This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 18, 2008.
The tenets of my liberalism
When I hear my children praise Barack Obama and spout some traditionally liberal values, I smile inwardly, but I often find myself presenting them with the conservative viewpoint on the issue or making sure I debunk the rhetoric. My daughter, now learning the fine points of forensics, often catches me in this, repeating her lessons that one of the best way to bolster your side of a debate is to know the arguments of the other side.
While this is true, my bigger point in illuminating the counterargument is to make sure that when my kids are exposed to ideas, they are exposed to a wide array of ideas; not only so that they can anticipate the "other side", but so that they can explore all sides, and make up their own mind about what side they fall on, in any issue.
I have to think that all the exposure to knowledge that my own parents gave to me and my siblings was to that end. Not to make us personal ideology clones of themselves, but to give us each the ability to form that ideology on our own.
I hope that was their goal, because if they wanted clones, that's not what they got. Given a political spectrum, my siblings and I are spread all over. And as I look beyond my sibling to my cousins, the same pattern holds true -- from politics to religion to food to music, we all have the same roots, but we have all spread out like branches on a tree.
For a tree to flourish, it must be fed, and likewise so must the flourishing of an ideology be nourished with ideas.
---
I think there are two main points of contention between today's American liberal and today's American conservative. These points on which our views pivot are social justice and personal liberty.
To ensure social justice, we must have a strong government that has a role in ensuring that justice is maintained. Generally, conservatives feel that government is best kept to a minimum. Liberals aren't the opposite - we don't think that more government is better. Instead, we feel that in many cases, government is the best equipped entity to solve some problems.
Some of the best and most helpful social safety net programs, be they food stamps, Medicaid, or Medicare and Social Security, were all started to tackle problems too big for individuals to tackle themselves, too necessary to be left to the vagaries of philanthropy.
It was only through a strong federal government that we were able to see the dreams of Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King come to fruition in the racist South. No one can today, with a straight face, insist that this exercise of government power, to ensure social justice, was an abuse of that power.
Conservatives tend to oppose most government regulation of business. By contrast, liberals don't support regulation for the sake of regulation, but we know that left to its own devices, business would only look out for itself. Whether it is environmental protection, worker protection, or consumer protection, it may be true that the market would eventually cull the bad apples, but not before true harm is done. Better, we feel, to regulate industry from the start.
Paradoxically, liberals want government to stay out of our personal business even as it is a strong advocate of social justice. To me, the most stable government, the strongest economy, the mightiest military, all mean nothing if we do not have our personal liberties. All of the former are there to protect and promote the latter.
While it is probably a truism that to have perfect liberty we must also have perfect insecurity, today's conservatives, exemplified by President George Bush and his cronies, are willing to trade liberty for security at an unacceptable ratio.
Liberty and security can coexist, but liberty must always take priority. If it does not, the drive for security will overwhelm the drive for liberty, until that which security was meant to protect is gone.
---
Labels can change. The Republican of Lincoln's time bears little resemblance to the Republican of today. Today's Democrat would cringe ashamedly at the racist rantings of Dixiecrats. We can't always count on labels.
What we can count on, this year, into the next year, and beyond, is that by discussing our differences, by exposing our ideas, we will find common ground. It is there, in the common ground, that progress is made.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
November - thanks tempered by fear
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 4, 2008.
November - thanks tempered by fear
It was one heck of a November. There was simultaneously much to be thankful for and much to be fearful of.
In the former category, for me and the majority of the the rest of the voting population, the election of Barack Obama has let us all breathe a collective sigh of relief. Demonstrating restraint and respect, Obama continues to abide by the truism that "we have one president at a time," and hence refused to meet with G-20 leaders in Washington in mid-November.
At the same time, however, he is not wasting a single moment in trying to shore up the ailing American economy, choosing economic advisers whom he feels will best be able to guide him and us through the next financial year. Results have been mixed, with Wall Street responding favorably one day, but taking a hit the next.
To the relief of retail managers throughout the area, reports from the local media noted that retailers were pleased with sales over the past week, which bodes well for the season. As Chittenden County goes, so goes the nation?
With positive retail sales, and a $200 billion kick from the Treasury Secretary to get banks lending again, brokers in New York and around the world may have something positive to hang their hats on, and hence a reason to buy, or advise others to do so.
The price of oil, the bane of our existence a scant six months ago, has moved into bearable territory of late. That, of course, means bad news for the OPEC nations, and plans to cut production to raise prices have been discussed. Cheating, however, is rampant, which is good news for oil consumers.
Even with the price of gasoline down significantly - under $2! - we may have locked ourselves into a pattern of decreased usage, a trend which could help our pocketbooks, as well as our environment, in the long run.
The lower prices have also helped some of those who need it most. While the decision to drive can be helped by conservation - by good planning and combining destinations, for example - some uses of fuel have no viable alternative. I'm writing specifically of home heating.
There were those who feared actual fatalities from people freezing to death in their homes from want of fuel. The decline in the price of oil has meant, however, that heating oil is more affordable than it was feared it would be. Lower prices, paired with an increase in the federal subsidy, could allow the Vermont fuel assistance program to help over 7000 households instead of last year's 6100.
Locally, the month of November was a productive one for our schools. Between the book fair, parent conferences, and five Frameworks Committee meetings, good works were done for the children of our town.
Personally, I'm thankful for the advent of December, as that means the near end of holiday shopping. My wife is not one to put things off, and on November 30th, we were able to put the finishing touches on this season's economy-bolstering gift-buying.
The end of November also allowed me to put the finishing touches on a 50,000-word novel, for the third year in a row. I may write more about that some other time, but for now, suffice it to say that writing so much in a month makes a busy month even busier.
As for the latter category, those things to be fearful of, the economy is no where near back from the brink, and it seems the littlest thing could set it atumble.
The Big Three auto companies, in trying to scare Congress into fronting it billions of dollars, only seemed to manage to make people wary of buying from them.
Terrorism continues to plague the world - with India its latest victim, the threat of a regional nuclear war again raises its ugly head.
And in one way, it seems we are back in the 18th century, as the crews of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the rest of littoral Somalia, who want to do no more than deliver their cargoes and see their families again, have to contend with pirates.
In closing, and on the lighter side, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to show up in the news, to the particular detriment of Alaskan turkeys. And worse, the Patriots may not be able to buy their way into the playoffs this year. Woe is New England.
November - thanks tempered by fear
It was one heck of a November. There was simultaneously much to be thankful for and much to be fearful of.
In the former category, for me and the majority of the the rest of the voting population, the election of Barack Obama has let us all breathe a collective sigh of relief. Demonstrating restraint and respect, Obama continues to abide by the truism that "we have one president at a time," and hence refused to meet with G-20 leaders in Washington in mid-November.
At the same time, however, he is not wasting a single moment in trying to shore up the ailing American economy, choosing economic advisers whom he feels will best be able to guide him and us through the next financial year. Results have been mixed, with Wall Street responding favorably one day, but taking a hit the next.
