Dakota Beacon

Call them the establishment or call them what you will, but for the sake of brevity I call professional politicians the PPs. They are distinguished principally by their arrogance and condescension. Mostly Democrats comprise the PPs along with some Republican “wannabes.” They are reinforced and supported by mainstream media sycophants.

With regard to the rest of America, PPs are by far a minority. Not surprisingly, America is ruled, not governed, by PPs.

If the political elite are known as PPs, then it is only natural that the rest of us be known as the AOAs, all other Americans. We are also known as the folks in fly-over country -- or simply as hicks.

Every issue divides the country into partisan battlefields on which two very different Americas fight. Probably no more than fifteen percent of the AOAs agree with the thinking, the goals and the philosophy of the PPs. The rest of AOAs believe and think very differently. The truth is that America is seriously split between the few who hold the ruling power and the rest who are forced by fiat law and regulation into submission.

This situation has been developing for a long time. The slow capitulation of the AOAs into a subservient class resembles the proverbial frog in water slowly boiled without the frog realizing what is happening.

PPs hold odd beliefs. PPs believe AOAs are not smart enough to know what is best for themselves. PPs think they must decide for the rest of us. They believe that, by virtue of their long experience in office, they should continue to rule over us.

PPs cry for bipartisanship and compromise as a plea for business as usual. They believe this emotional plea plays on the heartstrings of the AOA sympathy for fairness. They believe it aids them in their re-election bid to remain in office.

We AOAs believe in merit as the way to get ahead in life. Performing well in class and on the job is the way to advance our lot. PPs look down on merit. PPs prefer to count and segregate by race and gender and class in order to bestow advancement.

PPs have the gall and temerity to think of themselves as better than the rest of us and more qualified to determine what is best for us. Therefore, they believe the AOAs need them to be in charge of our health care, what we eat, how much water we should use to flush a toilet, what kind of light bulbs we should use, what we will do about obesity, what cars we will drive and how they will be powered. The list goes on.

All of these measures require increased regulation and control over AOAs because we the people would never stand for this under our concept of freedom and liberty. The PPs who impose their will on the rest of America know their time is short. Eventually the AOAs will get smart and rise up.

The PPs reside mainly in Washington, DC, the epicenter of world political power. Washington is dominated by Democrats and the left. Republicans are the way they are in recent decades because they tried to emulate Democrats in order to succeed.

It is human nature for people to want to be liked. People want to belong. Everybody wants to get along.

For forty years, until the revolution inspired by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Democrats controlled the US House of Representatives. In 1994 the Republicans took control of the House as well as the Senate. During their time in the wilderness it was natural for Republicans to go along to get along. They took the political scraps thrown to them by the Democrats. Republicans came to believe they had to adopt the same government growth and spending priorities as Democrats just to hold their seats, to remain on the inside. They aligned themselves as PPs.

People want to believe the best in their elected officials. But, when does that belief morph into emotional gullibility to be toyed with by the PPs?

Government must no longer be the business of professionals. That was V. I. Lenin’s concept of government. We all know where that led.

What to do about the situation? A third party is not the answer. That would be a recipe for disaster. The Tea Party is responsible for the takeover of the House of Representatives in 2010. But, the Tea Party needs a political vehicle.

Removing the Democrat Party from positions of power is in the best interests of the AOAs. As repugnant as it may seem, the best way for AOAs to accomplish this is to focus energy through the Republican Party in the near term. The objective is to achieve non-Democrat Party majorities in congress and the state houses.

In the end, AOAs do not want partisan government. They want self-government. AOAs do not want to exchange Democrat control for Republican control if it means more of the same.

A revolt is brewing. Vote responsibly in November.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

God’s world never ceases to amaze. One of the tiniest creatures in His creation is designed to thrive despite the harshest conditions in a messed up world.

I speak of the birds in winter. These critters must be the toughest of beasts.

Birds, like other wildlife and livestock, will survive the North Dakota winter if they have food and shelter to escape the wind. Nighttime temperatures may fall below zero and the wind-chill drop to minus twenty or thirty degrees, but the next morning at sunrise the birds are busy at the feeding stations stoking their little furnaces. To witness this feat of survival is truly impressive.

I’ve spent many amusing moments observing the birds feeding at the array of stations I’ve set for them outside my kitchen window. I wonder if they regard me with equal interest from the other side of the glass.

Now they’re back!

One of my favorite winter birds is the Common Redpoll, a diminutive member of the finch family. Their most popular feeding station is an eight inch nylon bag loosely woven and filled with Nyjer thistle seed. Thistle is most favored especially among Redpolls.

The pattern is always the same. First one, then another, then another Redpoll darts onto the feed bag. They fly toward the thistle bag hitting it feet first sticking to it like Velcro. Nice trick for a “thistle missile.”

The Common Redpoll typically nests in the tundra of far northern Canada. Then, in late autumn, their idea of seeking a more hospitable climate is to wander south to southern Canada -- or North Dakota -- where they spend the winter. This gives a whole new meaning to the term “snowbird.”

About five inches long, slightly smaller than a House Sparrow, the Common Redpoll (red “head”) takes its name from the jaunty dark red cap pushed forward on its forehead. Other identifying markings include a rosy breast, two narrow wing bars, a black chin and a streaked rump.

Its close cousin, the Hoary Redpoll, is more frosty appearing with little or no streaking on the rump. Nevertheless, telling the two species apart cam be tricky. Although the Hoary Redpoll nests even farther north along the Arctic Ocean, it may be found together with the Common Redpoll in its southern range during the winter.

Redpolls are neither aggressive nor territorial, just gregarious. I’ve seen numbers ranging from ten to thirty in a group at my feeders. At times their numbers intimidate others of my favorite winter birds, the chickadees and nuthatches.

The distance the Redpolls travel south into southern Canada and the northern US depends upon how early the winter settles over the Arctic as well as the availability of food. Last year I don’t recall seeing many Redpolls. This year they seem more numerous.

Like the chickadee, the Redpoll is a rather tame bird not at all shy of humans especially at feeding time. I’ve heard of Redpolls sitting on a person’s shoulder or feeding from the hand, but I’ve never experienced this. Still, they do come within arms reach when I’m replenishing the feeding stations.

Although thistle seed is by far the Redpolls’ favorite food, they take other seed as well including sunflower and millet. They feed equally well at the stations, on the ground or upside-down hanging under a seed bag.

