Maggie's Kiss
I got a kiss today from a favorite miss
It came right out of the blue –
It was the kiss that Maggie gave. – To who?
To me. A never to be forgotten bliss –this kiss.
From this two year old miss – my great granddaughter.
I wonder will she remember this day – a day
I could not forget. I could never forget
The day I got from this miss
The great grandfather's first kiss.
Workers' Power and Budgetary Considerations
By Harry E. Berndt
The International Day of Labor, May Day, originated in the United States on May 1, 1886, but it is celebrated in every country accept the United States and Canada. In 1894, the United States Congress initiated Labor Day, to be celebrated on the first Monday of September. There are those who think that the creation of Labor Day was an attempt to keep American workers separated from the workers from around the world. Indeed, workers in the United States have been made to believe that they are "Middle Class", and that their interests are the same as the interests of corporations. The working classes in Europe recognize that their interests are different from those of corporations, and they form political parties to put forth their interests. As a result, workers in the United States work longer hours, have fewer benefits, are less secure, and endure more part time and temporary work than do workers in Europe. Workers who think of themselves as middle class suffer from the American malady of false consciousness. Much of this is due to the demise of unionism in the United States.
Today workers have no reluctance about crossing picket lines to take the jobs of fellow workers. This is because very few think of themselves as working class, a status that is undefined or defined imperfectly in this country. Those of us who depend almost entirely on the weekly or monthly paycheck, and who are subject to termination with scant recourse to appeals, are working class, no matter what our salary happens to be or how we are led to perceive our positions. It is wealth, not wages or status perceptions that determine our class position. The office has become the new factory, but the tenants think of themselves as management, or at least as Associates, rather than workers. Above them are Team Leaders, rather than supervisors or bosses. People are downsized, not laid off or fired. The changing nature of work and the symbolic dissonance accompanying it is a partial reason for workers' misunderstanding of their true status and the need for worker coalescence. Workers who cross the picket lines to take jobs from other workers may be referred to as replacement workers, but that is merely a euphemism for scab.
Every day we read of more corporations downsizing, which used to be called being laid-off or fired. The unemployment figure reported by the Department of Labor for June, 2011, is 9.1%. Not considered unemployed are the millions of workers who are employed part-time, are temporary employees, or who fall into the newly created category of contingency employee. Also not considered unemployed are students, many of whom are in school simply because they cannot find suitable employment. The truth is that we simply cannot employ all of our people. Corporations find it to their advantage to hire part-time and temporary workers, and to move their operations to low wage and regulation soft countries. Outsourcing, too, has become de rigueur, as the government and business tell us that in the global economy outsourcing is necessary to create new jobs for Americans. All of this is in the name of competing in the global economy.
Sad to say, corporations are not alone in hiring part-time rather than full-time employees. A report by the trustees of public universities indicates that the number of part-time instructors has nearly doubled since 1970, and that 55 percent of Ph.D.'s in English and foreign language failed to get full time positions. Many colleges have three and even five part-time instructors for every full time faculty member. This is very dangerous for the future of higher education. Young men and women who might naturally be drawn to scholarly pursuits in academia could be turned off if their prospects were only part-time employment. Education can also be faulted for not teaching labor history, except only minimally in some universities and not at all in secondary schools. It is no wonder that the population as a whole has little or no understanding of the importance of unions in the economic history of the country.
The present legislative moves in a large number of States, and in the Congress of the United States, are indicative of the attitude pervasive in our government today. Legislators feel no compunction about budgetary cuts directed toward reducing the benefits of workers and the power of unions.. After all, we all have to sacrifice: that is, all except corporations, the rich, and the Legislators.
THE SOCIALIZATION OF WORK
Workers in the United States have been made to believe that they are "Middle Class", and that their interests are the same as the interests of corporations. As a result, workers in the United States work longer hours, have fewer benefits, are less secure, and endure more part time and temporary work than do workers in Europe. Workers who think of themselves as middle class suffer from the American malady of false consciousness. Much of this is due to the demise of unionism in the United States. Workers have no compunction today crossing picket lines to take the jobs of fellow workers. This is because very few think of themselves as working class, a status that is undefined or defined imperfectly in this country.
Those of us who depend almost entirely on the weekly or monthly pay check, and who are subject to termination with scant recourse to appeals, are working class, no matter what our salary happens to be or how we are led to perceive our positions. It is wealth, not wages or status perceptions, that determine our class position. The office has become the new factory, but the tenants think of themselves as management, or at least as Associates, rather than worker. Above them are Team Leaders, rather than supervisors or bosses. People are downsized, not laid off or fired. The changing nature of work and the symbolic dissonance accompanying it is a partial reason for workers' misunderstanding of their true status and the need for worker coalescence. Workers who cross the picket lines to take jobs from other workers may be referred to as replacement workers, but that is merely a euphemism for scab.
Every day we read of more corporations downsizing, which used to be called being laid-off or fired. The unemployment figure reported by the Department of Labor for July is 5.0%. Not considered unemployed are the millions of workers who are employed part-time, are temporary employees, or who fall into the newly created category of contingency employee. Also not considered unemployed are students, many of whom are in school simply because they cannot find suitable employment. They are given the impression that their education is necessary because of the high tech needs of the corporations. Although it is true that there are hard to fill high tech positions, it is also true that a very large portion of work is dumbed-down, and relies on software programs which limit the intellectual demands on the worker. The truth is that we simply cannot employ all of our people. Corporations find it to their advantage to hire part-time and temporary workers, and to move their operations to low wage and regulation soft countries. Outsourcing, too, has become de rigueur, as the government and business tell us that in the global economy outsourcing is necessary to create new jobs for Americans. All of this is in the name of competing in the global economy.
Sad to say, corporations are not alone in hiring part-time rather than full-time employees. A report by the trustees of public universities indicates that the number of part-time instructors has nearly doubled since 1970, and that 55 percent of Ph.D.'s in English and foreign language failed to get full time positions. Many colleges have three and even five part-time instructors for every full time faculty member. I believe that this is very dangerous for the future of higher education. Young men and women who might naturally be drawn to scholarly pursuits in academia could be turned off if their prospects were only part-time employment. Education can also be faulted for not teaching labor history, except in only minimally in some universities and not at all in secondary schools. It s no wonder that the population as a whole has little or no understanding of the importance of unions in the economic history of the country.
The Middle Class
Since words are a significant factor in the determination of Ideology and ones place in society, it seems to me that the concept of class is important and should be clearly understood. Frankly, I am tired of everyone talking about the middle class without having any idea of what and who is the Middle Class.
Is it possible that we are all middle class? Obviously not. Yet, scratch an American and you come up with middle class. One's perceived position in society determines his or her ideas and actions. To think of oneself as middle class means to also support middle class values and ideas; values and ideas that may actually be in conflict with one's best interests and actual position in society.
