Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings:

Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings:: Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings: : Berndt Musings: Political Leadership and Governance By Harry E. Berndt The present crop of Repu...

A LAST WORD

By Harry Berndt E. Berndt

 

As one ages there is an inevitable decline in abilities, but is there also a possible concurrent improvement in one’s insights? When short term memory declines, long term memory sometimes improves. Long term memory improvement is not because short term memory seems to be diminished, but rather because both occur more or less simultaneously as part of the aging process; short term memory because of declining ability and long term memory because of nostalgia, a longing to understand the currents of one’s life. An understanding of History, in this case the history of one’s life, provides insights not available to those who depend on the immediate: who depend on short term memory for insights into the verities of life. Older adults are often considered conservative, but they are not necessarily conservative relative to politics or economics; it has more to do with being conservative relative to societal norms and social issues.   

As a young person living in a rather small industrial town in Western Pennsylvania, I and all the people I knew had never knowingly met or knew a person now referred to as Gay. The word had yet to be invented, and what was termed homosexuality, or vulgarly referred to as queer, was considered as sexually deviant and laws existed criminalizing such behavior. For the most part, we never discussed or thought about the existence of people living that particular life style. It should not be difficult to understand why people born in the 1920s or 1930s find the idea of same sex marriage untenable. Of course, that is not to say that the more cosmopolitan sophisticates among us were unaware or even unaccepting of the gay life style, but for the majority of small town residents the subject was never broached.

 People born after WW II are more likely to better understand society’s changing mores and better able to accept the Gay life style and same sex marriage. Those of us of an older cohort find it more difficult, but most are coming to accept the inevitable, especially those of us considered to be socially liberal. Social conservatives hold to the one man/one woman sexual and marriage position, often basing that position on religious belief.

Once same sex marriage is established and accepted by society the rules and definition of what is meant by marriage will become the issue. Is marriage all about sex and should the saying or song go “Sex and Marriage” rather than “Love and Marriage”? Actually humans, and I suspect most other species as well, are sexual from birth to death. Also, we love all of our lives, which is not necessarily related to sexuality. In either case, it is the mode that is particular to each of us and to each other. Whether one’s sexuality or love is directed toward the same gendered person or that of the opposite is not to be questioned. Then the real question becomes what is meant by marriage. Is marriage about love, sex, both or neither? If one looks to the history of marriage it becomes evident that historically marriage was about contracts. It is still the most prevalent element involving marriage and family. In many, if not most, parts of the world arranged marriages are now and have always been the dominant mode. Contracts are commitments, and the contract of marriage is that of commitment. The phrase “in sickness and in health, for better or for worse unto death do us part” means commitment in the face of all obstacles. It would certainly seem that Gay couples are as capable of fulfilling that commitment as are heterosexual couples. The real problems confronting marriage today, especially in those countries referred to as being in the West Orbit rather than that of the East or Middle East, are not about same sex or heterosexual; they are much more about commitment and stability.

                          

Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings:

Berndt Musings: Berndt Musings:: Berndt Musings: Political Leadership and Governance By Harry E. Berndt The present crop of Republicans is bereft of responsible l...

Berndt Musings:

Berndt Musings:

Political Leadership and Governance

By Harry E. Berndt

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

The Charity Game

By Harry E. Berndt

In thinking of our Safety Net in this country and problems that loom large internationally, it occurred to me that we do not address either at home or abroad in a very intelligent way. Humans around the world, including us, tend to empathies and are charitable toward those of us needing help. People are charitable. I question, however, whether personal charity and the religious community efficiently address the problems humanity faces. Nations have deep pockets and organizational skills that are brought to bear on problems of hunger and disease, but somehow that is not enough. In addition, there are literally hundreds of not-for-profit organizations that have been created to take up the slack and address these problems. In fact, there are over a million registered charities, but not all of them solicit individual donors. With all of this, we still seem unable to accomplish all that we should to alleviate problems of hunger, disease, injustice, and violence around the world. Are we efficient in our approach or could we find a better way? I am posing the question, not answering it. I believe that there must be a better way.