I’ve read that Redpolls really enjoy pecking at a salt block and taking fresh water during the winter. I’ve offered water without any takers. I’ve considered offering salt and water together.

Redpoll antics are as enjoyable as any other of the several winter birds visiting our yard. I’ll delight in their presence until they once again head north in the spring. Then they’ll be on the leading edge of the great avian migration to settle in their nesting grounds in the far northern Canadian tundra.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

How fast things change. Take, for example, the beneficiaries of North Dakota’s fledgling oil boom. Six years wrought immense monetary transformation across Mountrail County.

Today it is easy to spot many of the newly rich from their classic behavior. The underlying attitudes are a dead giveaway.

 -- Many people tend to spend their new found wealth fast and frivolously. Tangible evidence of their affluence announces to the world “I’ve arrived.” The accumulation of pelf takes on the appearance of a consummate flea market.

  -- Handling their financial assets intelligently and discreetly is not their strong suit. They may or may not know how to preserve and shelter their good fortune much less make it work for them. What would they know about investment instruments of below average risk. Why would they know how the “old moneyed class” goes about investing sums in a variety of tax-free municipal bonds living off the untaxed proceeds rather than squandering their capital? How would they know about involved techniques of trusts that direct their assets according to their wishes?

  -- Invariably their conversation revolves around their money. Central to the discussion is what they have, what they’ll get and how they plan to spend it. Old money, on the other hand, has divergent interests to occupy their discussion.

  -- The truly wealthy old moneyed folks may still acquire items that only they can afford. The newly wealthy folks, on the other hand, can now acquire what was once reserved for only the truly wealthy. Oil boom beneficiaries now afford exclusive vacations, properties and cars that were once available to only a few. The most recent mark of opulence that the truly wealthy can enjoy is philanthropy. Giving away vast sums of money may now be the final status symbol.

But do they? What about a simple tithe? What a novel idea. Perish the thought! That’s a five letter word to be avoided at all costs (no pun intended).

The newly rich, or as the French say, “nouveau riche,” have a lot to learn about living with wealth. A related term, “noblesse oblige” (literally “nobility obligates”), implies an honorable or benevolent behavior considered to be the responsibility of persons of high rank or birth -- or new found wealth. Noblesse oblige implies that privilege must be balanced with duty toward those less fortunate. That is a lesson not easily learned.

New found wealth does not automatically confer dignity and honor. Acquiring wealth does not necessarily translate into noble character. Like it or not, newly acquired money may well produce tawdry and vulgar behavior in the beneficiary. The flaunting of opulence begets the acquisition of “things.” Who would have guessed?

People with oil money jingling in their pockets are about to discover what it means to live in the rarefied atmosphere of wealth. With affluence comes the burden of a new station in life.

“Have nots” will always portray the moneyed class as “greedy.” The new oil magnates once lived as “have nots;” they used to point to the “haves” and scoff at the wealthy as “greedy” recipients of ill-gotten gain. They now find themselves on the receiving end of disapprobation.

Then there are the new friends. New friends, unwanted at best, may soon come a-calling. Inevitably, those with their hands out offer any excuse to meet the inexperienced affluent. Maybe not classified as “friends,” nevertheless the IRS would like to make their acquaintance.

A change in tax brackets necessarily draws the attention of the IRS. Suddenly, the old “soak the rich” mantra takes on a whole new and unwelcome meaning. Ah yes, the newly affluent must learn their place in the pecking order.

Money may be wonderful and a fist full of dollars a heady thing, especially for those who once lived without. But, let’s face it. Being rich is tough.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Cancer. Such a powerful word. The very mention of cancer raises concern and alarm. The emotional power of this single word conjures thoughts of deadly malignancies and interminable suffering.

            Knowledge, too, is powerful. Knowing something about the type of cancer helps us deal with it rationally. This is particularly true of skin cancer. Unlike internal cancers, skin cancer can be touched and seen and, in doing so, the mystery of the unknown diminishes.

            I speak from experience. My first bout with skin cancer culminated with surgery in 1977. I wish I knew then what I know now. I wish my physicians knew then what they know now.

            Spring foreshadows summer days in the sun. Now is a good time to recount my own experiences with skin cancer as words of encouragement.

            As a young adult, I first noticed a red spot on my left temple but promptly ignored it. In about a year’s time the spot changed in texture and appearance becoming scaly and somewhat larger.

            In the months that followed the spot grew more scaly and began to “weep.” It never healed completely, a telltale sign that should have alerted me. In retrospect, I was witnessing the slow transformation of sun-damaged skin (actinic keratosis) into what became basal cell carcinoma. Various keratoses are pre-cancerous but, if allowed to continue untreated, the keratoses may become cancerous. My case was a textbook example.

            During a routine exam I discussed the spot with my physician. He referred me to a dermatologist and a week later I was in surgery. The surgeon excised a rather large basal cell and then repaired the wound using a skin graft with skin taken from the area of my collar bone. That was my first, but by no means my last, encounter with skin cancer.

            Three types of skin cancer may result from exposure to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. Basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer. Prompt removal of a basal cell in its early stage is key to minimizing damage. Removal may include excision, as in my case, with the resulting scar. Alternative procedures may involve electrodesiccation, micrographic surgery or laser surgery.

            Squamous cell carcinoma is the second most common skin cancer. In addition to sun damage, squamous cells can also result from burns, scars, X-rays or chemicals. Treatment is essentially the same as for basal cells. Squamous cells rarely spread to vital organs, but if they do, the results can be serious.

            Melanoma, the least common skin cancer but also the most serious, can be deadly. Initially, melanoma may resemble a mole but differs in that it may be asymmetrical, have an irregular border, have non-uniform colors and may increase rapidly in diameter. As with any suspicious skin blemish, a dermatologist should be consulted immediately. If allowed to progress, colonies of melanoma cells may spread to internal organs. Typically, melanoma is removed surgically.

            In my most recent case, state-of-the-art Mohs procedure was performed to remove an early stage melanoma. Developed by Dr. Frederic Mohs, this procedure was refined over the past seventy years. As the most exact and precise method of tumor removal it minimizes the chance of cancer regrowth while reducing potential scarring. It relies on microscopic identification and removal of cancerous growth layer by layer while leaving healthy tissue untouched.