The term middle class was earlier related to the French term bourgeoisie, the term used to designate industrialists and bankers whose interests were tied to those of the upper class. Later, bourgeoisie came to include shop owners and small business people. In other words, middle class was equated with wealth and material possessions, and later with managerial positions. In John Galsworthy's trilogy of the Forsytes, Soames Forsyte, "the man of property", is the symbol for the middle class, dominated by the acquisition of money and possessions. The middle class, then, was anchored in wealth and was not dependent upon wages for its subsistence.
In the mid-twentieth century in the United States, middle class became less distinct and was popularly associated with white collar employment. That this was delusional is apparent when it is recognized that a great deal of white collar employment actually paid less than blue collar employment, which was defined as working class. Until at least the mid to late nineteen seventies, the number of blue collar employees was greater than white collar employees in the United States. However, with the changing nature of work, white collar employees now out-number blue collar employees. Also, a large percentage of the population now attends some form of post high school education, further strengthening the notion that they have become middle class.
An additional reason for the middle class definition of the American public is because media and status quo institutions have held up middle class images that reflect an idealized American, one to which everyone aspires. This idealized American is hard working, monogamous, educated, patriotic, and dedicated to the idea of free enterprise and competition.
Adhering to these presumed middle class values causes the vast majority of Americans to overlook the defining factor of middle class, which is to say that they fail to discern the difference between the man of property and the wage earner. Wage earners are people who depend on wages from employers for their subsistence. They are dependent upon wages to the extent that losing their position means economic hardship, if not disaster. The middle class has sufficient wealth to subsist without employment. The nature of work has changed, not the class position of the worker.
Does it make any difference how one perceives one's class position? I think it does. The loss of class consciousness by large segments of the American working class causes them to support positions contrary to their best interests, to vote for people whose interests are vastly different from their own, and has been a major cause for the weakening of the American Labor Movement. One can at least question whether scabbing, which seems to be de rigueur among the working class in the United States, would exist alongside of working class consciousness. Indeed, would billionaires gain popular support, particularly those who have been union busters, if people who are really working class did not think of themselves as middle class?
In a country like the United States, one with only two political parties of note, it is an easy matter for the economic powerful to gain control of both parties. This is evidenced in campaign funding, where wealthy interests give financial contributions to the candidates of both political parties. We now have an administration in Washington we all hope will make the future of the country, and all of our futures, more prosperous. But should we be concerned that the party traditionally thought of as the party of the working class now thinks of itself as the party of the middle class. It is time that someone defines the middle class and makes a distinction between it and the working class.
Let's face it, most of us are working class, not middle class, and it's time we recognized what that means in terms of class interest.
Republican Potential Presidential Nominee
In order to make the big decisions, leaders must be knowledgeable and it helps if they are also intelligent. The present crop of Republican presidential hopefuls is not knowledgeable and their words and actions cause people to doubt their intelligence. The Republican Party owes the American people creditable nominees. Those vying for the Republican nomination are an embarrassment.
How did it happen that the Republican Party became so inadequate, so miserable and pathetic? I can't help wondering whether my generation, the generation dubbed by Tom Brokaw as The Greatest Generation, neglected to participate adequately in government in favor of chasing the "American Dream". Plato said, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in Politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors". Those of us of this greatest generation, Republicans and Democrats alike, must bear a large amount of blame for the present superficiality of our political leaders. We let it happen!
Corporations and Job Creation (revised article)
By Harry E. Berndt
Letters to the Editor
Re: Corporations and Job Creation –643 words
In almost any discussion about job creation, one hears the American mantra that corporations are job creators and that they should have to pay lower taxes, and have to abide by fewer regulations, in order to facilitate growth and create jobs. Some conservatives take the position that the government should step aside and let the private sector do what they do best – create jobs. Is job creation really the responsibility of corporations? The 1976 Nobel Prize winner in economics, Milton Friedman, in his book Capitalism and Freedom, called such an idea a "fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society" and states, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
General Motors in previewing a new plant proudly showed a plant full of robots. Will the maximum use of robots in manufacturing create jobs? The Ford Motor Company announced in January of 2006 the closing of fourteen manufacturing plants in North America and cutting between 25000 and 30000 manufacturing jobs and 4000 salaried positions by 2012. In May of 2008 Ford announced an investment of fifteen billion dollars in a new Mexican manufacturing plant. Is Ford is creating jobs in Mexico while cutting employment in the United States?
Cutting employment, not creating jobs, is a major on-going effort within corporations. Managers and industrial engineers are rewarded when they can produce the same production with fewer workers, or when they can increase production with the same number of workers, or best of all, when they can increase production with fewer workers. How does this create jobs? The proponents of corporate efficiency say that when corporations are more efficient profits improve and corporations can expand and create more jobs. Most Americans believe that to be true, but where is the proof that when profits increase more jobs are created? In the last few years the profits of American Corporations have significantly increased, while the country is experiencing very high rates of unemployment. These creators of jobs are sitting on financial surpluses and are not investing, presumably because they are unsure of the economy, even though profits for 2010, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, increased by 36.8 percent and were the highest since 1947.
The Supreme Court decided that corporations are persons, with all the rights and responsibilities that all persons have. It would follow then that corporations are citizens, and like all other citizens should strive to be good citizens. It is time for corporations to step up to the plate and do what we all know they are capable of doing, and what they and their supporters say they do --- create jobs. They could take advantage of the President's Jobs Act and receive tax credits for hiring new employees by, for example promoting job sharing, or in their manufacturing plants work four six hour shifts rather than three eight hour shifts. Both of these suggestions have been tried and proven successful for both the corporation and the employee. They have the expertise to be innovative in other ways that would require more employees, and with government assistance, would cost nothing or very little.
How is it that when the economy improves and unemployment is reduced, corporations get the credit for creating jobs and applause for being innovative, but when the economy is in distress and unemployment increases it's the government's, or more likely, the President's fault. Let's place blame where it belongs, squarely on the greed of American corporations and their managements.
Harry E. Berndt
150 Parsons Ave.
Webster Groves, Missouri 63119 ---
Phone 314-962-1749
The author is a retired St. Louis sociologist
Corporations and Job Creation
By Harry E. Berndt
In almost any discussion about job creation, one hears the American mantra that corporations are job creators and that they should have to pay lower taxes, and have to abide by fewer regulations, in order to facilitate growth and create jobs. Some conservatives take the position that the government should step aside and let the private sector do what they do best – create jobs. Is job creation really the responsibility of corporations? The 1976 Nobel Prize winner in economics, Milton Friedman, in his book Capitalism and Freedom, called such an idea a "fundamentally subversive doctrine in a free society" and states, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
General Motors in previewing a new plant proudly showed a plant full of robots, as many as could be facilitated and designed for a particular job. Will the maximum use of robots in manufacturing create jobs? The Ford Motor Company announced in January of 2006 the closing of fourteen manufacturing plants in North America and cutting between 25000 and 30000 manufacturing jobs and 4000 salaried positions by 2012. In May of 2008 Ford announced an investment of fifteen billion dollars in a new Mexican manufacturing plant. Ford is creating jobs in Mexico while cutting employment in the United States.
