This Week:

Quote of the Week

Pledge Drive  Pledge Drive  Pledge Drive!!!

Nygaard Notes: Imagination and Vision

Off the Front Page: Who Are The Bombers?
Infrastructure, Schminfrastructure!

Greetings,

I have a confession to make: It is really difficult for me to write about myself.  One of the things a Pledge Drive involves is reminding people of why they subscribe to, read, and forward Nygaard Notes to friends and family.  And that, inevitably, involves some degree of blowing my own horn.  So be it.  I mention this because I had hoped to get this issue of the Notes out last week.  But I struggled with the self-promotion part of it, until the end of last week, when I figured out that there were a couple of things I hadn't talked about yet: Imagination and Vision.  So, that's what you see this week.  Plus a tidbit about Iraq and something about Al Qaeda in the news.

In the next Nygaard Notes: The State of the News Media 2006.  And who-knows-what else...

Welcome to new subscribers!  And thanks to everyone who supports the Notes, financially, morally, or in any other way!

Gratefully,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

"Quote" The Shorter

Included in my list of "what Nygaard reads" a couple of weeks ago were the daily Middle East Reports from the United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, or IRIN.  On April 11th one of the headlines read "For Quality of Life, Baghdad Ranks Last in World, Survey Finds."  The study was conducted by the London-based Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

IRIN reports that "Baghdad residents hardly dispute the designation," which is based on "39 factors, ranging from political stability, education and environmental considerations to the availability of restaurants, transportation and health facilities."

IRIN quoted Fadia Ibraheem, a senior official at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, uttering this week's "Quote" of the Week (note Ibraheem's opinion as to the primary source of the problem):

"We have to admit, this city is getting worse every day in regard to the quality of life. As long as U.S. troops remain, the city will continue to deteriorate."

"Quote" The Longer

This week's second "Quote" of the Week is from Peter Montague, editor of "Rachel's Democracy and Health News."  He was writing in the Rachel's (which, by the way, I highly recommend!) from Apr. 13, 2006, titled, "What Is Public Health and Why Does it Matter?"  Here's what he said:

"We could all benefit from adopting the 'public health perspective'--which openly acknowledges that three environments influence human health: the natural, the built, and the social.  Public health workers acknowledge that human health is powerfully influenced by water and air (nature) and by asbestos and diesel fumes (the built environment), but they also acknowledge the powerful influences of low income, social isolation, pyramids of status, poor education, stressful jobs, depression, and the sense that one's life is out of control.

"By adopting a 'public health perspective' we could all find numerous new allies, connect our favorite issues with other people's favorite issues, and thus build a stronger, multi-issue movement to champion environment, health, democracy, and justice.  This is not as far- fetched as it may sound to some who have grown cynical or despondent about the possibilities for social change."

Pledge Drive  Pledge Drive  Pledge Drive!!!

SEVEN more new pledgers are still needed.  Send in your pledge TODAY!

More than 20 of you have sent in pledges, which is really great!  Many of you have renewed your pledges early, which is wonderful.  Some of you have renewed your pledges at a higher level, which is really wonderful!  And five of you are brand-new, first-time pledgers.  That is tremendously wonderful!

Now we just need SEVEN more of you to take the plunge.  The size of the pledge doesn't matter.  What matters is that we reach our goal of 13 new pledgers in April of 2006.  When we reach this magic number, these pleas for support will end.  I think this next week might do it.

PLEASE consider becoming a supporter of Nygaard Notes TODAY!  You know how to do it:
Mail a check to "Nygaard Notes" and send it to:

Nygaard Notes
P.O. Box 14354,
Minneapolis, MN 55414

OR, just go to the Nygaard Notes website, get your credit card ready, and follow the instructions right in the center of the page for online donations.  Easy!  Important!  End the Pledge Drive by doing YOUR part now!

Thanks to ALL pledgers, old or new - you folks make it possible for this project to keep going.

Nygaard Notes: Imagination and Vision

"When you're talking about a huge social transformation and the huge social struggle that precedes that transformation, there must be a huge shift in the collective imagination before any of that can take place.  That's a prerequisite; it must come first.  We must imagine the possibility of a more just world before the world may become more just.  That's something that poets do well.  So I guess that's where I come in."