            Given my skin cancer history, regular dermatology visits are a must. Treatment focuses on identifying and eliminating the damaged skin cells before they become cancerous. Freezing the evident keratoses with liquid nitrogen is routine. A series of prescribed treatments using topical ointment containing fluorouracil may follow. The active ingredient isolates and kills the less obvious damaged skin cells before developing into visible keratoses.

            People with fair skin, blue or green eyes and red or blond hair run the highest risk of sun damage. Dark skinned, non-Hispanic people are not exempt from skin damage. A serious sunburn incurred by a young person may manifest itself as damaged skin in later years.

            Preventing sun-damaged skin is a year-round task. The Skin Cancer Foundation and the American Cancer Society recommend the following sun safety tips:

            * Limit sunbathing.

            * Avoid unnecessary sun exposure between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM.

            * Use sunscreens rated with a sun protection factor (SPF) of 30 or higher that protects from both UVA and UVB radiation. I use sunscreen with an SPF 45.

            * Wear protective clothing, especially a broad-brimmed hat.

            * Examine skin regularly for changes in blemishes.

            Experience is a great teacher and understanding skin cancer makes prevention a whole lot easier.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Time for a time out.

            News, as entertainment, sells. News stories stir and excite emotions of sadness, grief and terror as the 24-hour news cycles of the cable news stations and the world wide web roll on. Fast paced news bombards us with triumph and tragedy hour by hour.

            Floods, fires, earthquakes, unemployment, poor economy, war, assassinations, murders -- all this gripping information pummels us relentlessly. Reporting these dreadful occurrences could drive a sane man mad.

            I consume as much news as anybody, but enough is enough. So much buzzing, booming confusion arrives through the media each day that there comes a time to withdraw, heal and rejuvenate. I’m not a recluse by nature, but I do have my ways of retreating from the incessant assault of world events.

            One way is to retreat into the world of books, into literature and poetry. Some of the finest writing percolated to the top over the centuries and survives today. But, there is an even more fruitful way to evade.

            Music, classical music, the great pieces, offer solace in the midst of a troubled world. It soothes mind and soul with a full array of emotions especially calm and happiness. It is a beautiful interlude from the volatile array of emotions produced by the world of news. Even notes of sadness in a healthy sense, if there is such a thing, may inspire something beautiful.

            How little I know about music, yet I know what I like. A talented composer communicates the universal appeal of music to the soul. I find a sense of reasonableness in the classical music of the 1700s, 1800s and early 1900s. It seems so rational while at the same time touching the heart. J. S. Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos 2 and 3, Handel’s Water Music, Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, Respighi’s Ancient Airs and Dances and Pachelbel’s Canon in D comprise a few of my many favorites.

            I listen for the different instruments.

            I listen for variation produced by different conductors and orchestras.

            I listen for the theme repeated in different forms until the “far out point” or FOP is reached.

            Great music isn’t here to make us smarter, it’s here to give us pleasure. There is an endless variety of great music to encourage the soul, to cultivate the love of the beautiful.

            My purpose in listening to great music is to explore, cherish and savor something I enjoy and not be distracted from that pleasure with detail or disruption.

            In my experience there is nothing wrong with liking one piece and disliking another. For instance, I do not particularly care for the discordant classical “music” of the late 20th century. If I don’t enjoy a certain piece, I move on. There is plenty of other music available.

            I really don’t care if I understand the mysteries of Gregorian chant or the intricacies of Renaissance counterpoint. Knowing something of the composer and when and why he wrote his music makes the pieces more personal. These things may help my understanding, but not necessarily enhance my listening enjoyment. Other optional items would include historical anecdotes, how music is written, orchestration and acoustics. They all provide insight, but they are optional if they get in the way of my listening enjoyment. It’s better to use whatever information I have to enhance my listening pleasure rather than collect a bunch of unrelated factoids to clutter my mind. Information can always be acquired. I ignore whatever distracts and focus on the enjoyment.

            This is another way of saying that I need not be an expert. I take comfort in realizing I don’t have to earn a Ph.D. to enjoy great music. No previous experience is necessary. It’s a matter of exploring the art and enjoying it for its beauty and power.

            If I sometimes choose to exchange this world for the world of great classical music, it is because I wish to withdraw to renew and regenerate my soul.

            A vast and beautiful world of sound awaits me in solitude.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Effective December 2010 openly practicing homosexuals and lesbians may serve in the US Armed Forces. Is this a good idea?

Until December the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy restricted the military from discriminating against homosexuals. DADT was originally issued as a military directive December 21, 1993, by President Bill Clinton instructing the military not to ask applicants about their sexual orientation. It further prohibited homosexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the Armed Forces. Should they do so, they were liable for separation.

Will allowing practicing homosexuals and lesbians to serve in the military lead to an exodus of those currently serving on active duty? A Senate hearing asked that question of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen in December. His response? If other service members don’t like it then let them “find another place to work.”

Mullen cited a November 30 Pentagon report that concluded there is “low risk” to unit cohesion by repealing the military’s DADT policy. What Mullen did not cite was the report’s inconvenient data. The study also concluded that 67% of Marines, 60% of Special Ops troops and 57% of Army combat personnel believe repealing DADT would hurt readiness, cohesion and retention. More importantly, a full one third of all surveyed would consider leaving the military rather than serving side by side with practicing homosexuals.

Mullen went on to tell the Senate committee that any disruption to unit cohesion is “an acceptable risk” and could be managed through “planning, training and good leadership.”

In December 2010, during the lame duck session, congress repealed the DADT policy and President Obama signed the new law. “Training” of front line combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan commenced in February 2011 preparing the force for repeal of DADT and to accommodate openly homosexual and lesbian personnel.

Defense Secretary Gates’ implementation plan intends to correct misperceptions and stereotypes about living in close quarters with practicing homosexuals through new regulations and standards of conduct. Tell that to parents of potential young recruits.

The other piece of sexual orientation policy, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), will no longer be enforced according to Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder. DOMA was signed into law September 21, 1996, by President Bill Clinton and defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

DADT and DOMA are two separate issues. The first deals with those serving in the military who “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” on the grounds that they “would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

The second addresses benefits for same sex couples. Homosexuals viewed DOMA as standing in the way of acquiring the same benefits for same sex couples as for heterosexual couples. That’s a new twist on the old progressive entitlement mentality.