Cutting employment, not creating jobs, is a major on-going effort within corporations. Managers and industrial engineers are rewarded when they can produce the same production with fewer workers, or when they can increase production with the same number of workers, or best of all, when they can increase production with fewer workers. How does this create jobs? The proponents of corporate efficiency say that when corporations are more efficient profits improve and corporations can expand and create more jobs. Most Americans believe that to be true, but where is the proof that when profits increase more jobs are created? In the last few years the profits of American Corporations have significantly increased, while the country is experiencing very high rates of unemployment. These great creators of jobs are sitting on financial surpluses and are not investing, presumably because they are unsure of the economy, even though profits for 2010, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, increased by 36.8 percent and were the highest since 1947.
The Supreme Court has decided that corporations are persons, with all the rights and responsibilities that all persons have. It would follow then that corporations are citizens, and like all other citizens should strive to be good citizens. It is time for corporations to step up to the plate and do what we all know they are capable of doing, and what they and their supporters say they do --- create jobs. They could take advantage of the President's Jobs Act and receive tax credits for hiring new employees by, for example promoting job sharing, or in their manufacturing plants work four six hour shifts rather than three eight hour shifts. Both of these suggestions have been tried and proven successful for both the corporation and the employee. They have the expertise to be innovative in other ways that would require more employees, and with government assistance, would cost nothing or very little.
Respect For the Office of the President
There is no excuse for the Republicans' lack of respect for the office of the President. The unwarranted personal attacks on President Obama, by the leaders of the Republican Party, are unprecedented. The media often attacked presidents, but I cannot remember office holders of the opposite party attacking a sitting president.
The present crop of Republicans and their leadership is an embarrassment, and their lack of understanding the art of governance is a danger to the country. If government leaders in our country, Democrats as well as Republicans, are disrespectful toward our President, he becomes weak in the eyes of other world leaders. That this is done purposely to weaken President Obama, in order to defeat him in the coming election, is even more reprehensible.
In the past, the Republican Party has not only stood for smaller government and lower taxes, but also for civil rights and the equal rights amendment. Party leaders were men like Robert Taft (Mr. Republican), Everett Dirksen, Dwight Eisenhower and Gerald Ford. These were Republican Party Leaders and leaders of our country, and they recognized the need for leaders of both parties to respect one another.
Harry E. Berndt
Getting Old
By Harry E. Berndt
I am getting old, I suppose - since
that is what I am told by
those who have not lived
as long as I.
Getting old means living long - to some -
but to me - it means not living well – or
no longer having fun - because
I have as much fun as before.
I bike and run and swim –
and I work out every day
at the pool or at the gym – so
am I old, as they say?
Living has not changed for me -a great deal
nor for many others – I am sure, because for me
life is measured by how you feel
and not by how many years you see.
Getting Old
I am getting old, I suppose - since
that is what I am told by
those who have not lived
as long as I.
Getting old means living long - to some -
but to me - it means not living well – or
no longer having fun - because
I have as much fun as before.
I bike and run and swim –
and I work out every day
at the pool or at the gym – so
am I old, as they say?
Living has not changed for me -a great deal
nor for many others – I am sure, because for me
life is measured by how you feel
and not by how many years you see.
LABOR DAY 2011 and Catholics
By Harry E. Berndt
In this year of high unemployment and sacrifice by workers in almost all levels of employment, it is fitting that Catholics celebrate this Labor Day by reviewing Catholic social teaching. As citizens, Catholics should try to understand how Labor Day came about and how Catholic social teaching relates to workers
On May 1, 1886, when Chicago workers went on strike demanding an eight hour day, May 1 was set aside to honor and support workers. May Day originated in the United States as the International Day of Labor and is celebrated in every country but the United States, Canada, and until 1994 South Africa, when post Apartheid laws became effective. Workers' Day in Canada and Labor Day in the United States are officially celebrated on the first Monday of September. Although not an official holiday, the International Day of Labor, May Day, is still celebrated by many workers in both Canada and the United States. There are those who think that the creation of Labor Day was an attempt to keep American workers separated from workers in those countries that celebrate May Day as the day to honor workers. In 1955, Pope Pius XII established May 1 to be the Feast of St. Joseph the Worker to provide a model and protector for all workers.
It is the Bible that provides the direction and the roots of Catholic social teaching, and it is the Papal Encyclicals that have continued to emphasize the need for justice for workers. The Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, RERUM NOVERUM, set the stage for the encyclicals that followed. In the United States, and indeed in other western democracies, there has always been a debate about whether and how much support the government should provide for its citizens. The encyclicals of the Popes all express the position that the government has a special responsibility to provide a satisfactory quality of life for all. Pope Leo said, "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to special consideration. The richer classes have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that the wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy should be especially cared for and protected by the government."
Pope Pius XI in the Encyclical QUADRAGESIMO ANNO, On Reconstruction of the social Order, said, "Labor, as our predecessor explained well in his encyclical, is not a mere commodity. On the contrary, the worker's human dignity in it must be recognized. It cannot be bought and sold like a commodity." Pius XI affirmed the contention of Leo that the poor and workers are in need of government protection. He also continued Leo's position on the rights of workers to form associations and unions. Pope John Paul II emphasized, as did his predecessors, the right of workers to organize and to strike but more than past Popes, he discusses the concern of the Church for workers in poor countries being exploited for higher profits. His is a strong statement for the solidarity of workers around the world.
Many cities in the United States have priests they call their labor priest. Most are not known outside their own parish or city, but some have attained national and even international recognition. The Papal encyclicals, all taken together, point to the sacredness of work and the worker, the need for justice in the treatment and remuneration of the workers, the right of the worker to form associations and unions, and the use of the strike to gain worker rights and just compensation. The labor priests took these ideas and applied them to their societies. They knew one another and participated in the same activities and were often found to be in the same place at the same time. There was Msgr. Charles Rice, Pittsburgh's Labor Priest. He died at the age of 96 on November 13, 2005, and the obituary in the National Catholic Reporter stated," Charles Owen Rice should be remembered for his feet and his fire – the footfalls on all those picket lines nationwide and the passion of his oratory on behalf of workers. He should be celebrated for his seven decades of devotion as a priest to the cause of peace, equality and economic justice."
Monsignor John A. Shocklee, was referred to by many as the St. Louis labor priest. He led the fight against the "Right to Work" legislation and is largely credited with its defeat in Missouri. Monsignor Shocklee's participation in matters related to labor and labor unions was deep and constant over his entire tenure as a priest. One of his more public stands was with Caesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers and their boycotts of lettuce and grapes. Other notable labor priests include Msgr. John. J. Eagan, the Chicago Labor Priest and Father Edward F. Boyle, Boston's Labor Priest.
Although not referred to as such, Monsignor John a. Ryan, nevertheless, was the first labor priest of the modern era, and those who came later used his work as model to pursue. He was an intellectual, not an activist as were those who were influence by his writings and lectures. He supported the minimum wage and child labor legislation, and he authored the Bishops Program of Social Reconstruction, issued in 1919 in the name of the American Bishops. The Roosevelt Administration adopted many of his recommendations, and his closeness to FDR earned him the title of "right Reverend New Dealer".