- Martín Espada
(Thanks to Emmanuel O. for this quotation!)


I get a lot of feedback from readers of Nygaard Notes about what it is that sets the Notes apart from other things they read (and these Nygaardians read a lot of other things, it seems!)  The things they mention are the optimism of the Notes, the lack of cynicism, the non-judgmental tone, and the general lack of whining about the state of the world.  I am often asked a question that goes something like this: "Don't you get depressed writing all the time about poverty and war and government lies and pollution and ... [all the rest]?"

No, I don't, and the above quotation from Mr. Espada captures a big part of the reason why, despite the fact that Nygaard Notes is not poetry.  Mr. Espada's words also explain a lot about how I can keep thinking and writing about all this stuff--and about how you can keep reading about all this stuff--without succumbing to the apathy that comes with defeatism.  The answer is Imagination.  The fact is that I rely on Imagination to make sense of everything I hear or see that you read about in Nygaard Notes.  Let me explain how it works.

When so many people speak of the Free Market, for instance, I imagine a more democratic way to arrange an economy.  Then my writing is animated by that vision.

When we hear about "policing our borders" or "getting tough on crime" or "ending welfare dependency," I imagine a system that is based on justice rather than social Darwinism.  Then my writing is animated by that vision.

When we read about globalization or people losing their pensions or 45 million people with no health insurance, I imagine a social fabric that is based on solidarity and the sharing of resources instead of being based on competition.  Then my writing is animated by that vision.

When most of the campaigns of most of our so-called "leaders" are based on fear--fear of immigrants, fear of terrorists, fear of crime, fear of "the other"--I imagine people voting for candidates based on compassion and love instead of fear.  Then my writing is animated by that vision.

You may notice that my vision--my imagination, if you will--is rooted in the four values that are the foundation of Nygaard Notes: Democracy, Justice, Solidarity, and Compassion.

It's easy to criticize others.  It requires little thinking and almost no creative energy to say what is wrong with the things that others are doing.  Sometimes it is necessary to criticize, and I do my share of it.  But what makes Nygaard Notes different and much more than a lot of the "blogs" and other writings that may be sent your way is that Nygaard Notes keeps returning to a vision.

Working Toward A Vision

When one is working toward a vision--as opposed to trying to criticize or negate someone else's vision--everything changes.

WORKING TOWARD A VISION is hopeful and positive, not critical and negative.  When you can imagine something you WANT to see and--even better--when you can imagine how to go about getting there, it's tremendously exciting!  Most people would rather say Yes! than say No!  But it is easier to say No!  That's why so many people--good-hearted, well-meaning people--operate that way.  But Nygaard Notes tries not to.

WORKING TOWARD A VISION is proactive, not reactive.  To react to a problem, or a misguided policy, involves a pulling away or a tearing down.  As difficult as that can be, that's the easy part!  It's after we have pulled away from a misguided administration, or stopped a bad policy from being enacted, that we need vision.  What now?  What do we do?  That's why Nygaard Notes focuses so much on imagination and clear thinking.

WORKING TOWARD A VISION is creative, not destructive.  Saying "I don't like that!" is only a negation of something that already exists.  It doesn't require one to create anything.  It's true that whenever something is built, something must be destroyed.  But when we focus only on the destruction we tend to be critical and negative.  By focusing on the building more than the destroying, Nygaard Notes has to get creative.

WORKING TOWARD A VISION is radical, not reformist.  "Radical" means "to the root."  Coming up with a vision for the future--as Espada says, a vision of "a huge social transformation"--requires a re-thinking of some very basic ideas, systems, and structures.  When we get used to doing this, then we can avoid getting bogged down in the endless details that bombard us every day.  We can keep our eyes on the prize!

The Prize is a society--no, a world--that embodies life-affirming values and processes.  I think the key values of that affirmation are Democracy, Justice, Solidarity, and Compassion.  You may think different values are the keys.  But the point of Nygaard Notes is to encourage people to talk and think about values and vision.  In dark times, I think Martín Espada's words are more true than ever: We must imagine the possibility of a more just world before the world may become more just.

There is another prize to be had, and we can have it long before we see any changes in systems or institutions.  That is the prize of living a life of striving and building, a life of looking at positive possibilities.  That's a good way to live, and I think it is a big part of how I can write about "all this stuff" without getting depressed.