In a word, homosexual special interests focus on sex and benefits first, and mission accomplishment second.

Lost in the conversation is the current segregation of heterosexual service personnel. If practicing homosexuals should not be segregated, then why segregate heterosexuals in separate facilities? Why not combine everyone into single facilities and save money?

Will the military survive the homosexual turning point? Probably. Will combat readiness be affected? Probably. As one observer put it, he has never heard from any non-commissioned officer that “We need some homosexuals and lesbians out here to help us accomplish our mission.” On the other hand, they do worry about an exodus of our finest, best trained NCOs when it comes time to re-enlist.

Representative polling suggests the American public supports open homosexuality in the military. But, are those surveyed prepared to enlist in the military to replace future attrition?

Current polling of active duty personnel reflects a general trend indicating that retention of professionals in the ranks will probably diminish. Loss of even 10% of the force is anything but acceptable. That would mean a probable loss of 150,000 irreplaceable professional personnel. We’re talking a loss of skilled, experienced career soldiers who form the base from which will be trained the next generation of soldiers.

If the United States cannot acquire enough volunteers to fill the ranks, the federal government may yet revert to a draft.

Ultimately, however, our finest combat troops deserve better than to be treated like lab rats in social experiments.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama called for one million plug-in hybrid and all-electric cars on the road by 2015. He then asked congress for more than a billion dollars to fund his ambition.

            Hybrid and electric cars -- what a great target for budget cuts.

            In reality, hybrid and electric cars, the so-called alternative propulsion cars, are one of the biggest boondoggles perpetrated on the American people. This hoax goes hand-in-glove with the manmade global warming scam.

            Consider some of the issues hybrid and electric cars pose that the dominant media never discuss.

            --All batteries derive power from a chemical reaction. When the temperature drops, the chemical reaction occurs more slowly. A drop in ten degrees below room temperature will cause the battery to drop 50% of its rated output.

            --In cold temperatures, since batteries will not produce power readily, the effective range of the car will be reduced.

            --Also, the battery charge time takes longer in cold temperatures.

            --Besides the battery power for propulsion, the battery will also have to warm the passenger compartment further reducing the range of the vehicle.

            --Using the radio for weather and traffic reports also draws electricity from the battery as will use of headlights for night driving.

            --In cool climates, an all-electric vehicle requires a battery warmer preferably in a garage to enhance battery performance in the coldest months.

            Bottom line: cold weather negatively affects electric cars. They’d work best in subtropical climates.

            General Motors says they are addressing the cold weather issues in their Volt. GM developed some reserve power in the form of an internal backup combustion engine. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the engine requires premium gasoline. Either way, the idea of an internal combustion engine in a $41,000 four-passenger hybrid car defeats the “green” purpose.

            Nissan is developing a cold weather package for its Leaf. Neither the cost nor the available date has been announced.

            Beyond the lagging technology, hybrid and electric cars are not cost competitive. Hybrids and electrics typically run $3,000 to $20,000 more expensive than gasoline models. To draw buyers, the federal government provides a $7,500 tax incentive. Some states offer additional incentives.

            At present, about 5,000 electric cars are on the road. Auto makers would have to produce and sell at least a quarter of a million electric cars a year for the next four years which nobody wants to buy in order to achieve Obama’s goal.

            In any case, Obama’s goal of a million hybrid and electric cars is meaningless. It represents about 0.4% of all US cars on the road and would produce no appreciable reduction in carbon emissions or dependence on foreign oil. This we get in return for our multibillion-dollar taxpayer “investment.”

            After more than a decade in the marketplace, consumer sales of hybrids continues to slide. Enter the federal Government Services Administration. GSA’s involvement artificially boosted the hybrid and electric car market. Roughly 3,100 of the hybrids purchased by GSA were purchased using $300 million in 2009 stimulus money. Another 5,600 hybrids were purchased using proceeds from the sale of part of the GSA combustion engine fleet.

            The federal government buys hybrids almost exclusively from Ford and GM. GSA bought 64% of all Chevy Malibu hybrid models, 29% of all Ford’s Fusions and 14% of Ford’s Escapade hybrid models through 2009. Ironically, GM stopped making the Malibu hybrid after 2009 due to lack of public demand.

            As Director of Forecasting at J.D. Power and Associates (a Michigan consulting firm) said, “At some point, the reality is that for this technology to be accepted, it needs to be done without a government crutch. But without a huge gas-price increase or further government demand, the natural demand just isn’t to be there.”

            Adversity is often opportunity in disguise and hereby affords a readymade opportunity to turn the tables on Liberals and Democrats. What a great opportunity to defeat the liberal planet-saving nostrum of coercing people to behave in certain ways contrary to their instincts, to wit: buying hybrid and electric cars. Using Rule #13 from Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” wouldn’t he be proud of those who would effect change. Alinsky’s Rule # 13, you will recall states, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” On second thought, use of Rule #13 by conservatives isn’t exactly what Alinsky had in mind. Nevertheless, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

It seems like only yesterday in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Obama gave his famous “Words, Just Words” speech. That was February 16, 2008.

“Just words. Just speeches. It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is that if we can’t inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn’t matter how many plans and policies we have.”

That was then; this is now.

A week ago, on Tuesday, January 25, President Obama delivered his State of the Union Speech (SOTUS). Dust settled on the SOTUS kerfuffle and appropriate analyzes made. What is said is said. All that remains is to comment on the commentary.

Judging by the applause, “lackluster” aptly describes Tuesday’s SOTUS performance. Once or twice VP Biden attempted to start a round of applause, but no one took his cue. The president’s speech was short on content and anything but inspirational.

Obama stressed “winning the future” but he had little to say about the current two most critical issues facing America – a no-growth economy and a crushing national debt. In fact, many North Dakotans may have done a doubletake when Obama attacked the oil industry.

Rep. Paul Ryan, Chair of the House Budget Committee, gave the Republican response predictably calling for spending cuts. He was criticized for lack of detail. Compared to what? Detail in Obama’s SOTUS was not exactly his long suit.

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was not given a seat at the House Republican leadership table, The Tea Party Express asked her to give a response, too. Except for CNN, no major TV news outlet covered her speech. In an unseemly display of incivility, MSNBC attacked CNN for giving her equal time.

