We've lost the war on illegal immigration from Mexico. We've lost the war on drugs. It's time to simply open the border and allow free movement of people rather than just drugs and consumer goods. What are we afraid of? Mexicans taking our jobs? They already have. The free flow of drugs? It's the American insatiable appetite for them that's the problem, not the Mexican drug cartel.
Imagine a world where all of North America (including Canada, of course) would become like the EU. In fact, we could learn from their mistakes. We would all keep our own currency, but stop spending billions of dollars on useless border patrols, fences and all the ill will they cause.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Pamida Site Should Become a Public Memorial
The Time Is Right; We Should Act Now
I recently spent a day in Boston. I am especially fond of the Boston Commons, an enchanting respite area in the midst of a bustling modern city. I watched delighted (and mostly inept) ice skaters on a frozen public pond, old and young sitting on benches or hurriedly cutting across the park to the state capitol or Starbucks and a group of school-age tourists being given an early American history lesson by their teacher.
Across the street from the Commons, I could see the Granary Burying Ground, the final resting spot of thousands of early American patriots, including Paul Revere, three signers of the Declaration of Independence and five victims of the Boston Massacre. The site is supported with public money and visited daily by locals, tourists and historians. It’s like a window to the past in a most unexpected place.
There is an even larger historical burial site right here in the heart of downtown Bemidji and adjacent to our beautiful lake. However, it’s not listed on any of the abundant promotional materials distributed by our chamber of commerce or government entities. It’s not only unmarked, it’s covered by a Pamida store, a recently constructed Subway sandwich shop, an abandoned Burger King and a blacktopped parking lot for the convenience of 21st-century shoppers.
This is not a secret, nor is it surprising. Ancient indigenous settlements are common on Minnesota lakes. This particular site fronts not only Lake Bemidji, but the Mississippi River as it flows into the lake. Back in 1988, when Pamida had a foundation excavated to build an addition, more than 12,000 artifacts were unearthed, along with human remains. It’s been said that the area also includes the graves of early white settlers.
Some of the artifacts that were recovered in 1988 appear to be more than 10,000 years old, an astonishing fact in itself. This land could become a memorial site and learning laboratory that could provide a deep experience to a broad spectrum of visitors – more so than a discount store and fast food restaurants and the run-down carny rides across the road on prime lakeshore. The heart of Bemidji was mistakenly sold off too cheaply for unworthy purposes by previous generations. This might be the only opportunity for many more generations to rectify the situation.
The public records show several interesting details about the Pamida property of almost 94,000 sq. ft. It’s assessed at $577,100 and the taxes are $19,750 per year. It’s owned by one David Bolger, who happens to be a wealthy philanthropist who is now the head of a foundation in New Jersey. He’s given away almost $100 million to cultural, educational and health organizations in the past 13 years. A $600,000 gift for such a worthy project is not unreasonable.
The civic leaders of this town and surrounding reservations should show the same kind of enthusiasm and leadership for this challenge as they did in making the Sanford events center become a reality. Bolger should be approached with a request, accompanied by a vision for a community project that would honor the past and be a gift to future generations in a way that an outlet mall, a ferris wheel or even an events center could never do. The same could be done with the Subway property, which is owned by a property company in Connecticut and the Burger King property, which is owned by Kraus Anderson.
But time is of the essence. Joe Day (see photo below), the now retired cultural affairs director of the Minnesota Indian Affairs Resource Council, recommends that Bemidji and Beltrami County first look to the city of Bloomington for a model cultural resource plan. That plan should guide the process for the use of the Pamida site. Day would like to see the Pamida building torn down, the parking lot torn up and the entire area be a memorial site. Some people have mentioned moving the Bemidji Science Center, which does the best job it can in a converted hardware store downtown, to a remodeled Pamida building.
These are valuable and value-based discussions that should happen. But first a decision must be made: does Bemidji want to take charge of its future or let it be decided by second-rate national chain stores or fast-food franchises? Boston thrives because it respects its history. We could do the same.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Rick Santorum Comes To Town!
Bemidji, MN, Feb. 5, 2012 -- Why would Santorum come here?? It's all about sweater vests. Apparently, Santorum wanted a quintessentially American manufacturer to produce sweater vests with Santorum emblems for his campaign. They would be given to big donors to wear proudly. Bill Batchelder of the Bemidji Woolen Mills saw his chance to make some money while supporting a more-than-acceptable conservative candidate. Probably a half-dozen men sported the grey vests with the red and blue lettering (done by a local t-shirt message shop) at the St. Phillip's Catholic Church pancake breakfast, at the Woolen Mills, the Paul and Babe statue on the waterfront and at the Sanford Events Center, where Santorum gave a talk to about 650 people.
Ron Paul supporters and the anti-Santorum protesters generally didn't communicate with each other. I overheard a couple of people while standing around in the Woolen Mills talk about sending someone outside to "straighten out those people."
There were no surprises, but it reminded me of of how the Catholic vote has changed over the years. I was in high school when Jack Kennedy ran for president. The Catholics I remember from that time were the socially concerned, labor union-supporting people. I think they went over to Reagan in the 80s and now they're some of the most conservative voters around. Not sure if the Church has changed, the candidates, the public or something else.
Ron Paul supporters and the anti-Santorum protesters generally didn't communicate with each other. I overheard a couple of people while standing around in the Woolen Mills talk about sending someone outside to "straighten out those people."