Nygaard Notes exists to help more and more people imagine a better future, and to live a more positive present as we do something to bring about that future.

When you make a pledge of support to Nygaard Notes, this is what you are supporting.

Off the Front Page: Who Are The Bombers?

This week's Front Page Story ran on page 7 of the April 11th New York Times (All The News That's Fit To Print!).  The headline read, "London Bombers Tied to Internet, Not Al Qaeda, Newspaper Says."  The reference was to the infamous bombings of the London subway system last July 7th in which more than 50 innocents were killed.

Many people were left with the impression that Al Qaeda was somehow behind the attacks.  This was not an unreasonable impression, given official pronouncements in the wake of the bombings.  The New York Times reported, on the day after the bombings, that "[British] Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the explosions bore 'the hallmarks of an Al Qaeda-related attack.'" And, on the same day, the Times' most influential columnist, Thomas Friedman, wrote that "The Al Qaeda threat has metastasized and become franchised."

Now it turns out that an official inquiry into the London bombings has found that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with it.  The official report hasn't been released yet (it "will be published in the next few weeks"), but the London Observer got a leak of the results, which it reported on April 11th.  The headline sort of says it all: "Leak Reveals Official Story of London Bombings: Al Qaeda Not Linked, Says Government: Gang Used Internet to Plan 7/7 Attack."

The Observer ran the story on the front page, where it belonged.  But in this country, where fears of "the Al Qaeda threat" are constantly exploited to justify all sorts of crimes and political hijinks, the story was relegated to the inside pages, when it was reported at all.  (I don't believe that it was reported at all in the Minnesota media; did anybody see it?)  Maybe it will be covered more appropriately when the official report comes out.  We'll see about that.

Infrastructure, Schminfrastructure!

The day in question is April 6th, 2006.  On this day, as on so many days, Iraq was on the front page.  The headline read, "In Bid to Rebuild Razed Bridge, Recovery and War Vie in Iraq."  The first use of my imagination is to imagine that there are two sides (at least) in the conflict in Iraq; one side being the occupation forces and their allies and the other side being everyone else.  The reason one needs imagination in this case is that, as is typical in U.S. news reports from Iraq, all of the sources for this story are U.S. military officials, or other U.S. officials, except for one "Colonel Ishmael, the Iraqi commander [of a regional battalion], who declined to give his full name." 

(According to the Times, by the way, he declined because "His Marine adviser says the colonel and his family have been threatened for cooperating with the Americans."  Note how odd this is: this man has already been threatened, so what difference would it make to identify himself to the Times?  I imagine that the Iraqi resistance has other ways of finding out who is collaborating with the occupation than reading the Times.  Don't you think?)

Such "official source" reporting is typical of "embedded" reporters, although the New York Times refuses to tell me which of their reporters are "embedded."

To summarize the article, it seems that "the Marines took down the only bridge over the Euphrates River for miles around [the city of Husayba]."  The Times tells us that "Iraqis who live on the river's northern bank grumble that they have no easy way to get to town to buy and sell goods or to see the doctor."  I imagine that many not only "grumble," but also seethe with rage and perhaps even join the resistance to U.S. occupation.  But the Times never hints at these possibilities.  This is the closest the Times comes to a "non-official" source, if you consider a mention of "grumbling" to be a "source."

The main source for the Times is "Lt. Col. Nick Marano, commander of the Marine battalion" in Husayba.  Paragraph 12 states "Hoping for an interim fix, Colonel Marano inquired recently about moving a little-used pontoon bridge installed by Army engineers miles down river. He was told that the unit was to rotate back to the United States soon, and would be taking its bridge back."

It's not until paragraph 28 that we read about "a freshly painted police station, which has been refurbished with American funds after it was attacked by insurgents."

This, then, is how the "recovery and war vie in Iraq:" the military/police infrastructure in Iraq has priority, while desperately needed civil infrastructure is "taken back" to shore up the military/police infrastructure in the United States.  Meanwhile, the American Society of Civil Engineers, in their 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, reminds us that "The condition of our nation's roads, bridges, drinking water systems and other public works have shown little to no improvement since they were graded an overall D+ in 2001, with some areas sliding toward failing grades."

Pontoon bridges, anyone?