Ignoring White House calls for greater civility, the dominant liberal media zeroed in on their much despised and maligned target, Sarah Palin. She accurately paraphrased Obama's SOTUS as follows: “The era of big government, it's here as long as I am, and I'm gonna find a way to make you pay for big government.” That, in a nutshell, is what Palin took away from the show. No prizes for her.

You would expect Paul Ryan, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin to challenge the SOTUS on grounds that the underlying theme spoke of even more aimless and redundant government programs. But liberal objections? How can that be?

No prize for the National Organization for Women, either. NOW expressed discontent with the SOTUS because Obama did not include their pet projects in his spending laundry list. According to Terry O'Neill, NOW is peeved at no mention of bringing women into parity in vocations requiring science, technology, engineering and math skills. These are male-dominated fields. Until women gain parity in the physical infrastructure jobs, O’Neill said, government largess must be redistributed to human infrastructure work such as teaching, nursing, social work and other women’s work. This places liberals in the awkward position of justifying economically ridiculous windmills and other “green” infrastructure over traditionally women-dominated fields.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took umbrage with Obama's SOTUS message on earmarks. Reid dismissed Obama's opposition to earmarks as "an applause line." Reid told NBC News on Wednesday in no uncertain terms that the president should "back off" (Reid’s words) and let lawmakers continue to direct spending to their home districts. Where is Reid’s civility?

“Entertainment Weekly” chimed in with a brief but objective observation on the SOTUS. Their succinct statement cited the SOTUS Nielsen Ratings. The SOTUS drew 43 million viewers, down 11% from last year's show and down 18% from the 2009 SOTUS. In first place Fox News drew 5 million viewers followed by CNN with 3 million. MSNBC ranked third with 2.5 million viewers.

The “Washington Times” noted that using Sputnik metaphors was a bit risky. After all, Obama forced NASA to kill its planned return to the moon even while China vigorously pursues it’s own lunar leap. Many of NASA's other programs were scaled back in favor of “green” research.

Obama proclaimed “this is our generation's Sputnik moment” which was puzzling to say the least. Anyone less than a half century old probably did not get the connection. His was a clumsy metaphor.

To be sure, the SOTUS avoided depth and appealed more to people's feelings with flowing rhetoric and smooth platitudes. In that case, one may wonder if there is any difference between the SOTUS and Superbowl beer commercials.

SOTUS 2011 quickly fades. Words. Just words. Does anyone even remember them now?

Tax season is upon us. Here’s a New Year’s opener using IRS data.

            FACT: The top 25% of all income earners pay 86% of all federal income taxes.

            FACT: The top 50% of all income earners pay 97% of all federal income taxes.

            FACT: About $3.50 out of every $100 paid in income taxes is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of income earners. Turn it around and it sounds like this. The top 1% of US income earners are paying ten times more federal income tax than are the bottom 50% of income earners.

            Anyway you slice it and dice it, the people who work hard to get ahead are getting screwed.

            So, why strive to get ahead?

            That’s the question a gentle, middle aged soul I once knew asked himself. Thinking out loud, that was his rhetorical question. He already knew the answer. After years of frustration he had caught on to what he called “the federal income tax scam.” Politicians, he believed, were buying votes with taxpayers dollars by providing constituents with an ever increasing glut of goods and services.

            Then came his epiphany. Why not live off the government like the other half of the population? At a minimum his tax bite supporting those who didn’t even file returns would be much less. Non-filers, after all, were living at his expense.

            What disturbed my friend even more were the subsidies, grants and giveaways for everything under the sun to include “climate change” (his idea of a pun). It wasn’t just the usual farm subsidies and education grants. He cited plenty of the off-the-wall expenditures including Steps to Healthier Girls, Environmental Justice Training Grants, Prisoner Reentry Job Search Help, Safety Belt Performance Grants, Healthy Marriage Promotion and on and on.

            Once on a rant there was no stopping him. He fondly pointed out inequities in “the system.” People outside North Dakota paid for our roads, bridges, health care and education. He cited tax data that for every income tax dollar collected from North Dakotans, the state received $1.23 in return. Minnesota, on the other hand, only received seventy-three cents for every tax dollar they paid. At the local level, a person scraping by providing for their family was also required to provide for some else’s family as well.

            As he wryly noted, Jesus’ words “It is more blessed to give than to receive” were now rigidly codified in law enforced by punitive measures if violated.

            In 1992 when America elected the Clinton administration, his suspicions were confirmed. As state and federal social programs expanded he saw a growing slice of his earnings going to support those programs. Adding insult to injury, he said he witnessed a commensurate increase in waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money. At that point he made a conscious decision to no longer achieve and excel at earning money.

            In other words, he chose to “retire” with whatever government benefits he could glean thus taking in enough to get by without paying more taxes than was absolutely necessary. He had acquired some government benefits and in a few years would receive social security and Medicare.

            His straightforward reasoning went like this. If voters were willing to elect public “servants” who would take care of them in exchange for a bit of their freedom, that was their choice. His choice was to recoup at least some of what the government had taken from him in taxes by claiming his share of benefits as soon as possible. After all, he argued, he had worked long and hard while the government took more and more of his income. Why shouldn’t he get something in return?

            He claimed he felt no guilt from transgressing the old American ethic of getting ahead through hard work. He indicated he understood a new ethic, an overriding unspoken ethic, affirming the right to live off one’s fellow man. This was his subtle observation of the public mind-set.

            True to his word, he dropped out of the work force and relocated to a lower cost of living area. He said he was “making a statement,” whatever that meant. About whom he spoke was not clear.

            National bankruptcy notwithstanding, the last I heard he, indeed, was living comfortably off his fellow man.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Thanksgiving is a time for -- what else -- giving thanks.

There’s much to be thankful for. Of course there are always the tangible things: home, car, money and such. Then there are the non-tangible things such as health, friendship and family.

There are situations for which to be thankful, too. For example, I’m very thankful to be an American. Much of the world’s population would like to come to America and live the American dream. Barring this, they do the next best thing. They emulate our material lifestyle.
I’m even thankful for President Barak Hussein Obama. I know, I know. You thought you would never hear such words from me. Well, I am thankful for our president.

I’m thankful Obama has stymied the Clinton political machine. This is something the Republicans could never do.

I’m thankful President Obama demonstrates exactly what liberals and progressives stand for. When liberals and progressives run for office, they never tell the truth in their campaigns. If they told the voters exactly what they stood for, they would never be elected.