Another academician, Msgr. George Higgins, was a professor at Catholic University of America and was often referred to as "America's Labor Priest". He was probably the most prolific writer of the labor priests and had great influence on the Catholic Labor Movement and Catholic social teaching. He was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Clinton, and United Farm Workers leader Cesar Chavez said that no one in the country did more for the farm workers than Msgr. Higgins. He was not an activist on the street, but he was a major advocate for justice for workers.
Today, the United States is faced with a critical economic crisis, which impacts most on workers and the poor. There is much discussion about getting people back to work, but so much difference of opinion as to how that should be accomplished that little is done. While the Democrats want to raise taxes and invest in infrastructure, the Republicans want to lower taxes and reduce the size of government. In their quest for smaller government, state governors are attacking unions by denying union participation by state employees. Boards of Education are reducing the number of teachers and civil service employment is being reduced. All this is being done by state governments whose leaders claim they are working hard to reduce unemployment, but at the same time they are reducing state payrolls to have a balanced budget. On the Federal level, the Republicans are calling for across the board reductions in all federal departments. And yet, they claim to be working hard to reduce unemployment.
No one should accept the present unemployment rate in this country, especially not Catholics. The Papal encyclicals since Leo XIII all shared the dictum that wage-earners should be especially cared for and protected by the government. Reducing employment opportunities seems contrary to the reduction of unemployment.
1278 Words.
Harry E. Berndt
THE WAY IT WAS
By Harry E. Berndt
She was only about five feet four or five. She had steel blue eyes and straight gray hair cut short, and she was a little on the fat side. She also had a loud voice, which seemed to add to her size. I was never able to put my finger on it, but there was something about Annie G that demanded great respect.
She was always called Annie G, rather than Annie Gunners or just plain Annie. It sort of set her off in a way that just plain Annie never would. Some people would call her Mrs. Gunners, of course, but not friends or relatives. All were in awe of her. Annie G seemed less respectful, but more intimate. An example of this respect or power is the time she stopped a petition from being signed. A neighbor came to the door one day with the news that a "nigger" family was going to move into a house down the street. Wouldn't Annie G sign a petition to keep them out? Annie G said that she would take care of the petition and took it from the woman, who more or less bowed to her judgment. Annie G got on the phone and called every person whose name appeared on the petition and said things like "Oh, I just knew that you would never want your name associated with such meanness," or "you know Urban you've had my support all these years." Urban was the mayor, and she had him and everyone take their names off. She told me then that if she ever heard me use the word nigger she'd beat the hell out of me. I wasn't to say hell either until I was old enough to earn my own living. The new neighbors, the Wills, were Annie's friends forever after that, for somehow they heard what Annie G did. That was my first lesson about race.
The Wills had two boys, Marcus who was older and the younger boy whose real name I never learned, but they called him Tappie, and I learned about race from them. I learned mostly from Marcus, because I always looked up to him. He was about three years older than I and Annie G used to have Marcus run errands and do things around the place. She trusted him in a way she never would trust me, no matter how old I was. Every Saturday Annie G would give me and Marcus money to go to the Princess Theater to see the Saturday cowboy movie and the serials such as Tailspin Tommy, Clyde Beatty, and Buck Rogers. The cowboys were Hoot Gibson, Bob Steel, Buck Jones, Ken Maynard and a host of others. We each got ten cents for the movie and five cents for ice cream.
Mr. Kramer owned the movie house and always took tickets on Saturday mornings. Kids under six could get in free if they were with their folks or with a big brother. Marcus would buy one ticket and when we went into the theater Mr. Kramer would say to me "who is this boy?" I would tell him that it was my big brother. "Oh, yes," Mr. Kramer would say, "I see the resemblance." In this way we were able to have at least two ice creams each. I say at least because our favorite things were klondikes, which were purchased at the Islay store. We could get a free one if we had one that had a pink center. There were two kinds of klondikes, vanilla and chocolate. We would always order vanilla first, open the wrapper and check where the chocolate coating might be chipped a little to see if it showed pink. If not, we would say that we really wanted a chocolate klondik, and this way we had two chances each to get a free one. When winning we would take a free card, which could redeem a klondike at some future time. We finally had so many cards for free klondikes that we never had to pay for one.
Marcus was good at everything and he taught me how to play baseball and football, the only real sports in our opinion. He taught me how to play mumbly peg and root-the-peg, buckety-buck, leapfrog and many other games. Mumbly peg is played with a penknife and involves throwing the knife into the ground from different positions on the body. Root-the-peg was just mumbly peg with the addition that the loser of the game had to root a matchstick out of the ground with his teeth. Each player got to hit the matchstick three times with eyes open and three times with eyes closed. The purpose was to drive the matchstick into the ground so deep that the loser had to get a mouth full of dirt to get the matchstick out. Usually Leon Shill and Richard Mason were the losers. They were friends but not best friends like Marcus and I.
For Buckety-buck you needed at least six or eight players, making up two teams. You needed someone who could act as post, which was sort of referee. One team would bend over, each member making a back and resting his shoulder on the buttocks of the boy in front of him. The other team would leap in the air and land on the backs of the team that was down, with the purpose of causing them to cave in. If they did not cave in, the team on top would say, "buckety-buck, how many fingers up." The captain of the down team would have to guess the number of fingers the captain of the up team held up. The post would verify the number. If the guess was right, places were exchanged. If not, the process started over again. The idea of the game was to find one guy to hit, and have everyone on the up team leap on his and one another's backs to cause him to cave.
In leapfrog, each player would jump from a point called the cut-point. The one who
jumped the shortest distance would be down and would make a back that is bent at the waist for the other players to leap over. He would pick from the players one boy to act as the cutter. Each time the cutter went over his back he advanced forward to the point where the cutter landed. Every player would then have to leap over from the cut mark. If any failed, he would then be down and the process would start over. The only thing was that the cutter had to be successful or he would be the one to make a back.
Annie G was a great shopper, and used to take the train into Pittsburgh two or three times every week so that she could shop. She shopped for everyone in the family. She shopped for all the cousins, aunts, uncles, and in-laws, and for her friends as well. She went to stores like Kaufmanns, Horns, Rosenbaums, Gimbels and Sacs, and in each store she had special salespeople. They were all women of course, and they would put special bargains away for her. As I grew up, all my hats were bought from one special woman, as were my suits, my shoes, and gloves, shirts and underwear. When I finally left town, I had to go to each of the women to say goodbye and get a goodbye kiss.
When I went to Pittsburgh with her, Annie G would give me a dollar, drop me in the toy department at Kaufmanns and go about her business. She would come back and get me when she moved to another store, where she would drop me in the toy department while she shopped that store. In those times, it was not unusual to find children playing with the toys in the large department stores. Sometimes, I would wander out into downtown Pittsburgh and look into stores, bars, movie houses, and even look at the pictures at the burlesque house. Maybe I would get some ice cream or a white castle hamburger across from Pennsylvania station, and then go back and sooner or later we would find one another.
