of the system as a whole.  They were advertised as making Medicare better; they made it worse, in my opinion.  They were written by and for big business interests.  They hurt more than helped.
In my opinion, since Medicare couldn’t be killed outright, efforts have been and continue to be made to kill it quietly and slowly and thus privatize it, too. 
I think it’s fair to say that 43 million elderly and 2 million disabled recipients of Medicare would say, almost with a unanimous voice, “Keep your hands off my Medicare.”
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION PRACTICE OF MEDICINE
I’m an honorably discharged U.S. Army veteran and thus theoretically eligible for VA benefits, but the odds of my ever truly qualifying for the wide array of VA care, including hospitalization, is not good.  There are eligibility criteria: potential recipients are divided into categories.  You can view the 8 Priority groups here http://tinyurl.com/dgknug.  They are basically self-explanatory.  Most likely I’m in category 8; I’ve never even tried to qualify.  (I am told that veterans, regardless of likely eligibility status, should make application anyway.  Certain benefits, like prescription drugs, may well be available through VA at lower cost than commercially.)
My grandfather, a Spanish American War veteran with less active service than I, and never part of the “regular Army” to my knowledge, got most of his medical treatment through VA, and died in a VA Hospital in 1957.  A veteran was a veteran, then.
I had extensive contact with the VA system during several years of major medical treatment for my brother-in-law, who died in November, 2007.   I was his representative; the rest of his family was gone.  For years, the VA system was his primary care.
I was extremely impressed with the services provided at the VA Hospitals at which he spent a considerable amount of time.
Along with his other problems Mike had been mentally ill since 1977, considered totally disabled by the illness and on Social Security Disability since 1982.  In the 2000s he was hospitalized on two occasions for major aneurysm operations.  He survived both surgeries, but a result of the second was lower extremity paralysis due to the length of the surgery and the location of the aneurysm.  He was warned of the possiblity of paralysis before the surgery.  Without the surgery he would not have lived at all.  Mike spent a lot of time in VA Hospitals.
In all of the time he was at the Minneapolis and Fargo ND VA facilities, he received outstanding treatment from a caring staff.  It was not a chore to go to see him.  In 1977 he was hospitalized at the VA Hospital in St. Cloud MN when his mental illness manifested itself.  There, too, the treatment and followup was first rate.
The treatment at these hospitals is likely rationed due to the fact that there are huge numbers of military veterans like myself, whose need for treatment in a federal facility ranges from very low to very high.  Unspoken, but probably a factor in under-funding of the VA (I was told the Minneapolis VA hospital had unused wings when my brother-in-law was there) is the matter of its competing with the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  VA Hospitals are efficient operations.  But they are a ymbolic and reat threat to “free market” types. 
So…Who do you know who’s on Medicare, Medicaid or is or has been a patient at a VA facility?  What is their story, and your interpretation?