--They tax and spend as if there was no tomorrow.

--They propose endless dialogs with those pledged to destroy America rather than actually protecting America.

--They think they know what is best for America while imposing restrictions and controls against the will of the people.

Liberals and progressives talk a good conservative line only to gather votes. Once in office they behave like any other authoritarian by consolidating power and control over people’s lives. This in the name of “helping the little guy.”

I am thankful President Obama is nullifying the Democrat Party, the bastion of liberal and progressive thinking. Nowhere else could Marxists and Socialists find a better home than by aligning themselves with the Democrat Party.

Obama is marginalizing the Democrat Party right before our eyes. During the 2010 elections he destroyed the careers of several long-term Democrat Senators and Representatives who supported the president’s health care and cap and trade legislation. In November 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. Obama put an end to this for which I am thankful.

President Obama brought more Americans back to the conservative movement than anyone since Ronald Reagan. Obama succeeded like no other in bringing Americans to the polls to vote against his policies. For this I am thankful.

I am thankful that President Obama sparked great interest in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. His administration generated the greatest surge in arms and ammunition sales ever seen. Law abiding citizens provided private sector stimulus to the arms and ammunition sectors of the economy while other sectors failed, moved off-shore or took government bailout money.

I am thankful that President Obama served as a catalyst to awaken the American people from their stupor. It’s too bad each generation must learn the hard way. Every now and then someone or something must stir the American passion for freedom and liberty. I am thankful President Obama has done just that.

Thank you President Barak Hussein Obama for providing exactly the hope and change America needs.


Dennis M. Patrick graduated from Colorado State University in 1966 with a bachelors degree in Political Science and was commission a 2nd Lieutenant in the U. S. Army. He was Airborne and Ranger qualified and served with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, the 101st Airborne Division in Vietnam, and the 1st Infantry Division in Germany. He holds two Masters degrees: one in Systems Management (Logistics) from the University of Southern California the other in Military Art and Science from the Army Command and General Staff College.

Patrick served three years in the Pentagon on the Army Staff with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and three years as a Joint Planner with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Responsibilities included briefing and advising the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Lieutenant Colonel Patrick retired from the U.S. Army in 1987.

Once upon a time people who could not read were called “illiterate.” For the most part our schools have solved the reading problem -- sort of. Without a literate population, modern societies could never develop.

Other forms of illiteracy still prevail which makes one wonder how modern societies continue to function. The public education system has not prepared young people to form judgments and cast votes on programs that are economic in nature.

Let’s be clear. Economics and finance are two totally different subjects. Finance focuses on the management of money and assets. Finance emphasizes the maximization of wealth. Economics, on the other hand, is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses. Economics focuses on optimizing valued goals. Everything of value has a cost. Nothing is free. Ever.

Democratic nations allow voters to decide many important issues whether the voter understands the issue or not. Economic policies come wrapped in political pomposity and most of us are not prepared to differentiate between economic problems and political solutions. Public schools do not equip students and young adults with the tools to assess economic issues. When voters fail to understand the issues, they become easy prey for political rhetoric.

Schools don’t teach economics adequately, if at all. Economics is far more than boring classes saturated with statistics, graphs and charts. Beyond that, more often than not, economics courses are highly biased.

A recent Louis Harris poll confirmed nearly two thirds of young people and half the adults surveyed flunked the test of economic literacy.

George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan captured the phenomenon of economic illiteracy in his book “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.” Caplan argues that most voters elect candidates based on biases involving economic matters.

Voters elect candidates that make them feel good. They acquired hostile economic biases about free market capitalism, international free trade and profits while growing up. As with most people, voters don’t like their world view challenged with facts. Ergo, voters choose their elected officials irrationally.

Unfortunately, voters are not prepared to envision the consequences of their choices. They support what makes them feel good. Interestingly, in their personal lives voters choose rationally because they bear the brunt of their decisions.

Caplan identifies three principle biases. Anti-market capitalism bias typifies people who feel trade and profit are bad. They see one person’s gain as another person’s loss. Anti-foreign bias describes people who distrust global trade even though US prosperity increases through global interaction. Finally, make-work bias maintains that “jobs” make us prosperous rather than the goods and services they produce, the essence of true wealth creation. Thus, any labor saving technology that increases efficiency and lowers costs for a better good or service is bad because it replaces some jobs.

These irrational biases explain why voters support price controls, foreign trade restrictions, laws against outsourcing and legal immigration. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, voters choose that which supports their world view. It makes them feel good.

Tax and spend policies have been successful politically, but disastrous economically. Killing the goose that laid the golden egg is a great political strategy -- as long as the goose does not die before the next election.

During campaign season a standing rule serves as good advice. Never listen to what a politician says. Instead, look at their pre-campaign behavior! Look at their record. Silver tongued foxes will tell you what you want to hear. Politicians will not tell the truth about the unintended consequences of their campaign promises. But they will tug at your heart strings. Political rhetoric keeps professional politicians in office indefinitely.

Tongue in cheek, Caplan asks questions. Should only the economically literate be allowed to vote? Should “get out the vote campaigns” (serving only to get the economically illiterate to the polls) be eliminated? Caplan thinks so. As much sense as it makes, there is only a snowball’s chance in you-know-where of that happening.

We owe it to ourselves and our young people to become economically literate for the sake of good citizenship and for our society.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

As 2010 draws to a close, the sun also sets on legislated tax cuts enacted a few years ago. This expiration equates to a massive tax increase on all Americans.

            This is only the beginning. What lies in store, but is never mentioned, are the massive hidden taxes that also take effect in the new year.

            Every April Americans are reminded of the burden of taxation when they file their income tax returns with the IRS. They see a clear bottom line when they pay the government. Such is not the case with the hidden cost of government regulation.

            America has fallen victim to nameless, faceless rule-making bureaucrats who write regulations with the same status as law. They then sit as judge and jury imposing penalties on violators.

            On November 18, 2010, the Senate Committee on Small Business held hearings on the impact of over-regulation of businesses in America. Senator Olympia Snow (R-ME), a liberal Republican, made her opening statement.