Sometimes we would go to Horn's Tearoom for lunch, where I would have scallops and then mints afterwards. At the entrance to Horn's Tearoom there was a parrot on a perch that actually would say, "Polly wants a cracker."
When walking from one store to another, Annie would sometimes display her authority as we crossed streets. She had a balance problem and walked with a cane, which she shook at cars that would dare move in her direction as she crossed the street. It was her position that once she put her foot off the curb she had the right-of-way and traffic would just have to wait until she crossed. Walking with Annie was a test of wills, hers and the drivers of cars. When all the stores closed and we had dinner, we would take the last train back to Glasstown.
In addition to Annie G. and me, the household consisted of two men, my grandfather and Uncle Jack, who was really not my real uncle but after whom I was named. In fact, Jack was not a blood relative. The story was that he came to live with them to get back on his feet after a business failure. He just never left. I always wondered whose friend he was, because Jack and my grandfather never seemed to be friendly. In fact, they were never together. Neither of them had much to say about anything that I knew about. Annie G was the boss.
My grandfather's name was George. He worked at the window house, where it was purported that he had invented many improvements for making window glass. Although we lived in the same house, I seldom saw my grandfather. He rarely had dinner with the family, and almost never spoke to me. He once gave me a penny and told me that he would give him another if I kept it for a week.
My grandfather was tall, well over six feet, and he was thin to the point of almost being gaunt. He did not smoke or drink, although he had tried both at one time or another. It was told about him that he tried everything once and that was that. He tried flying once, went to Europe once, and even went to a whorehouse once. He would not have a car, after one of his daughters was killed in an auto crash, so he walked everywhere. Of course, that was no great chore in Glasstown, especially since he only went from his house to the factory and back. I was told that my grandfather was very witty and brilliant. To me, he seemed very strange and distant.
If there was a male influence in my life it was Uncle Jack. In fact I was often referred to as Jack's kid, not meaning his natural son but rather his kid in the sense that we were always together and liked one another. My mother, who lived and worked away from home used to call Jack our Dutch uncle. Jack was always there for whatever I needed or wanted. He never said no.
Jack took me everywhere with him. When I was very little, before I started school, Jack would take me to Manards Speakeasy down on Third Street. He would put me on a high stool, give me a hat full of nickels, and let me play the slot machine. Jack would usually sit with some ladies and drink and talk. He drank his whiskey neat and followed it up with a beer chaser. In those days a whiskey and beer chaser cost 15 cents. Mr. Horn, Jack's best friend, usually kept me in root beer and peanuts, not to mention the free lunch that was laid out at the end of the bar. The free lunch included all kinds of meats; corn-beef, roast beef, ham, goose-liver, and different kinds of cheeses. My favorite was Swiss cheese on rye bread, covered with hot mustard. I thought the speakeasy was the most elegant place in the world and the free lunch the best treat. What were really elegant were the spittoons and the foot rail that ran the length of the bar. They were high polished brass. You could see your face in the spittoon if you were little and could get down to one of them.
Eventually Jack would have enough and we would head for home holding hands and staggering from one side of the sidewalk to the other. There was always hell to pay when we got home, but it was worth it. When we got to the end of our street, Jack's dog Zip would generally be waiting. If Jack was particularly drunk, that is more than usual; Zip would put his tail between his legs, hang his head, and walk in front of us like he didn't know us. When things were more or less ok, he would walk next to Jack and wag his tail the whole way home.
The best thing Jack and I did together was go to Forbes Field to the Pittsburgh Pirate's games. Jack had a box and was a high roller. He knew all the players, which made me feel very important. This was before lighted fields so the games were all in the afternoon. One or two of Jack's cronies would always be along. Most of the time we would all go to twilight game in Glastown after the Pittsburgh game. The Pirates had a farm team there, the Glastown Pirates.
Every summer Jack's factory had a picnic. It was always held in a grove outside of town. It was the kind of picnic where everyone drank and ate too much. Jack usually would play pinochle with friends and have me go after pails of beer and hot dogs. Each time I got a pail for Jack, I would drink part of it. Jack would never know the difference, but when we would get home both would of us would be pretty drunk and Annie G. would raise holy hell.
The highlight of the picnic though was the greased pig contest and the tug of war. The tug of war was held over a large pool of mud and the purpose was to pull the other team into the mud. Usually both teams would end up muddy. The tug of war teams were usually made up of men from different parts of the factory, usually one from the pressing crew, that is the mold pullers and pressers, and one from the glass blowing crew.
The greased pig contest was a free-for-all. Whoever caught the greased pig got to keep it and a ten-dollar prize. It was really something to see everyone jumping at the pig as it ran around the field. Kids were the major chasers, but it was always a grown man who caught the pig. Kids did better on the greased flagpole contest, at least the older boys. Again, a ten-dollar bill would be taped on the top of a flagpole, the flagpole greased about three or four feet below the top, and whoever was able to climb beyond the barrier got the ten dollars. I tried that every year while I was growing up, but never made it beyond the greased area.
These were the hey-days of my life and nothing would ever seem so right again. Even though the depression was in full bloom, for me these were days full of play and fun and, though I often saw people who were having hard times, these days were for me the best. I saw hoboes and gypsies and people who were poor, but they remained distant from the main currents of my life.
Glasstown was right on the main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad and in the middle of the great American factory system. All along the road from Pittsburgh were steel mills, foundries, machine shops, and all manner of manufacturing plants. Glasstown was, as suggested by the name, the center of glass manufacturing with seven or eight glass factories, along with machine shops, a brewery, a foundry, several other factories, and coal mines in the surrounding area. Between the factories, mines, and the railroad, there was not an inch of air that did not contain soot or filth of one kind or another. It was impossible to walk a block without having soot or dirt get on your face or clothes. This was especially true in what was called "down-town" and on the South Side and West End, where most of the factories were. These were also the areas of town where blacks, Italians, and others with foreign sounding names lived, as they were also the factory workers.
The high school was also located on the South Side, right next to a factory and close to downtown. It had all the appearances of a factory, and the transition from high school to factory was easy. It was the lot of most of the students. Only star football players and a few of the more fortunate went on to college. For the rest, it was the factory. Mostly the glass factory, where they expected to work, and for most of them it was probably where they would spend most of their lives.
Many of the boys started working in the factories while still in school. I used to catch turns at one of the factories, the Victory Glass Company, when I was about thirteen. Catching turns was a term used to describe pick-up employment. You weren't considered an employee of the factory and there was no real record of your ever having been there. The way it worked was that you would sit with a bunch of other boys and men outside one of the open entrances to the factory, and the foreman would come out and choose several to work the shift. The foreman would pay cash out of his pocket at the end of the shift, so there was no record of those who caught a turn that shift.