To the relief of retail managers throughout the area, reports from the local media noted that retailers were pleased with sales over the past week, which bodes well for the season. As Chittenden County goes, so goes the nation?
With positive retail sales, and a $200 billion kick from the Treasury Secretary to get banks lending again, brokers in New York and around the world may have something positive to hang their hats on, and hence a reason to buy, or advise others to do so.
The price of oil, the bane of our existence a scant six months ago, has moved into bearable territory of late. That, of course, means bad news for the OPEC nations, and plans to cut production to raise prices have been discussed. Cheating, however, is rampant, which is good news for oil consumers.
Even with the price of gasoline down significantly - under $2! - we may have locked ourselves into a pattern of decreased usage, a trend which could help our pocketbooks, as well as our environment, in the long run.
The lower prices have also helped some of those who need it most. While the decision to drive can be helped by conservation - by good planning and combining destinations, for example - some uses of fuel have no viable alternative. I'm writing specifically of home heating.
There were those who feared actual fatalities from people freezing to death in their homes from want of fuel. The decline in the price of oil has meant, however, that heating oil is more affordable than it was feared it would be. Lower prices, paired with an increase in the federal subsidy, could allow the Vermont fuel assistance program to help over 7000 households instead of last year's 6100.
Locally, the month of November was a productive one for our schools. Between the book fair, parent conferences, and five Frameworks Committee meetings, good works were done for the children of our town.
Personally, I'm thankful for the advent of December, as that means the near end of holiday shopping. My wife is not one to put things off, and on November 30th, we were able to put the finishing touches on this season's economy-bolstering gift-buying.
The end of November also allowed me to put the finishing touches on a 50,000-word novel, for the third year in a row. I may write more about that some other time, but for now, suffice it to say that writing so much in a month makes a busy month even busier.
As for the latter category, those things to be fearful of, the economy is no where near back from the brink, and it seems the littlest thing could set it atumble.
The Big Three auto companies, in trying to scare Congress into fronting it billions of dollars, only seemed to manage to make people wary of buying from them.
Terrorism continues to plague the world - with India its latest victim, the threat of a regional nuclear war again raises its ugly head.
And in one way, it seems we are back in the 18th century, as the crews of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the rest of littoral Somalia, who want to do no more than deliver their cargoes and see their families again, have to contend with pirates.
In closing, and on the lighter side, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin continued to show up in the news, to the particular detriment of Alaskan turkeys. And worse, the Patriots may not be able to buy their way into the playoffs this year. Woe is New England.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Election Reflection
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 20, 2008.
Election Reflection
In our lives, it is important to look back on past events and reflect on what has gone before, to learn lessons, to make plans for the future. In elections, time gives us a chance to do all that, but it also gives us a chance to do something just as important - hold recounts.
Or just counting in the first place. For days after the election, it looked clear that convicted felon, and Republican incumbent Ted Stevens of Alaska would be returning to the Senate, at least long enough for the Senate to expel him. But after 65,000 of 90,000 absentee ballots had been counted as of last Friday, the tide had turned and Democratic challenger Mark Begich had taken the lead.
In Minnesota, Democratic challenger Al Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by only 206 votes, out of 2.9 million cast. A recount is mandated by state law, and began yesterday. It will be next month, though, before the result is certified. Franken (actually running on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party ticket because of some interesting historical quirks) was in Washington to work with the Democratic leadership, just in case the recount went his way.
In Georgia, there is little question about the vote count, but since none of the candidates got the required fifty percent, a run-off election is scheduled for the two top vote-getters, Republican incumbent (and plurality winner) Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. A key issue in the run-off campaign so far seems to be support for the Fair Tax, which Chambliss supports and Martin does not.
Speaking of run-off elections, thankfully, no such election will be needed here in Vermont. Here, if no candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer gets fifty percent of the vote, the election is thrown to the legislature, with the top three vote-getters eligible for election.
For a while on election night, it was unclear if incumbent Republican Jim Douglas would be able to get the required fifty percent, but after all the votes were counted, he handily won and passed the threshold with 53.4%. It is not easy to unseat an incumbent in Vermont. Despite several hard challenges in both of their careers, Jim Douglas and his predecessor, Howard Dean, fended them all off.
Since Douglas did win the needed 50%, the more interesting aspect of the governor's race was the fight for second place. Though he eked it out by just 257 votes, Independent Anthony Pollina beat Democrat Gaye Symington for Douglas's leavings. His success in beating out Symington may or may not be helpful to Pollina, a well-meaning and well-spoken man who has made something of a career of being a spoiler and also-ran.
Seven Days columnist Shay Totten reports that some Democrats are pushing to allow Pollina to run against Douglas as a fusion candidate in 2010. It seems unlikely to me, barring a decision by Douglas not to run or a major scandal in the Douglas administration, that any challenger could possibly win. That might be their point - let Pollina take the fall for another loss.
In any case, we have at least a week or two before the next campaign season begins in earnest, so no decisions have to be made right now.
In terms of state-wide offices, the governor's race was the one the incumbent won by the lowest percentage. According to the Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie won with 55.0%; Secretary of State Deb Markowitz won with 70.8%; Attorney General Bill Sorrell won with 72.6%; Peter Welch was sent back to Congress with 83.2%; Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon won with 83.8%; and Treasurer Jeb Spaulding won the highest percentage of all with 89.9%.
And, of course, Barack Obama won Vermont's three electoral votes with 67.4%. There were seven other major party candidates for President. Republican John McCain garnered 30.4% of the vote; the only other player to get at least a full percentage point was Independent Ralph Nader, with 1.02%.
For the country, this was, indeed, a historic election, and one which is not quite over in some states. Here in Vermont, though, it was more of the same, with incumbents enjoying the protection of their offices. It is not necessarily true that we've gotten the best that we could have gotten, but what is true is that we picked them.
Now our job is to keep an eye on them, and I hope you'll join me as we do just that.
-----------------------------
Notes:
Following the submission of this column, the victory of Mark Begich over Ted Stevens was confirmed. On November 20, Stevens made his final speech in the Senate and went home.
Not to be outdone on the recount front, Vermont got in on the action. The seventh place candidate in the Chittenden Senate race, Denise Barnard, requested a recount of that county's ballots. Barnard had assumed she had come in sixth on Election Night, but several miscount issues led to Tim Ashe taking that position. The recount, scheduled to start on December 3, is scheuled to take seven to ten days. There was also a recount in the House race in Milton scheduled for one day of work.
Election Reflection
In our lives, it is important to look back on past events and reflect on what has gone before, to learn lessons, to make plans for the future. In elections, time gives us a chance to do all that, but it also gives us a chance to do something just as important - hold recounts.
Or just counting in the first place. For days after the election, it looked clear that convicted felon, and Republican incumbent Ted Stevens of Alaska would be returning to the Senate, at least long enough for the Senate to expel him. But after 65,000 of 90,000 absentee ballots had been counted as of last Friday, the tide had turned and Democratic challenger Mark Begich had taken the lead.