“I don’t know how to say it any clearer: Excessive regulations are suffocating the entrepreneurial spirit of America’s almost 30 million small businesses. The Heritage Foundation, which is testifying here today, suggests that this Administration has embarked on nothing short of regulatory rampage, stampeding over small business, through the promulgation of 43 new major regulations promulgated in fiscal year 2010 -- imposing $26.5 billion in new regulatory compliance costs -- and that’s on top of the $1.75 trillion -- that’s trillion with a capital `T’! -- in annual regulatory compliance costs that the Office of Advocacy recently reported.”

            That’s a liberal speaking.

            The Heritage Foundation’s Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, James Gattuso, testified before the Senate committee. His testimony is summed up in his argument. “Hidden taxes imposed by an ever-larger number of government regulations” result in a heavier burden on the US economy. These costs “do not appear on any balance sheet, yet cost Americans about $1 trillion every year.”

            The direct cost of regulation falls disproportionately on small business. Those businesses with 20 employees or less pay, on average, $10,500 a year compared to an $8,000 average for all businesses. The impact on businesses goes beyond the direct costs. Businesses pay “regulatory taxes” in the form of higher prices for goods, reduced economic activity and hindered innovation.

            In 2010 alone, 43 major new rules were issued by federal agencies. By their own assessment, the regulators estimate that the cost to businesses of these rules will be $26.5 billion, the highest level since figures were first kept in 1981.

            The new rules break down as follows. Ten come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA accounts for the bulk of the regulatory cost at $23 billion. Included in that figure is $10.8 billion for new automotive fuel economy standards. Also, the first time reporting of “greenhouse gas” emissions will add to regulatory costs.

            The 2010 record for the regulatory cost increases may not stand for long. In 2011 even more regulations will add to higher costs associated with doing business.

            More rules are on the way. The financial legislation recently adopted by congress (Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act) will require 243 new sets of rules by 11 federal agencies.

            The new health care legislation (Obamacare) will add even more regulations. The same is true for the EPA as well as independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

            Higher regulatory costs contribute to unemployment. One pending EPA rule on boilers will threaten 71,000 jobs. Another pending rule related to the pulp and paper industry will threaten another 11,000 jobs. Still another pending EPA rule on ozone could cost a whopping 7.3 million jobs by 2020.

            Then there is the writing of new rules by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) involving the screening of airline passengers. But, that is another story for another time.

            Expansion of regulations by federal agencies equates to a vast increase in the size of government. Every time you hear a radio or TV commercial paid for by a federal agency (HHS, USDA, FBI) you are witnessing the subtle indoctrination of the general public -- funded by the general public -- suggesting all solutions to life’s problems come from expansive government.

            Are we better off with more government regulation at the expense of our liberty and freedom and our subjugation to a new and growing permanent class of bureaucrats?

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

            Americans have seen the future from the mountain top of Big Government and they don’t like what they see.

            The US House elections encompassed the entire United States. Every representative was up for re-election. This is as close to a referendum on the Obama leftward lurch, and those who supported it, as you can get. In every significant race where Obama campaigned for Democrat candidates, the Democrats lost.

            Under the Obama administration, the United States experienced an experiment in hyperliberalism. In response, Americans did what they had to do and that is what elections are for. Obama knew that and said so. In effect, Obama threw his fellow Democrats under the bus to advance his political agenda.

            The 2010 elections show we live in two Americas. A few liberal enclaves survived on the east and west coasts. Everything else went Republican, if not conservative.

            It may also suggest that this election represents a revolt against the one party system, the government party, with a Democrat wing that likes tax and spend policies and a Republican wing that favors big business and foreign entanglements. Both share in their love of earmarks.

            Major, major gains in the US House plus the state governorships and state legislatures by the Republicans represent an historical precedent. The last time such gains were made was in 1932 when Republicans gained 55 seats in the House.

            Republicans picked up 63 House seats taking a commanding lead. Although not claiming the Senate, Republicans still picked up 6 Senate seats. A whopping 19 state legislative bodies switched from Democrat to Republican control.

            Derisively, Democrats refer to Republicans as the party of NO. More accurately, the Republicans became the party of STOP.

            Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich led the Republican revolution in 1992. The revolution of 2010 was led by a ground swell of people, Tea Party people, very unhappy with the growth of government. Leaders come and go, but people remain.

            Congressman Pomeroy, popular for many years, went down to defeat along with many other long serving congressmen, including some committee chairmen. There is a message here: Senator Conrad, listen to the people and stop playing phony populist politics.

            In effect, Republicans have defacto control of the Senate considering the Democrat senators up for re-election in 2012. Do these Democrats want to hitch their wagon to Obama’s fading star after seeing the results of the 2010 election?

            In the US House attempts will be made to dismantle Obama’s agenda. Of the Democrat senators up for re-election in 2012, who will take the lead in defending Obama’s agenda in view of the 2010 election? Does Senator Conrad wish to carry Obama’s water, then face an unforgiving electorate? He might just vote with the Senate Republicans to save his skin.

            Don’t expect Obama to compromise on his gains. Obama’s agenda will slow, but he will exert his liberalism clandestinely through regulation and not law. His cabinet officers and czars will see to that.

            Speaking of compromise, there is no reason whatever for Republicans to compromise on any issue. Republicans were elected to stop the Obama agenda, not to modify it. It is the loser who must compromise, not the victor. Republicans should not be “reaching across the aisle.” If they do, they can just as easily be shown the door as were the Democrats this year. Only losers compromise.

            Also, conservative newcomers in the House must resist temptations to be co-opted by moderate RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). These are great compromisers.

            People voted in a partisan way for partisan representation. The worst thing House Republicans can do is compromise their principles with Democrats and RINOs. Democrats ran to the extreme left in support of Obama. Why should Republicans now meet extremists half-way and leave the nation with large leftist gains. There is no excuse for bipartisan silliness.

            Besides, an alternative of gridlock and paralysis may not be so bad. People don’t want more government. Gridlock is one way to halt the spread of government growth.

            In the long run, Republican governors are coming to power with strong control over Republican-dominated state houses. Redistricting using the 2010 census will make Democrat recovery very difficult for years to come.

            Most Americans are conservative by nature. Conservatism is not an ideology. It is a disposition and most Americans are disposed to support their own interests first by looking out for themselves and their families.

            Many untold campaign stories have yet to be heard and you won’t hear them from the mainstream media. Look to the alternative media for these encouraging stories. The mainstream media will only make excuses for the loss of their candidates.