I would try to catch a turn on Fridays, because Friday was payday and there were always those who got their pay early and would be too drunk to work. When I first tried to catch a turn, I found the factory a very scary place. It was hot, with smoke and fire which seemed to be everywhere and there was so much noise that I often found it hard to hear what the foreman was telling me I was to do. My first job was "Carry-in Boy", which involved carrying a pan of pressed glass over to the leer, a conveyer belt that carried the glass from the factory area to the packing area. The belt moved slowly and the heat was reduced in the leer as it went along. The Carry-in Boy was the low man on the totem pole and was usually the butt of all the jokes and pranks, some of which were dangerous. The Gatherer gathered the molten glass from the tank, using a long pole with putty on the end and placed it in the mold to be pressed. The Gatherer would sometimes toss the molten glass at someone - usually the Carry-in-Boy. This was thought of as a huge joke, but if the target was too slow to move out of the way, it could be dangerous.
The pay for catching turns was about 35 cents an hour, or $2.80 a shift. It wasn't long before I knew how to do all the jobs except those of Gatherer, Presser, and Glass Blower. That is, I learned the Carry-in-Boy's job, the Mold-Pullers job, and I learned how to clean molds.
When I turned sixteen I got a job at the Pennsylvania Glass Company, which paid 50 cents an hour. The war was on and the factories went to the high school to recruit students to fill the jobs left by the men who went into the service. During the war the workers in the factories included women, older men, and boys recruited from the high school.
The Pennsylvania glass company was more modern than the Victory Glass Company and a lot hotter. The molds were on circular tables that revolved. Instead of a Gatherer placing the molten glass in the mold, the molten glass dropped from a tank above into the molds as they revolved. As they revolved, air blew into them until they came to the front where a worker would remove the glass from the mold using a handling tool and place it into a pan for the Carry-in-Boy to take it to the leer. This method eliminated the high paying skilled jobs of Gatherer and Presser, and placed everyone on an hourly rate. Pressers and Gatherers were paid on a piece-work system and earned significantly more than the unskilled labor. Because of the massive size of the tanks, the factory was very hot. It was so hot that the turn-out workers would develop heat blisters on their hands, and often on their face. At the end of the shift these workers would pierce the blisters using needles.
I made up my mind very early that that was not the life for me. I decided then that I would go on to college and get better employment. At that time, the early 1930s, not very many students went on to college. For most families, the boy or girl graduating from high school would be the first in their family to get a high school education. Those fortunate enough to go to college were either athletes, who could get athletic scholarships, or were from families that could afford tuition. After the war, all that was changed, at least for those who went into service. The G.I. Bill made it possible for all who served in the armed forces during WW II to get a college education. That's the way it was!
The Old Woman and the Boat
(A Velha E O BARCO)
By Ernesto Leal
Translated from the Portuguese by Harry E. Berndt
The tancar is a type of boat which is larger than a sampan and smaller than a river junk. It is a shapely boat which, floating, has the form of a sea-gull with its neck cut up short in the water. It is five yards long by five feet wide and in the middle, a little to the stern, there s a small, round awning that covers about a third of the boat. Inside, everything seems to be build to scale; steps, stools, stowage holes, trap-doors, utensils, everything, even the straw mats rolled up for the day.
The Chinese rivers and ports are filled with tancars around which life revolves. For on board the tancar the female population is born, lives and dies. The men---the men go ashore, for the "house" is not roomy: and they work somewhere; or they do not work. The young women also go out; they go to the market, or they run errands, or, if they are comely, they simply go out. It is the old woman and the babe who are left behind. The babe with a string passed under his arm-pits and around his chest and a bottle gourd secured by the string on his back so that, if he falls, the gourd and he will float until the old woman, his or some other old woman, hears and runs to pull him out. Boards are laid between the boats for dogs and pedestrians to pass back and forth and these boards act also as the yard for the babe and his playmates. Like all kids, they play in the yard all day.
So the old woman is left alone. She is always left alone. She cooks, she sews, she washes and tidies up. She walks swiftly in the boat, but she is squatting while she walks. She squats when she cooks; she washes squatting – she squatting lives.
The old woman knows all the rules by heart and, since she follows all the rules, she is virtuous. The rules tell her how to live every day – all her life. On New Year's Day she places strips of red paper here and there around the boat. When there is mourning, strips of white are hung, and the appropriate lantern is put up for the moon festivities. Everything is done according to rule – the old woman sees to it. The old woman's virtue is extended to the boat and, therefore, the boat too is virtuous.
The old woman rubs and scrubs and polishes the boat, and because of all the rubbing, the wooden inside the tancar looks polished as if waxed and every edge has gone blunt the same as the stairway of an old convent. In the convent it's the feet passing and passing that has made the steps worn and polished. In the boat it's the old woman's arms, hands, legs, and back that have worn and rounded all the corners and edges of the boat. The wood has become lighter; it resembles the old woman's skin. The old woman's skin has gone darker; it looks like the wood, and it looks waxed too. The Brownish old woman's skin shows veins like the wood; the wood shows veins like the old woman's, and the old woman's body has bent to the boat. Her fingers and toes, even her hands and feet can go into every hole in the boat.
The river or sea water pats the hull of the boat: tchap--- tchap--- tchap--- like the gentle stroking of her lover. When the old woman prepares the meals, the smoke comes out of the make-shift flu and the water makes tchaaap --- tchaap, and the boat roles gaily. If the old woman sews the water makes tchap, tchap, and the boat dances lazily like lovers do making plans – contented. If the old woman sits and thinks and looks on, looks at nobody knows what, the water laps the boat so gently, so very gently that the boat is motionless. The old woman pisses into the water; she throws her dirty wash water back into the sea water – the same water she uses to wash her teeth and to do the endless cleaning that the old woman has to do. The water is the color of clay. It is brown. The water is everywhere; it is the environment.
The boat breathes through the old woman's lungs, grunts through the old woman's throat, works with the old woman's hands. The old woman's roots in the world are the boat. When the old woman leaves the boat, which is almost never, she moves like a crab with one shoulder high and forward and one shoulder low and seemingly pulled back. Her legs are bent and her knees protrude outwards, and she is as tall as a child. The boat hull and keel are being cleaned and it too looks somewhat pulled and twisted. The boat and the old woman, one without the other, look deformed.
So the old woman and the boat go through life. They know it all from the shrill cry of birth, to the gentle singing of the bride, to the sad moan of death. Then, finally, the typhoon named t'ai-fong or great wind comes; the boat disappears into the bosom of the water --- the old woman disappears.
NOTE: This story was part of a book of short stories by Ernesto Leal, published in 1959 --- PREMIO – ATICA. Ernesto and were friends when I worked and lived in Lisbon in 1959 – 1960. His stories are about his experiences while an officer in the Portuguese Army stationed in Macau. He left the army and worked for a time at the United States Embassy in Lisbon and later for Firestone Portuguesa. The translation is the best that I could do with a less than proficient grasp of Portuguese.
Harry E. Berndt
War is Peace; Ignorance is Strength
By Harry E. Berndt
Sick and tired of the present tenor of political discussion in the United States, I have decided to spend more of my time in pursuits other than those relating to the present political madness. While reading George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was published in 1949, I couldn't help but think of the prescient nature of the novel in relation to today. War is described as being one of "limited aims between combatants unable to destroy one another" and who "have no material cause for fighting". Orwell describes war as a war of rape and pillage, which is considered normal and meritorious when committed by one's country; not by the enemy. It is a war fought by a very few specialists and is continuous, and for this reason it ceases to be dangerous.