In Minnesota, Democratic challenger Al Franken trailed incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by only 206 votes, out of 2.9 million cast. A recount is mandated by state law, and began yesterday. It will be next month, though, before the result is certified. Franken (actually running on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party ticket because of some interesting historical quirks) was in Washington to work with the Democratic leadership, just in case the recount went his way.
In Georgia, there is little question about the vote count, but since none of the candidates got the required fifty percent, a run-off election is scheduled for the two top vote-getters, Republican incumbent (and plurality winner) Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin. A key issue in the run-off campaign so far seems to be support for the Fair Tax, which Chambliss supports and Martin does not.
Speaking of run-off elections, thankfully, no such election will be needed here in Vermont. Here, if no candidate for governor, lieutenant governor, or treasurer gets fifty percent of the vote, the election is thrown to the legislature, with the top three vote-getters eligible for election.
For a while on election night, it was unclear if incumbent Republican Jim Douglas would be able to get the required fifty percent, but after all the votes were counted, he handily won and passed the threshold with 53.4%. It is not easy to unseat an incumbent in Vermont. Despite several hard challenges in both of their careers, Jim Douglas and his predecessor, Howard Dean, fended them all off.
Since Douglas did win the needed 50%, the more interesting aspect of the governor's race was the fight for second place. Though he eked it out by just 257 votes, Independent Anthony Pollina beat Democrat Gaye Symington for Douglas's leavings. His success in beating out Symington may or may not be helpful to Pollina, a well-meaning and well-spoken man who has made something of a career of being a spoiler and also-ran.
Seven Days columnist Shay Totten reports that some Democrats are pushing to allow Pollina to run against Douglas as a fusion candidate in 2010. It seems unlikely to me, barring a decision by Douglas not to run or a major scandal in the Douglas administration, that any challenger could possibly win. That might be their point - let Pollina take the fall for another loss.
In any case, we have at least a week or two before the next campaign season begins in earnest, so no decisions have to be made right now.
In terms of state-wide offices, the governor's race was the one the incumbent won by the lowest percentage. According to the Secretary of State, Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie won with 55.0%; Secretary of State Deb Markowitz won with 70.8%; Attorney General Bill Sorrell won with 72.6%; Peter Welch was sent back to Congress with 83.2%; Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon won with 83.8%; and Treasurer Jeb Spaulding won the highest percentage of all with 89.9%.
And, of course, Barack Obama won Vermont's three electoral votes with 67.4%. There were seven other major party candidates for President. Republican John McCain garnered 30.4% of the vote; the only other player to get at least a full percentage point was Independent Ralph Nader, with 1.02%.
For the country, this was, indeed, a historic election, and one which is not quite over in some states. Here in Vermont, though, it was more of the same, with incumbents enjoying the protection of their offices. It is not necessarily true that we've gotten the best that we could have gotten, but what is true is that we picked them.
Now our job is to keep an eye on them, and I hope you'll join me as we do just that.
-----------------------------
Notes:
Following the submission of this column, the victory of Mark Begich over Ted Stevens was confirmed. On November 20, Stevens made his final speech in the Senate and went home.
Not to be outdone on the recount front, Vermont got in on the action. The seventh place candidate in the Chittenden Senate race, Denise Barnard, requested a recount of that county's ballots. Barnard had assumed she had come in sixth on Election Night, but several miscount issues led to Tim Ashe taking that position. The recount, scheduled to start on December 3, is scheuled to take seven to ten days. There was also a recount in the House race in Milton scheduled for one day of work.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Watching our political future
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 6, 2008.
Watching our political future
Congratulations have to go out this week to Barack Obama, Jim Douglas, and Brian Dubie. I'll write further about the national, state, and local races next time, because only after due time has passed can we truly analyze the patterns and trends that emerge from this election.
I will report, instead, on two profound experiences I had this past week.
The first had to do with that quintessential civic duty - voting. I write, though, not of my own experience in the voting booth, but instead of the experiences I had watching some of our children vote. On Tuesday, in the Williston Central School gym, the upper and lower houses in that building lined up one by one, throughout the course of the day, to participate in Vermont Votes for Kids.
In this mock election, lower house students, those in grades one through four, voted for the top of the ticket - president, governor, and lieutenant governor. Upper house students, in grades five through eight, voted for president and all statewide offices.
Results were not available as of this writing, but I participated in the counting of votes for one upper and one lower house. The results I saw predicted the results of the real election - Obama was selected by a wide margin, as was Douglas, and Dubie.
Unlike in an actual election, though, we did count ballots before all were cast, and that allowed me to witness some surprises and come backs. Notably, at one point in the gubernatorial race, Independent Anthony Pollina was far beyond Democrat Gaye Symington and knocking on Douglas's door. Democrat Tom Costello actually pulled up even to Republican Dubie in the lieutenant governor's race at the mid point of one tally. In both cases, the final tally was closer to the real vote tally, but it was fun to watch nevertheless.
I also noticed prevalent ticket splitting. The choices of Obama, Pollina, and Dubie were actually quite common, and I wondered how many of these kids' parents had spoken out loud about their choices, around the dinner table or in the car, running errands and driving here and there. Did they hear the arguments for and against the candidates that they presented, or did they listen to their lessons and to the candidates themselves, and make up their own minds?
It is an individual question, the answer to which I may never know. I do know, however, that my own kids did not mirror all of my own choices, and I take some pride in that. They heard me, time and again, argue for my choices, but in the end, they made their own choices, just as they should have. My daughter now, more than ever, looks forward to the next presidential election, where she will be old enough to cast her first vote. I only hope that at that time, she retains the lessons she has already learned, thinks for herself, weighs her options carefully, and makes up her own mind.
The other experience took place in the gym my wife and I frequent, and extended over the course of several days. In the gym, we're all more concerned with building muscle and losing weight than anything else, but on Saturday and again on Tuesday, political discussions were intermixed with the warm ups and cool downs.
What I felt here was the complete and utter lack of ambivalence. In prior years, it was inevitable that some of my acquaintances would say that they didn't plan to vote. This year, however, I cannot recall discussing the election with a single person and hearing that suffrage rights would not be exercised.
Each day, stories were traded among those who had voted early, and once the Obama supporters and McCain supporters had made themselves known, there was good-natured ribbing about our respective choices. This was encouraging to me - that despite some of the negative campaigning that we've been subjected to over the past few months, we can come together and enjoy a good laugh. There was also universal respect from both sides for the supporters of the other side, and that gives me hope that as time passes and wounds heal, we will all be able to come together to overcome the issues that we face as a state and a nation.
I've always felt that this nation, these United States, is the best example of what we humans can accomplish when we work together. My hope has yet again been renewed, and I look forward to watching us as we take one more step in our ongoing political evolution.