            For conservatives, libertarians and Tea Party folks, the work starts now for the 2012 elections. No let up. No compromise. Keep the momentum going for the next two years.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

A physics professor once told me, “If you don’t ask the right questions, you won’t get the right answers.”

November 2 approaches and many political questions hang in the balance. So do the answers. The collective choice of the American voters on election day will sort out those answers.

At the risk of seeming presumptuous, I’ll pose some questions. Let the reader judge if they are the right questions.

First, I must set the scene. In 2008 the Democrat Party secured the White House together with a super majority in both houses of congress. Many longtime loyal Democrats believe Obama stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. Intrigue in Denver confirmed that.

After two years in office and with the help of congress, Obama’s policies govern against the will of the American people. Many old-line Democrats believe he has squandered a potent opportunity afforded by his majority in the House and Senate.

Disappointment abounds. Extremists like George Soros and his ilk criticize Obama for not moving far enough to the left. Old-line Democrats from the John F. Kennedy and Tip O’Neil school believe Obama has moved too far left.

the Democrat Party, of course, typically coalesces into a less-than-homogenous amalgamation of widely disparate groups. Ethnic, gender, homosexual, environmental, economic, social and political divisions abound.

 Assuming Republicans make major gains in November, will Obama modify his agenda to co-operate with a Republican majority in order to position himself for re-election? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell believes as much and is willing to meet Obama Democrats halfway.

 A majority of American voters seem to think otherwise as does Republican Senator Jim DeMint. DeMint wants no part of reaching across the aisle to befriend Democrats and risk advancing Obama’s agenda and his re-election while Republicans hold an anticipated majority in either, or both, Houses of congress.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped 18 points to an historic all-time low of 44.7% since he took office according to a recent Gallup poll. Why would Republican leaders potentially holding a majority reflecting the people’s will to stop the Obama agenda want to co-operate with Obama Democrats?

Which view will the voters validate: McConnell‘s or Demint‘s? Or, do the voters even care whether the politicians rule against the will of the people?

Then there are the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only). Proclaiming the “Big Tent,” the RINOs typify the “good ‘ol boy network.” Espousing the Big Tent, RINOs quietly distain anyone who champions conservative or Christian values and the pro-life cause. This struggle has gone on for years. More recently, they abhor the Tea Party activists.

Can the RINO Country Club set win the election without reinforcements?

If the RINO Blue Bloods control a substantial majority of the House and Senate with the help of these outsiders, will the outsiders be listened to? And, if the RINOs win big with outside help but continue to reject the outsiders, might this split the Republican Party?

Finally, in the wildest imaginings, if the Republican Party is split, will the RINOs become a minor third party capable of attracting moderate old-line Democrats?

Are these questions presumptuous? Maybe. But, they are pertinent.

Collectively, these questions comprise a subset of the larger question: Will the Democrat and Republican Parties, as we know them, endure or will the American voters impose true change that most people can believe in?

November 3 will tell.

Thirty-three years ago a group of Scandinavians from North Dakota sought to celebrate their heritage and values brought from the “old country.” Today the Norsk Hostfest attracts thousands from near and far to celebrate that heritage. This year the festival ran from September 28 through October 2.

During the Hostfest, Minot’s population of about 34,000 wined and dined an estimated 60,000 guests at the All Seasons Arena.

So many attractions, so little time. Big name stars such as Alan Jackson, Vince Gill, Daniel O’Donnell and Bill Gaither comprised the paid attractions. Free shows were offered by The Oakridge Boys, The Indian and the White Guy and adbacadabra. Beyond the professional entertainers a multitude of booths offered everything Scandinavian including woodcarving demonstrations, spinning and weaving demonstrations, rosemaling, jewelry and jewelry making, folk dancing, books, art work and so much more. All blended together creating a memorable event for the crowds of visitors. Much Christmas shopping was accomplished throughout the halls.

Scandinavian food is always a big draw. Lingonberries, lefse, Danish pastries, klub, rommegrot, Scandinavian candy, kransekake, rosettes, fattigman, ponnukokur, vinarterta, cheeses and much more were available. Good ol’ American cuisine could be had as well: hot dogs, hamburgers and fries

Speaking of food, what would a gathering of Scandinavians be without lutefisk, that codfish delicacy? Certainly, a person could get their annual lutefisk fix at the Hostfest.

Tall tales abound regarding this gift from the sea. For example, one urban legend tells why the Irish like lutefisk. This tale is rooted in the days of Viking glory. It was the Nordic raiders who first introduced lutefisk to the Irish. Codfish preserved in lye served as a staple for these medieval seafarers.

During the Viking heyday of the 800s or so, Norsemen threatened the British Isles in search of plunder. Their legendary raids along the coast of Ireland kept the Irish from fishing for the plentiful cod in the surrounding waters. Centuries later after the Viking threat had subsided the Irish once again took to the waters in search of cod. By then the Irish, deprived of cod for so long, could not get enough of it. It mattered little how the fish was preserved just as long as they had their cod. In an attempt to make up for lost time, the Irish consumed lutefisk in quantity ever since.

It may be a fanciful stretch, this tale of lutefisk and the Irish, but it justifies my personal taste for lutefisk. I’m not alone. Don’t let anyone kid you. A lot of people enjoy it.

But, enough already. Lutefisk is only a small part of the annual ethnic tribute to those who left Scandinavia and settled in what is now North Dakota.

New this year is Tromso Hall, the latest addition to the Hostfest. The arctic motif provides the setting for the first Hostfest Film Festival. The idea is to offer a variety of films that share a Scandinavian connection.

The premises of the All Seasons Arena was kept relatively tidy. With such a large assembly of people this is a plus. Of course, the state of cleanliness may vary between morning and evening. Nevertheless, the overall cleanliness is to be commended.

Crowd behavior is a good measure of Norsk Hostfest’s success. The entertainment, music and displays are all family oriented and consequently draw decent people. Then again, good behavior may also stem from the older more mature attendees. The gentle cultural appeal naturally draws a gentler crowd. Add to this the fact that, with a few exceptions, Hostfest is alcohol-free and you have a sober more docile gathering.

Uniquely, Norsk Hostfest celebrates cultural pride among those of Nordic heritage and descent. In this era of political correctness where Europeans are often portrayed as more of a liability than an asset, it is refreshing to witness a healthy self-respect for Caucasian heritage.

In all ways, the Hostfest celebration was an agreeable event.

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).