There were no surprises, but it reminded me of of how the Catholic vote has changed over the years. I was in high school when Jack Kennedy ran for president. The Catholics I remember from that time were the socially concerned, labor union-supporting people. I think they went over to Reagan in the 80s and now they're some of the most conservative voters around. Not sure if the Church has changed, the candidates, the public or something else.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Where to being? Why, gay marriage, of course. . .
I just read an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune headlined "Priests Told Not to Voice Dissent," about the Archbishop John Nienstedt's efforts to order Minnesota Catholics to support the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. The amendment will be on the ballot this fall. "The stakes could not be higher," he is quoted as saying.
What are those stakes? According to him, the "endgame" of gay marriage supporters is to "eliminate the need for marriage altogether." What, exactly, does this mean? That, inexplicably, by expanding the pool of eligible members, the "institution" of marriage will no longer be necessary? That because allowing gay couples to marry, the institution becomes so degraded that it straight couples will no longer participate? Or something else? It's unclear.
But like the highly charged debate about abortion, this one seems to force us all into two tight, uncomfortable boxes -- for or against. I have an alternative stance that I really haven't heard debated at all: why is the state involved in marriage at all?
The answer, I would guess, is custom. And because it's been the custom for so many centuries, it's inextricably entangled with so many other customs, laws and institutions that its validity is no longer questioned. For example, the few times I've mentioned my seemingly radical position to people, one of the predictable responses is that we need marriage to determine inheritances or rights of parents or rights of access to hospital patients or rights to family health coverage. But why? All these rights (and any others one can think of) can be dealt with in simple, fair ways. In fact, it would force us to do so.
For example, we should have state-sponsored health insurance for all, not single or family coverage based on the lucky ones who have it offered through the workplace only for those married by the state. Everyone should be able to designate the loved ones they want to inherit their wealth, visit them when they're sick, etc. It's not impossible. In fact, it's not that difficult.
If the purpose of marriage is to celebrate the public commitment of a couple to a long-term relationship, that can still be done. It can involve religion if the participants so choose. Or it can involve a "do-it-yourself" ceremony. It shouldn't matter.
Our current marriage laws reinforce outdated concepts of women and children as property. Few people would support this concept, so why hang on to an institution of the state that serves to support these concepts? Most people have spoken with their actions in this regard anyway. Approximately half the people who marry get divorced. Does banning same-sex marriage save people from divorce? Most American men and women have cohabited at some time in their lives. Would banning same-sex marriage encourage these couples to get married?
The most curious part of this hot-button issue to me is the fact that gay couples are so eager to participate in this custom. We straight couples have made a pretty big mess of it; yet they want in. We should be puzzled, but flattered.
But I think my solution is more elegant. Instead of deciding whether to open the highly flawed traditional institution to a heretofore shunned group, I think we should all adopt the customs of the shunned group. Make marriage a personal/religious/familial/cultural public event, not a political state-sponsored event. I think we'd all be better off.
What are those stakes? According to him, the "endgame" of gay marriage supporters is to "eliminate the need for marriage altogether." What, exactly, does this mean? That, inexplicably, by expanding the pool of eligible members, the "institution" of marriage will no longer be necessary? That because allowing gay couples to marry, the institution becomes so degraded that it straight couples will no longer participate? Or something else? It's unclear.
But like the highly charged debate about abortion, this one seems to force us all into two tight, uncomfortable boxes -- for or against. I have an alternative stance that I really haven't heard debated at all: why is the state involved in marriage at all?
The answer, I would guess, is custom. And because it's been the custom for so many centuries, it's inextricably entangled with so many other customs, laws and institutions that its validity is no longer questioned. For example, the few times I've mentioned my seemingly radical position to people, one of the predictable responses is that we need marriage to determine inheritances or rights of parents or rights of access to hospital patients or rights to family health coverage. But why? All these rights (and any others one can think of) can be dealt with in simple, fair ways. In fact, it would force us to do so.
For example, we should have state-sponsored health insurance for all, not single or family coverage based on the lucky ones who have it offered through the workplace only for those married by the state. Everyone should be able to designate the loved ones they want to inherit their wealth, visit them when they're sick, etc. It's not impossible. In fact, it's not that difficult.
If the purpose of marriage is to celebrate the public commitment of a couple to a long-term relationship, that can still be done. It can involve religion if the participants so choose. Or it can involve a "do-it-yourself" ceremony. It shouldn't matter.
Our current marriage laws reinforce outdated concepts of women and children as property. Few people would support this concept, so why hang on to an institution of the state that serves to support these concepts? Most people have spoken with their actions in this regard anyway. Approximately half the people who marry get divorced. Does banning same-sex marriage save people from divorce? Most American men and women have cohabited at some time in their lives. Would banning same-sex marriage encourage these couples to get married?
The most curious part of this hot-button issue to me is the fact that gay couples are so eager to participate in this custom. We straight couples have made a pretty big mess of it; yet they want in. We should be puzzled, but flattered.
But I think my solution is more elegant. Instead of deciding whether to open the highly flawed traditional institution to a heretofore shunned group, I think we should all adopt the customs of the shunned group. Make marriage a personal/religious/familial/cultural public event, not a political state-sponsored event. I think we'd all be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)