Watching our political future
Congratulations have to go out this week to Barack Obama, Jim Douglas, and Brian Dubie. I'll write further about the national, state, and local races next time, because only after due time has passed can we truly analyze the patterns and trends that emerge from this election.
I will report, instead, on two profound experiences I had this past week.
The first had to do with that quintessential civic duty - voting. I write, though, not of my own experience in the voting booth, but instead of the experiences I had watching some of our children vote. On Tuesday, in the Williston Central School gym, the upper and lower houses in that building lined up one by one, throughout the course of the day, to participate in Vermont Votes for Kids.
In this mock election, lower house students, those in grades one through four, voted for the top of the ticket - president, governor, and lieutenant governor. Upper house students, in grades five through eight, voted for president and all statewide offices.
Results were not available as of this writing, but I participated in the counting of votes for one upper and one lower house. The results I saw predicted the results of the real election - Obama was selected by a wide margin, as was Douglas, and Dubie.
Unlike in an actual election, though, we did count ballots before all were cast, and that allowed me to witness some surprises and come backs. Notably, at one point in the gubernatorial race, Independent Anthony Pollina was far beyond Democrat Gaye Symington and knocking on Douglas's door. Democrat Tom Costello actually pulled up even to Republican Dubie in the lieutenant governor's race at the mid point of one tally. In both cases, the final tally was closer to the real vote tally, but it was fun to watch nevertheless.
I also noticed prevalent ticket splitting. The choices of Obama, Pollina, and Dubie were actually quite common, and I wondered how many of these kids' parents had spoken out loud about their choices, around the dinner table or in the car, running errands and driving here and there. Did they hear the arguments for and against the candidates that they presented, or did they listen to their lessons and to the candidates themselves, and make up their own minds?
It is an individual question, the answer to which I may never know. I do know, however, that my own kids did not mirror all of my own choices, and I take some pride in that. They heard me, time and again, argue for my choices, but in the end, they made their own choices, just as they should have. My daughter now, more than ever, looks forward to the next presidential election, where she will be old enough to cast her first vote. I only hope that at that time, she retains the lessons she has already learned, thinks for herself, weighs her options carefully, and makes up her own mind.
The other experience took place in the gym my wife and I frequent, and extended over the course of several days. In the gym, we're all more concerned with building muscle and losing weight than anything else, but on Saturday and again on Tuesday, political discussions were intermixed with the warm ups and cool downs.
What I felt here was the complete and utter lack of ambivalence. In prior years, it was inevitable that some of my acquaintances would say that they didn't plan to vote. This year, however, I cannot recall discussing the election with a single person and hearing that suffrage rights would not be exercised.
Each day, stories were traded among those who had voted early, and once the Obama supporters and McCain supporters had made themselves known, there was good-natured ribbing about our respective choices. This was encouraging to me - that despite some of the negative campaigning that we've been subjected to over the past few months, we can come together and enjoy a good laugh. There was also universal respect from both sides for the supporters of the other side, and that gives me hope that as time passes and wounds heal, we will all be able to come together to overcome the issues that we face as a state and a nation.
I've always felt that this nation, these United States, is the best example of what we humans can accomplish when we work together. My hope has yet again been renewed, and I look forward to watching us as we take one more step in our ongoing political evolution.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Evaluating the local races
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 23, 2008.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Evaluating the local races
I've had a hard time deciding for whom to vote for governor.
This may come as somewhat of a shock if you've read these words over the past few months. It would not be inaccurate to call me a Democratic Party partisan. But I try not to make decisions purely based on party. And this year, there are three good choices. What's a partisan to do?
I'll circle back to the governor's race - first, I want to offer my support for local Democrats Terry Macaig and Jim McCullough. McCullough is a long-time resident of Williston and a long-serving member of the legislature. Though he may score low on some business group's scorecard, I'm confident that he knows what business needs from Montpelier and will work to that end.
Macaig is also a long-time resident and shares many of my own views on local issues, notably on mandatory minimum sentences and on Vermont Yankee. These are important issues that will need to be worked out carefully and thoughtfully, and I'm confident Macaig will be an important part of that process.
As far as the Senate goes, my family has a personal relationship with Diane Snelling, and I do plan to give her one of my votes. From the Democratic column, I have long experience with Ginny Lyons, Ed Flanagan, and Doug Racine. I still have some thinking to do on my final two choices for Senator.
Guiding those choices will be my goal of maintaining a Democratic majority in the statehouse. However, I think it is good to have a robust and vocal opposition, so I don't want to see the Republicans and Progressives trounced.
And that brings me back to the gubernatorial race. Because I see positives about all three candidates, it has been a process of elimination to come to my decision.
Anthony Pollina has good ideas and he is articulate. I used to hear him on the radio during lunchtime drives, and remember nodding in agreement as he spoke. But in the end, I think his position on Vermont Yankee is dangerous for the Vermont economy, and I fear his health care plan. I would be comfortable voting for Pollina for lieutenant governor - but not for the state's highest office.
Jim Douglas has some good ideas, to be sure. He opposed an increase in the gas tax, his e-State initiative is a positive plan for our future, and he supports Vermont Yankee. However, his refusal to support a clean-up fund for Yankee is troubling, and I disagree with his continued support for unnecessary road projects in Williston and Bennington.
Gaye Symington has a leg up on Douglas because of her party affiliation, and I agree with most of her published positions. I fully support Symington's plan for Vermont's infrastructure. The money we would spend on the Circ and on the Bennington Bypass could be put to much better use elsewhere, improving what we already have.
However, I fear her support for Yankee is limited to the plant's decommissioning. I think Yankee needs to be a centerpiece of our energy plan and we need to work closely with Entergy to that end.
But the biggest reason I have had such a hard time getting behind Symington fully is a basic belief of mine - that the separation of powers is critical to making sure good laws are made. There are so many problems in Washington right now that I think we need to have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president. I'm a bit afraid of what could happen if the Democrats are flush with power at the state level, though.
So that's it. Do I support Douglas knowing I disagree with him on several key issues, but also knowing that for bills to become laws, they will have to be reasoned compromises? Or do I support Symington, knowing we agree on most issues, but fearing that the checks and balances of our system are in jeopardy when there is little need for compromise?
After some considerable soul-searching, I have decided to support Symington. We have tough times over the horizon, and I think that with the fourth estate keeping a close eye on our state government, the Democrats can pass laws that benefit the state without burdening the taxpayers. I urge you to support Symington, too, and give her a chance to steer us through the coming storm.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Great Debates
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 9, 2008.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Great Debates
Televised debates in U.S. presidential campaigns have a long and storied history. Over time, it is not the substance of the debates that we remember but instead the one-liners and the blunders.