The United States has been at war more or less continuously since after WWII, and we often hear from our service men and women that they don't know what their war is all about. Almost daily, we learn that there has been collateral damage; i.e., many civilian deaths, and we are sorry about the civilian deaths. But that is what happens in war. Of course, the enemy kills many innocent women and children for absolutely no reason. Those we call atrocities.
Although we feel threatened, because we are constantly told that we must always be vigilant, most of us have little or no stake in the present conflicts. These wars are fought by about one percent of our people, and most are the very young, many of whom are also very poor. The rest of us make no real sacrifice, and for all of our chest beating we are removed from the suffering that comes when sons and daughters are killed or wounded. There is no draft, so the armed forces are made up of volunteers, accept for that part of the war that is privatized and managed by mercenaries. A dangerous precedent! And since the services are made up of volunteers, it is presumed that the decision to volunteer is freely chosen. But that is only partially true, because many have no other real alternative. The choice is often between living in poverty and volunteering.
As war becomes more impersonal and technologically advanced, it also becomes further removed from our lives and from our control. Much of the mayhem and killing by drones is triggered in the Nevada dessert or in Dayton, Ohio, many miles from the target somewhere in the Middle East. No longer does the killer see his victim, and no longer is he in danger of being killed or wounded. All of this impersonal killing, along with no real sacrifice by most of society, facilitates war forever. In addition, since so much of our society depends on the defense industry, our representatives in government find it difficult to deny the Pentagon any request for additional funds for the development of new and more terrifying weapons.
It isn't that the leaders of our country seek ways to get involved in wars, and certainly it isn't the desire of the American people to continue the pursuit of war. However, war has become an institution entrenched in both the corporate and military worlds, aptly named by President Eisenhower as our Military-Industrial complex. Eisenhower's warning of the dangers of the growth of the Military-Industrial complex went unheeded. It now seems impossible to extricate our nation from this wasteful drain on our economy and the terrible toll and sacrifice of our youth, who are serving our country.
In Orwell's novel, everything that the society thought or believed, everything that characterizes a way of thinking, was controlled by what Orwell termed doublethink. Today the internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines and a host of other sources, pour forth mountains of information 24 hours every day. So much information and so little time to digest it often can mean that nothing is really ever learned about anything. Charlatans, who flourish in our society, wink at lying for profit and manipulate people to accept positions that create societal myths and false perceptions of reality. For example, any social legislation designed to benefit the general population or the poor is referred to as socialism or liberalism, terms that have been demonized, and whose meanings have been distorted.
The current leadership malaise in government is reflected by the Republicans' and Democrats' failure to compromise on the recent fiscal crisis. The majority of Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge never to increase taxes have abrogated their ability to govern, if they are to abide by their pledge. Their ability to address the pressing problems arising from poverty and the potential demands of warfare are rendered ineffectual. If politics is the art of compromise, how can the Republican legislators effectively act as co-partners in governance? The present economic crisis strongly indicates that they fail to recognize the need for compromise. On the other hand, the Democrats are more than willing to compromise, hoping to get the support of the independent voters. The decision on the part of the Republicans results from the fear of the Tea Party and their possible strength in the coming elections. The legislators of both parties are too concerned with getting reelected.
In the Republic, Plato discusses the civil degeneracy of types of government as compared to his ideal state. On democracy he mentions that the fiercest members of the masses speak and act out, while the rest follow and won't hear of any opposition. He states, "So long as men think that government is the art of obtaining office. And that it is the business of the ruler to follow the whims and ignorant opinions of the multitude; so long will society have no use for the philosopher." In the case of the present Tea Party and their followers, they have no use for science, or at least for that science not in agreement with their ideology.
Posted July 20, 2011
Is So Much Too Much
By Harry E. Berndt
The Internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and a host of other sources for information pour forth mountains of information 24 hours every day. Many people the world over work many hours each day – ten hour shifts are common, and some people work two jobs, and many work six or seven days a week. So much information and so little time to digest it often can mean that nothing is really ever learned about anything. But one must be an informed citizen or face being manipulated by charlatans who flourish in a society that winks at lying for profit. Perhaps a little information from reliable sources, obtained by the individual, would trump the plethora of information stemming from radio and TV talk programs? Oh, right, who has the time?
Children are expected to attend classes five and a half or six hours a day and take home demands for several hours of homework. Many children are also expected to become proficient in one or another sport – tennis, ice hockey, swimming, skiing, baseball, football, gymnastics, etc. An article which appeared in the New York Times, Sports Training Has Begun for Babies and Toddlers quotes one owner of a sports program for infants stating that she hears all the time from parents who say, "Our kids are superstars when they're in middle school and they get into sports". According to the article, these programs exist in some 200 locations with 157 in the United States. "There are millions of American parents worried to death that their children might fall behind somebody else's kid." Is so much training and homework too much for our children? When do they have the opportunity just to play and use their imaginations and creativity? And through all of this, adults are with them almost every minute. I'm old and can remember when adults were considered by children to be another race and were never seen except at dinner. Adults were around and certainly were aware of what children were up to, but they were not part of the children's play; they didn't hover around and were not coaches or cheer leaders for their kid's team. The kids scheduled their own games with the kids on another street. Everyone wants to be a winner, and kids wanted to be winners, but that was not the driving point – playing the game was the point. Is so much control over what children do really better for them than having them use their imaginations and creativity to create their own rules of the game?
Political Leadership and Governance
The present crop of Republicans is bereft of responsible leadership, as reflected by their titular leader's statement that"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president." In addition, the majority of Republicans who signed the Grover Norquist pledge never to increase taxes have abrogated their ability to govern, if they are to abide by their pledge. Their ability to address the pressing problems arising from poverty and the potential demands of warfare are rendered ineffectual. If politics is the art of compromise, how can the Republican Legislators effectively act as co-partners in governance? The present economic crisis strongly indicates that they fail to recognize the need for compromise, and that their attitude reflects allegiance to their party rather than allegiance to the United States.
How did it happen that the Republican Party became so inadequate, so miserable and pathetic? It certainly has not always been so. At other times the Republican Party not only stood for smaller government and low taxes, the party and its leaders also stood for Civil Rights, and was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights legislation would probably not have passed if it had not been for Republican Senator Everett Dirksen. Robert Taft, Mr. Republican, stood in the Senate and denounced our internment of the Japanese – the only one to have the courage to do so at a time of national fear of invasion and hatred of the enemy. An example of statesmanship was President Dwight Eisenhower's warning of the military- industrial complex; a warning unheeded by subsequent national leaders. And Gerald Ford brought dignity and compromise to the office of the President after the tragedy of the Nixon scandal. These men were politicians practicing the honorable art of politics as committed leaders of our country. They were not just leaders of the Republican Party seeking political power, although they were that, too, but they recognized that the art of politics is compromise. These are the kind of leaders needed at this time of national crisis. Unfortunately, they are dead!