During April of this year I received over 50 requests for contributions by postal service mail, many telephone solicitations and many email solicitations. Of the postal service requests, seven were from animal rights organizations, seventeen from food and poverty provider organizations, fifteen from medical assistance organizations, three from veteran organizations, three from justice related organizations, two from environmental organizations, and five from community related organizations. I believe that all were for very worthy causes making it a challenge to determine how to best address the needs made apparent by the requesting groups. All of us who receive so many worthy requests would like to be able to support all of them. With limited resources this is not possible, placing the decision to choose which has the greatest needs.

What becomes incredibly apparent is that our approach to these problems is not just inefficient but abysmally wasteful. New charities seem to emerge with regularity, if not daily, and most have significant administration costs – CEOs, professional fund raisers, the cost of mailings and other necessary forms of communicating need, and finally the cost of delivering assistance. The amount of duplication of services is significant, even considering the target specificity that exists. It is fair to assume that large amounts of the money donated is never used for the intended purpose. If the assumption has merit, why do we persist depending on charities to provide what is obviously the responsibility of government? Would we need so much dependence on charities if our safety net adequately provided food, shelter, education, and health care for all of our citizens? This is not to imply that there is no place for charity or that contributions to charitable organizations are never needed. Governments have limitations and in times of calamities are often slow to respond, especially when there are global considerations. That our government does not provide an adequate safety net, making it necessary for many of our citizens to depend on their churches and other charitable organizations for their daily needs, is reflected in the outcomes in all the above mentioned areas when compared with other advanced societies. Our society is one the wealthiest; so the question is why do we lag behind? Answers are welcome!

Gun Control

Gun Control

By Harry E. Berndt

There has been a mountain of discussion and articles relating to gun control since the tragedy of the children and teachers in Newtown. Most of the discussion focused on assault weapons, and control of such weapons must be initiated. However, over seventy percent of gun related deaths and injuries result from the use of hand guns. All of the articles provided much needed information and suggestions, but I would like to add to the discussion and focus on hand guns. I am, however, very aware that the following is a radical proposal and could never be adopted in the United States. It could not be adopted, not because it is not possible, but rather because the gun myths in the United States are so ingrained that it is next to impossible to discuss limiting gun ownership. Nevertheless, the article might engender more thoughtful dialogue.

In our society, one must obtain a license to serve liquor. Often the license is expensive and difficult to obtain, and some restaurants operate without offering liquor. Why not require a license to sell hand guns, and why not make it very expensive to obtain? In the 1950’s I lived in Utah and individuals were required to buy a license before they could purchase liquor from the state run liquor stores. Why not require people who wish to purchase hand guns purchase a license and make the cost of purchase extremely expensive? The seller would be required to record the serial number of the gun and the license number of the purchaser. Those who already have guns, and we know there are millions who do, should also be required to obtain a license. Those who for one or another reason are found without a license would face court imposed punishment.

We can talk all we want about the problems of mental illness and guns, but the real problem will not be resolved unless we reduce the availability of hand guns. We should also impose every legal means to dissuade the manufacturing of guns. For too long those who profit from the manufacture of hand guns have been free of onerous regulations. For example, user safety mechanisms such as trigger locks should be made mandatory.

If properly done, all of the above could impose huge costs on the purchase of hand guns and might dissuade many from owning a hand gun. One reason for the success of gun control in some nations is that it is difficult and expensive to own a gun. The problem is not the people; the problem is guns. It is the good people, people like you and me, people who can pass background checks, that are a large part of the problem and who are responsible for many hand gun deaths. The idea that mental illness is a major cause of the problem is beyond belief. Mass murders are horrific and may be caused often by mentally disturbed people, but mass murders are a small part of the overall problem of gun deaths in this country. We should focus on getting rid of the guns by making manufacturing, sales, and ownership very difficult and very expensive.

.

.