Classic gaffes include George H.W. Bush's impatient glances at his watch during a 1992 debate with Bill Clinton and Al Gore's creepy hovering during a town-hall style debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Classic one-liners abound, but Ronald Reagan supplied two memorable ones in a 1980 debate. His reprimand of "There you go again" when Jimmy Carter criticized Reagan's position on Medicare is often replayed, as is his rhetorical question to the viewing audience, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
It would be a stretch to say that a gaffe in a debate is a death sentence to a campaign or that a great one-liner could seal the deal, but these, along with the other trivialities from the campaign trail, can add up to enough of a nudge to push fence-sitters into one camp or another.
So it is with this knowledge of debates past that I have watched the last three debates, looking for the critical mistake, the classic zinger. So far, though, the debates have been very even.
For the first debate, John McCain supplied plenty of drama, keeping everyone guessing if he'd even show up, given that he had nonsensically "suspended his campaign" so that he could work on the economic bail-out bill. Barack Obama vowed that he would appear at the University of Mississippi for the debate whether McCain showed up or not. In the end, McCain did appear, revealing the "suspension" as mere melodrama.
As I watched, I was impressed by most of the answers that both candidates gave, though I cynically let pass the answering of the question they heard rather than the one that was asked. Post-debate polls asking "Who won?" indicated a preference for Obama among undecided voters, but only just barely - McCain and "Neither" were both close behind. Given that the debate's primary focus was on foreign policy, seen as a McCain strong point, that Obama held his own was seen as a big plus by many pundits.
Going into last week's Vice Presidential debate, many were expecting Sarah Palin to stumble. Considering her mangled answers to such softball interview questions as "What newspapers do you read?" it was easy to expect a stumble. But by only answering the questions she wanted to, Palin was able to keep an even keel, even managing to wink at the camera a few times.
Joe Biden, known for being pedantic and verbose, managed to keep those impulses in check and avoided boring the audience to tears. He ended up being very eloquent and even folksy, threatening to take that mantle from Palin. Though a CNN poll indicated a Biden win, Palin did better than expected, which was seen as a plus for her ticket.
In the days since the VP debate, the McCain campaign has been reeling from declining poll numbers in battleground states, and as a result, it has decided to turn negative. Red flags starting going up in the blogosphere, and McCain's own words from his 2000 campaign emerged: "If all you run is negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it."
Perhaps trying to counter his own "lack of vision" critique, McCain came out swinging in Tuesday's debate. While he roundly lambasted Obama for new spending proposals, McCain surprised everyone by proposing a mortgage bail-out plan that is bound to cost more hundreds of billions of dollars.
Obama, who watched McCain speak throughout the debate with the bemused look of someone comfortable with his positions on the issues (and his positions in the polls), again held his own in a format that was predicted to play to McCain's strengths.
After all was said and done, one CBS "instant poll" of undecided voters found that Obama again came out only slightly ahead of both McCain and "draw". While surely discouraging for McCain, such results only lend credence to Obama's articulated positions.
With one more debate to be heard, there is still time for a slip-up or a home run. History shows it might not make much of a difference - but that's not to say they won't keep trying.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Back to (Electoral) College
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 25, 2008.
Back to (Electoral) College
Every four years, we Americans go back to college - the Electoral College. The Electoral College is important because despite conventional wisdom, it is not presidential candidates that we will vote for in November but instead the members of this exclusive college.
Officially, the President is chosen not by the people but by the states, and each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress. All states get at least three electoral votes - one for each Senator and Representative. Vermont, then, only gets three. California, by contrast, has 55.
These elector counts are how commentators can tell you how many electoral votes a candidate needs to win the election. There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in Congress, for a total of 535 electoral votes. Add three more for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. You need half plus one to win outright, or 270.
It is these electors you are selecting when you cast your ballot in November, not the exact candidate, though each political party chooses its electors. In most states, including Vermont, the slate of electors that garners the most votes will vote in the Electoral College. The electors from the other parties get to watch from home like the rest of us.
After the electors all vote, the votes are bundled up and mailed off to Congress, where they are eventually opened and tallied, and a winner is officially declared.
This year, Election Day falls on November 4. Elector Day, when the electors gather in their state capitals to cast their votes, is December 15. Finally, the Congress will count the votes on January 6.
Most of this process is pro forma after Election Day. Though electors are not technically bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, they almost always do; and unless an elector goes against the grain, the reading of the votes in Congress is no surprise.
Why so convoluted a system? Why do we not just vote for the presidential candidate directly? The answer goes back to the great compromises the Framers made when they wrote the Constitution back in 1787.
The Electoral College does a few things. The biggest effect it has is to protect the smaller states, like Vermont, from the whims of the larger states. For one thing, large-state favorite sons can only get as many electoral votes as their state has; for another, because of equal suffrage in the Senate, smaller states have disproportionately large voting power in the College.
Another effect is our quadrennial reminder of the power of representative democracy. Just as we elect Senators and Representatives to weigh our demands with those of the nation, we elect electors to weigh our vote with the choices available. Even if the Electoral College always ends up voting as expected, there is always that slim possibility they could change their collective mind.
I have vacillated on the issue of the Electoral College over time, from supporter, to detractor, to compromiser.
As a resident of a small state, I am happy that my vote counts for more than a New York vote or a California vote. I am, however, uncomfortably happy, this being the equivalent of electoral schadenfreude.
The populist idea is a straight national popular vote. After the election debacle of 2000, I cringe, though, at any national plan. If there is dispute about the national vote, do we mandate Florida-style recounts in all 50 states? Would this grind the process to a halt?
Undoubtedly we could work something out, where recounts are by precinct or district or state, but still the prospect of needing a national recount is plausible. At least with the Electoral College as it is now, a recount in New York or New Hampshire does not necessitate a recount here.
A promising compromise is an interstate compact whereby, once enough states to total 270 or more electoral vote have signed on, those states would change their laws to select the slate of electors for the winner of the national vote, regardless of the state vote.
In any case, it is too late for change now, so the Electoral College process is going to go forward at least one more time. So, revel in our little electoral idiosyncrasy, and as homework, try to find out the names of the electors you'll be voting for when you cast your vote on Election Day.
Back to (Electoral) College
Every four years, we Americans go back to college - the Electoral College. The Electoral College is important because despite conventional wisdom, it is not presidential candidates that we will vote for in November but instead the members of this exclusive college.
Officially, the President is chosen not by the people but by the states, and each state has as many votes as it has members of Congress. All states get at least three electoral votes - one for each Senator and Representative. Vermont, then, only gets three. California, by contrast, has 55.
These elector counts are how commentators can tell you how many electoral votes a candidate needs to win the election. There are 100 Senators and 435 Representatives in Congress, for a total of 535 electoral votes. Add three more for Washington, D.C., for a total of 538. You need half plus one to win outright, or 270.
It is these electors you are selecting when you cast your ballot in November, not the exact candidate, though each political party chooses its electors. In most states, including Vermont, the slate of electors that garners the most votes will vote in the Electoral College. The electors from the other parties get to watch from home like the rest of us.
After the electors all vote, the votes are bundled up and mailed off to Congress, where they are eventually opened and tallied, and a winner is officially declared.