Harry E. Berndt
150 Parsons Ave.
Webster Groves, MO 63119
Phone: 314-962-1749 ---Email: hberndt1926@sbcglobal.net
Posted July 20, 2011
Is So Much Too Much
By Harry E. Berndt
The Internet, television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and a host of other sources for information pour forth mountains of information 24 hours every day. Many people the world over work many hours each day – ten hour shifts are common, and some people work two jobs, and many work six or seven days a week. So much information and so little time to digest it often can mean that nothing is really ever learned about anything. But one must be an informed citizen or face being manipulated by charlatans who flourish in a society that winks at lying for profit. Perhaps a little information from reliable sources, obtained by the individual, would trump the plethora of information stemming from radio and TV talk programs? Oh, right, who has the time?
Children are expected to attend classes five and a half or six hours a day and take home demands for several hours of homework. Many children are also expected to become proficient in one or another sport – tennis, ice hockey, swimming, skiing, baseball, football, gymnastics, etc. An article which appeared in the New York Times, Sports Training Has Begun for Babies and Toddlers quotes one owner of a sports program for infants stating that she hears all the time from parents who say, "Our kids are superstars when they're in middle school and they get into sports". According to the article, these programs exist in some 200 locations with 157 in the United States. "There are millions of American parents worried to death that their children might fall behind somebody else's kid." Is so much training and homework too much for our children? When do they have the opportunity just to play and use their imaginations and creativity? And through all of this, adults are with them almost every minute. I'm old and can remember when adults were considered by children to be another race and were never seen except at dinner. Adults were around and certainly were aware of what children were up to, but they were not part of the children's play; they didn't hover around and were not coaches or cheer leaders for their kid's team. The kids scheduled their own games with the kids on another street. Everyone wants to be a winner, and kids wanted to be winners, but that was not the driving point – playing the game was the point. Is so much control over what children do really better for them than having them use their imaginations and creativity to create their own rules of the game?
February 25, 2005
the quallity of life
By Harry E. Berndt
When economists write concerning the health of the economy, they often look at factors such as gross domestic product (GDP), unemployment, the trade deficit, interest rates, and stock market performance to gage the health of the economy. Many people translate those indices as an indication of the quality of life enjoyed in a country. Economists seldom mention factors such as availability of health care, public transportation, child care, education costs, vacation time, average hours of work experienced by workers, or the availability of housing as the determiner of the health of the economy. Their concern is with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. They do not address the quality of life produced by the economic factors addressed. It is taken for granted that if there is a high GDP, low unemployment, low interest rates, and a strong stock market, then the health of the economy is good. But is it? If all of those indicators are in the positive column, does that necessarily mean that the quality of life provided is also in the positive column?
Posted by pete at 11:46 AM 0 comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
I DIED
By Harry E. Berndt
I dreamed that I died and woke up in a place with no name, or at least no name I knew. I dreamed that I said to myself: "Well, here I am. But where"? In my dream I died, but I am not really sure of where I finally landed. The body was to be cremated and the ashes buried in the backyard with the pets, but here I am in a place not named. It doesn't seem like much – wherever it is. It isn't one of those places we learned about in catechism Class. I could never figure out what people were talking about when they spoke of Heaven and Hell and Purgatory, or even Limbo where babies not baptized ended up. This can't be Heaven, because Heaven is supposed to be a great place to go. No one ever said why it was so great or even what made it great, except that you got to see God, and St. Peter let you in if you were worthy. Most people seemed to figure that they were going to end up in Heaven because they were good, which means that they didn't kill anyone who didn't need to be killed, didn't smoke or drink too much, didn't steal, fornicated only when their passions got the best of them, for which they were sorry, and they voted straight Republican. The Bible has the poor in spirit going to Heaven, and Heaven is where God and His Angels are located, so it must be a place. The Bible refers to Heaven as a Kingdom, i.e., the Kingdom of Heaven. It seems that it is supposed to be a happy place where the good people go when they die. I don't think this is it.
Hell, on the other hand, is another matter, I thought. You would know if you were in Hell, unless you were in Purgatory, which is like Hell except that you are supposed to be able to get out, whereas hell is for keeps. Lots of people say that Hell is right here in the earth, but in the lower regions of the earth, an area of fire and brimstone. Those assigned there suffer until judgment day when everyone gets a chance to learn about them and then, I guess, they get sent back to Hell. Dante identified nine circles of Hell and placed all of his political enemies in Hell according to their particular crimes, sins, or reasons for him to hate them. In his Inferno, Hell contained many conditions of pain, none of which was very pleasant, and there were circles of both fire and ice, with the ninth and last circle being frozen. I don't think this is Hell.
Dante waited for Virgil to lead him to the river Acheron and to the steersman Charon, who would ferry them across Acheron and into hell, but I can't think of anyone who would do that for me. I don't know how that happened for Dante, since he and Virgil lived at different times. Wouldn't it be great if, say Walt Whitman, would come by and take me by the hand and say that he would lead me through Hell and Purgatory and take me to Paradise where I would meet up with my fantasy woman who would lead me through all the levels of Paradise where we would meet the Angels and Saints and where the mysteries of life and death and Justice and Love would all be explained. I doubted that that would happen.
I dreamed that I doze off in this unlikely room of no description and woke to find Walt Whitman. This is the very thing I wondered about! But he doesn't take my hand to lead me through Heaven and Hell. He explains that a friend who loved me very much worried that I was in danger of ending up in the worst place possible and she asked Walt to straighten me out. "Obviously you were denied the benefits of Faith", he said, "or you would not be in the fix you are in." "But if that is true, how is it my fault", I asked? "Like everything else that goes wrong in life", he said, "it's your mother's fault, and I can't help you."
I awakened in a cold sweat and was very fearful until I realized that it was nothing but a dream. But was it only a dream and nothing more? Freud explained that dreams have meaning. As I thought about that I became very calm, almost happy. The dream gave me the secret of a happy life: IT'S NOT MY FAULT!
Webster Groves, Missouri
January 21, 2011
785 words
Posted by pete at 7:20 AM 0 comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
Brooding
By Harry E. Berndt
I have been sitting on my front porch most of this morning and early afternoon, and I marvel at the beauty which surrounds me – the tall Oak trees, smaller Dogwoods and Red Buds, and the medium height Tulip and River Birch. The weather today is the closest to perfection that it ever gets and sitting on my porch on such a day is just that --- perfect!
Sitting there on my porch, watching the birds and the squirrels scrambling around for food and whatever, being very well at 84 years of age, I couldn't help but wonder why I am so blessed. It certainly is not due to anything that I have done or not done, although I have participated in my society as has most people. It obviously has nothing to do with worthiness, since I am not more worthy than other humans.
If I am not more worthy than those others who suffer from war, poverty, lack of food and potable water, and closer to home the unemployed, and those suffering from the injustices endemic in our society, what about you. Are you more worthy? I suspect No
Posted by pete at 6:32 PM 0 comments
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Google Buzz