This year, Election Day falls on November 4. Elector Day, when the electors gather in their state capitals to cast their votes, is December 15. Finally, the Congress will count the votes on January 6.
Most of this process is pro forma after Election Day. Though electors are not technically bound to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, they almost always do; and unless an elector goes against the grain, the reading of the votes in Congress is no surprise.
Why so convoluted a system? Why do we not just vote for the presidential candidate directly? The answer goes back to the great compromises the Framers made when they wrote the Constitution back in 1787.
The Electoral College does a few things. The biggest effect it has is to protect the smaller states, like Vermont, from the whims of the larger states. For one thing, large-state favorite sons can only get as many electoral votes as their state has; for another, because of equal suffrage in the Senate, smaller states have disproportionately large voting power in the College.
Another effect is our quadrennial reminder of the power of representative democracy. Just as we elect Senators and Representatives to weigh our demands with those of the nation, we elect electors to weigh our vote with the choices available. Even if the Electoral College always ends up voting as expected, there is always that slim possibility they could change their collective mind.
I have vacillated on the issue of the Electoral College over time, from supporter, to detractor, to compromiser.
As a resident of a small state, I am happy that my vote counts for more than a New York vote or a California vote. I am, however, uncomfortably happy, this being the equivalent of electoral schadenfreude.
The populist idea is a straight national popular vote. After the election debacle of 2000, I cringe, though, at any national plan. If there is dispute about the national vote, do we mandate Florida-style recounts in all 50 states? Would this grind the process to a halt?
Undoubtedly we could work something out, where recounts are by precinct or district or state, but still the prospect of needing a national recount is plausible. At least with the Electoral College as it is now, a recount in New York or New Hampshire does not necessitate a recount here.
A promising compromise is an interstate compact whereby, once enough states to total 270 or more electoral vote have signed on, those states would change their laws to select the slate of electors for the winner of the national vote, regardless of the state vote.
In any case, it is too late for change now, so the Electoral College process is going to go forward at least one more time. So, revel in our little electoral idiosyncrasy, and as homework, try to find out the names of the electors you'll be voting for when you cast your vote on Election Day.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Conventional Wisdom
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 11, 2008.
Conventional Wisdom
Last week, the convention phase of the 2008 campaign season ended.
The Democratic Party could not have asked for a better convention. All of the heavy hitters got to have their time on stage, if not in the spotlight of prime time.
The Clintons buried the hatchet and hopefully Senator Hillary Clinton's call for her supporters to back Barack Obama will not go unheeded. In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to watch as Clinton campaigns for Obama throughout the country.
Joe Biden came out swinging, as everyone expected him to. He called the President to task for the policies of the last eight years, and wondered along with us what John McCain would do any different.
Wrapping up, the convention moved outside, and Barack Obama gave a speech to a packed house and a huge television audience. The TV cameras sought out the Obama supporters who were moved to tears by his speech, and it wasn't hard to find several in the crowd.
The outdoor venue was a risk. What if the campaign couldn't fill the stands? What if the television audience didn't tune in? What if the weather took a turn for the worst?
To this last point, Stuart Shepard, a cohort of James Dobson of Focus on the Family, exhorted his listeners to pray for rain. Though Shepard apologized for the comment, saying it was made in jest, the incident must have still made worries bubble up in organizers' minds.
The weather, though, cooperated, and so did the audience, both in Denver and at home. Nothing, it seemed, was going to lessen the impact of the convention at its close.
Nothing, that is, except for a couple of storms.
The first metaphorical storm was started by McCain himself, when he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Never before do I recall seeing so much interest in a vice presidential pick.
Palin has excited the Republican base like no other pick could have, and has grabbed the attention of many who otherwise wouldn't have care one whit about the choice. Whether you were a political junkie, a GOP stalwart, or an apolitical Us Magazine reader, all minds were on Palin.
I have seen buttons in the Internet extolling "Palin Power" and quipping "Palin - Read My Lipstick". One, with only half-hearted tongue-in-cheekness, switches the ticket's names to "Palin/McCain".
Ironically, Palin is now blessed with the same kind of celebrity that McCain had criticized Obama for last month. Any comment, Paris Hilton?
Only a real storm seemed able to draw attention from Hurricane Sarah, and Mother Nature obliged with Hurricane Gustav. As the storm bore down on the Gulf states, the Republicans did the right thing and toned events down for the first day of their convention.
A former Democratic National Committee chair, Don Fowler, turned Shepard's words around on him, saying that Gustav "demonstrates God is on our side." Ill-timed and in extremely poor taste, Fowler issued his own apology for his comment while the Obama campaign likely was thinking "thanks for nothing."
But Gustav passed and Palin took to the stage on Wednesday, marking her real debut to the nation. After briefly going over her life story and establishing her conservative bona fides, she turned into an attack dog, issuing one-liners against Obama, the "angry left," and the "liberal media elite." After the convention closed, these zingers became staples of the McCain/Palin stump speeches, and the fact checkers revealed many of them to be outright lies.
Finally, Thursday was McCain's night to shine. As he described his time in a Vietnamese prison, I found myself unabashedly misty-eyed. His courage in the face of adversity makes me proud to have served under the same flag. Of course, the biography was followed by a speech that was big on applause points but short on any detail for his plans for the country.
No matter. In the end, the conventions got some of their highest ratings ever. Nearly 40 million viewers watched Obama, Palin, and McCain, with McCain drawing the highest numbers of all.
Take a deep breath. There are a few weeks before the next phase, the debates. With the race as tight as it is, they could play a key role. I await the one-on-one confrontations excitedly.
-----------------------
I would be remiss not to mention the anniversary we commemorate today. Never forget those who died on September 11, 2001, and never forget the troops who have sacrificed life and limb, and continue to do so, every day since.
Conventional Wisdom
Last week, the convention phase of the 2008 campaign season ended.
The Democratic Party could not have asked for a better convention. All of the heavy hitters got to have their time on stage, if not in the spotlight of prime time.
The Clintons buried the hatchet and hopefully Senator Hillary Clinton's call for her supporters to back Barack Obama will not go unheeded. In the coming weeks, it will be interesting to watch as Clinton campaigns for Obama throughout the country.
Joe Biden came out swinging, as everyone expected him to. He called the President to task for the policies of the last eight years, and wondered along with us what John McCain would do any different.
Wrapping up, the convention moved outside, and Barack Obama gave a speech to a packed house and a huge television audience. The TV cameras sought out the Obama supporters who were moved to tears by his speech, and it wasn't hard to find several in the crowd.
The outdoor venue was a risk. What if the campaign couldn't fill the stands? What if the television audience didn't tune in? What if the weather took a turn for the worst?
To this last point, Stuart Shepard, a cohort of James Dobson of Focus on the Family, exhorted his listeners to pray for rain. Though Shepard apologized for the comment, saying it was made in jest, the incident must have still made worries bubble up in organizers' minds.
The weather, though, cooperated, and so did the audience, both in Denver and at home. Nothing, it seemed, was going to lessen the impact of the convention at its close.
Nothing, that is, except for a couple of storms.
The first metaphorical storm was started by McCain himself, when he picked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Never before do I recall seeing so much interest in a vice presidential pick.
Palin has excited the Republican base like no other pick could have, and has grabbed the attention of many who otherwise wouldn't have care one whit about the choice. Whether you were a political junkie, a GOP stalwart, or an apolitical Us Magazine reader, all minds were on Palin.
I have seen buttons in the Internet extolling "Palin Power" and quipping "Palin - Read My Lipstick". One, with only half-hearted tongue-in-cheekness, switches the ticket's names to "Palin/McCain".
Ironically, Palin is now blessed with the same kind of celebrity that McCain had criticized Obama for last month. Any comment, Paris Hilton?
Only a real storm seemed able to draw attention from Hurricane Sarah, and Mother Nature obliged with Hurricane Gustav. As the storm bore down on the Gulf states, the Republicans did the right thing and toned events down for the first day of their convention.
A former Democratic National Committee chair, Don Fowler, turned Shepard's words around on him, saying that Gustav "demonstrates God is on our side." Ill-timed and in extremely poor taste, Fowler issued his own apology for his comment while the Obama campaign likely was thinking "thanks for nothing."
But Gustav passed and Palin took to the stage on Wednesday, marking her real debut to the nation. After briefly going over her life story and establishing her conservative bona fides, she turned into an attack dog, issuing one-liners against Obama, the "angry left," and the "liberal media elite." After the convention closed, these zingers became staples of the McCain/Palin stump speeches, and the fact checkers revealed many of them to be outright lies.
Finally, Thursday was McCain's night to shine. As he described his time in a Vietnamese prison, I found myself unabashedly misty-eyed. His courage in the face of adversity makes me proud to have served under the same flag. Of course, the biography was followed by a speech that was big on applause points but short on any detail for his plans for the country.
No matter. In the end, the conventions got some of their highest ratings ever. Nearly 40 million viewers watched Obama, Palin, and McCain, with McCain drawing the highest numbers of all.
Take a deep breath. There are a few weeks before the next phase, the debates. With the race as tight as it is, they could play a key role. I await the one-on-one confrontations excitedly.
-----------------------
I would be remiss not to mention the anniversary we commemorate today. Never forget those who died on September 11, 2001, and never forget the troops who have sacrificed life and limb, and continue to do so, every day since.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Campaign Let-Downs
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 28, 2008.
Campaign Let-Downs
I feel let down by Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
To be fair, though, I also feel let down by the Democrats on two points, so let me get those out of the way.
First, I signed up to be "one of the first" to know about Barack Obama's choice for a vice presidential candidate, the message to arrive on my cell phone before even the cable news networks were told.
I got the message, but at 3:29 a.m. last Saturday morning, and before I checked my inbox, I saw the morning news telling me about Joe Biden. So much for being one of the first.
Second, I was disappointed that the Democratic National Committee decided to let Florida and Michigan off the hook for their disobedient behavior during the primary season. Having held primaries earlier than the rules allowed, they were stripped of their convention delegates.
After negotiations between the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the states were granted half their delegates, and now, this past weekend, the DNC decided to seat both states' full delegations. As any parent will agree, you have to follow through on your punishments or they mean nothing.
These let-downs, though, are minuscule compared to those of Candidate John McCain.
I had a lot of respect for McCain, but daily it's being chipped away at. I will always respect his times of service, both in the military and in the Senate, but his run for the presidency has rubbed the gloss off.
For example, McCain's stuttering confession that he was unsure about how many houses he owns certainly was not endearing: "I'll have my staff get back to you," he told reporters. To have so many that you lose count does not make me feel like he and I have the same concerns. The count, by the way, turns out to be eight.
I'll get back to McCain himself in a moment. His staff, however, deserves mention here. They seem to forget that the way things work is that the principal spokesperson for a presidential campaign is the candidate himself.
When McCain details some of his economic plans on the campaign trail, his budget policies end up nearly $3 trillion out of line with his published plans. McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, was questioned about the discrepancy by online magazine Slate. Wrote Slate blogger Christopher Beam, "'This is parsing words out of campaign appearances to an unreasonable degree,' Holtz-Eakin said. 'He has certainly I'm sure said things in town halls' that don't jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn't mean it's official."
This has widely, and not inaccurately, been paraphrased as "John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign."
And it happened again, a week later. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, McCain said that in discussions about saving Social Security, "nothing is off the table," specifically including payroll tax increases.
The next day, one of McCain's spokesmen corrected the candidate, saying that a payroll tax increase was "absolutely out of the question." Again, McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign. Troubling.
Back to McCain himself: In a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, McCain criticized Obama's positions on Iraq, saying that they called into question the judgement he would need as commander in chief: "Behind all of these ... positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."
Maybe it is fair to criticize a presidential candidate for having ambition to be president, maybe not. But McCain should be careful of throwing stones. In 2002, McCain wrote a book about his 2000 run for the presidency, noting that he hadn't run for president to solve any particular problems. "I wanted to be president because," he wrote, "it had been my ambition to be president."
Look, we all misspeak. But in this day and age, when the lies told by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are perceived as truth, one must be especially careful about what one says. Failure to do so is, in itself, a black mark against you.
I leave you this week with a McCain gaffe that I found amusing but which may have made McCain's home life a bit awkward for a few days.
At the beginning of August, when McCain and his wife Cindy were attending a motorcycle rally in South Dakota, McCain told the crowd that he had encouraged Cindy to enter the "Miss Buffalo Chip" contest held at the rally.
Perhaps he did not know (or, worse, perhaps he did) that the contestants for the Miss Buffalo Chip contest dress scantily, if at all, and dance lewdly in front of the hooting audience. For John's sake, let's hope Cindy has a big sense of humor.
Campaign Let-Downs
I feel let down by Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
To be fair, though, I also feel let down by the Democrats on two points, so let me get those out of the way.
First, I signed up to be "one of the first" to know about Barack Obama's choice for a vice presidential candidate, the message to arrive on my cell phone before even the cable news networks were told.
I got the message, but at 3:29 a.m. last Saturday morning, and before I checked my inbox, I saw the morning news telling me about Joe Biden. So much for being one of the first.
Second, I was disappointed that the Democratic National Committee decided to let Florida and Michigan off the hook for their disobedient behavior during the primary season. Having held primaries earlier than the rules allowed, they were stripped of their convention delegates.
After negotiations between the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns, the states were granted half their delegates, and now, this past weekend, the DNC decided to seat both states' full delegations. As any parent will agree, you have to follow through on your punishments or they mean nothing.
These let-downs, though, are minuscule compared to those of Candidate John McCain.
I had a lot of respect for McCain, but daily it's being chipped away at. I will always respect his times of service, both in the military and in the Senate, but his run for the presidency has rubbed the gloss off.
For example, McCain's stuttering confession that he was unsure about how many houses he owns certainly was not endearing: "I'll have my staff get back to you," he told reporters. To have so many that you lose count does not make me feel like he and I have the same concerns. The count, by the way, turns out to be eight.
I'll get back to McCain himself in a moment. His staff, however, deserves mention here. They seem to forget that the way things work is that the principal spokesperson for a presidential campaign is the candidate himself.
When McCain details some of his economic plans on the campaign trail, his budget policies end up nearly $3 trillion out of line with his published plans. McCain's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, was questioned about the discrepancy by online magazine Slate. Wrote Slate blogger Christopher Beam, "'This is parsing words out of campaign appearances to an unreasonable degree,' Holtz-Eakin said. 'He has certainly I'm sure said things in town halls' that don't jibe perfectly with his written plan. But that doesn't mean it's official."
This has widely, and not inaccurately, been paraphrased as "John McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign."
And it happened again, a week later. In an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, McCain said that in discussions about saving Social Security, "nothing is off the table," specifically including payroll tax increases.
The next day, one of McCain's spokesmen corrected the candidate, saying that a payroll tax increase was "absolutely out of the question." Again, McCain does not speak for the McCain campaign. Troubling.
Back to McCain himself: In a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, McCain criticized Obama's positions on Iraq, saying that they called into question the judgement he would need as commander in chief: "Behind all of these ... positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."
Maybe it is fair to criticize a presidential candidate for having ambition to be president, maybe not. But McCain should be careful of throwing stones. In 2002, McCain wrote a book about his 2000 run for the presidency, noting that he hadn't run for president to solve any particular problems. "I wanted to be president because," he wrote, "it had been my ambition to be president."
Look, we all misspeak. But in this day and age, when the lies told by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are perceived as truth, one must be especially careful about what one says. Failure to do so is, in itself, a black mark against you.
I leave you this week with a McCain gaffe that I found amusing but which may have made McCain's home life a bit awkward for a few days.
At the beginning of August, when McCain and his wife Cindy were attending a motorcycle rally in South Dakota, McCain told the crowd that he had encouraged Cindy to enter the "Miss Buffalo Chip" contest held at the rally.
Perhaps he did not know (or, worse, perhaps he did) that the contestants for the Miss Buffalo Chip contest dress scantily, if at all, and dance lewdly in front of the hooting audience. For John's sake, let's hope Cindy has a big sense of humor.
Friday, August 15, 2008
American Olympic stories from China
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 14, 2008.
American Olympic stories from China
Given a topic as broad as China, it is tempting to go off on tangents far and wide.
In one direction, history: China's written history goes back further than any nation, back to the 15th century BCE. Its Ming and Qing dynasties top those of any English royal house - the Windsors have reigned only since 1910; the Ming ruled for 276 years, the Qing for 267.
In another direction, Sino-American relations: China is the second largest holder of American debt, after Japan (a debt to which, over the last five years, we added nearly $3 trillion). We import more goods from China than any other nation, and we have a massive trade deficit with China (a trade deficit that we share with Japan and the European Union).
But Olympic events in China in the past week permit me to put history and politics aside, and focus on a topic that I don't often feel the urge to write about -- sports.
Like many Americans, I only care about judo, fencing, shooting, kayaking, or water polo when there are Olympic gold medals at stake. And with the Games come the stories, compelling Olympic stories.
I wasn't even going to bother watching the opening ceremonies nor the mind-numbing parade of nations until I read about the athlete chosen by the U.S. delegation to be our flag-bearer. The story of Tully, New York, middle-distance runner Lopez Lomong is well-known by now, but worth repeating.
Lomong was living in Sudan when he was abducted from his family at the age of six, taken to become a child soldier in the Sudanese civil war. He and some other boys were able to escape to Kenya and for a decade, Lomong languished in refugee camps. He was finally chosen to be resettled in the United States, one of the "Lost Boys" of Sudan.
Lomong assumed his family had been killed during the civil war, and following his abduction, his family assumed he was dead and buried him in absentia. Though he was later reunited with his Sudanese family, Lomong decided to stay in the United States with his adoptive family, and became a citizen just last year.
Lomong's story inspired his fellow athletes just as it inspires many of us, and their choice of Lomong to lead them into the Bird's Nest Stadium was seen as both a dig at the Chinese, for their role in the turmoil in Sudan's Darfur region, and a recognition of the obstacles he had to overcome to reach the games.
Here is a sampling of the other stories to emerge from Beijing from just the first five days of competition.
American women swept the medals in the sabre competition, the first time Americans have swept a fencing competition since 1904. President George Bush was on hand to watch as three American flags rose over the medal podium on day one.
A quartet of American men came from behind to defeat the favored French team in the 4x100m free relay swim, a win that got Michael Phelps another gold medal in his quest to be the first to win eight in a single Olympic games.
In the women's version of the same event, 4x100m free relay, 41-year-old Dara Torres won her 10th Olympic medal, in her fifth Olympics, when she helped the American woman to a silver medal.
In oft-overlooked men's gymnastics, our team overcame the loss of Paul and Morgan Hamm to injury and pulled ahead to finish with a bronze medal, with Alexander Artemev's performance on pommel horse sealing the deal.
In baseball, a sport that Williston Little League champions should watch carefully since this will be its last appearance at the Olympics for a while, the U.S. team is one of only eight; if history is a guide, the Cubans have a better chance at gold than the U.S., but in exhibition play, the U.S. won a respectable 5 out of 6. After failing to reach the medal round in Athens in 2004, the Americans have something to prove.
Whether you're a sports fan or not, tune in to see what your athletes, and those of the rest of the world, have to offer in the coming week. No doubt you won't be disappointed.
American Olympic stories from China
Given a topic as broad as China, it is tempting to go off on tangents far and wide.
In one direction, history: China's written history goes back further than any nation, back to the 15th century BCE. Its Ming and Qing dynasties top those of any English royal house - the Windsors have reigned only since 1910; the Ming ruled for 276 years, the Qing for 267.
In another direction, Sino-American relations: China is the second largest holder of American debt, after Japan (a debt to which, over the last five years, we added nearly $3 trillion). We import more goods from China than any other nation, and we have a massive trade deficit with China (a trade deficit that we share with Japan and the European Union).
But Olympic events in China in the past week permit me to put history and politics aside, and focus on a topic that I don't often feel the urge to write about -- sports.
Like many Americans, I only care about judo, fencing, shooting, kayaking, or water polo when there are Olympic gold medals at stake. And with the Games come the stories, compelling Olympic stories.
I wasn't even going to bother watching the opening ceremonies nor the mind-numbing parade of nations until I read about the athlete chosen by the U.S. delegation to be our flag-bearer. The story of Tully, New York, middle-distance runner Lopez Lomong is well-known by now, but worth repeating.
Lomong was living in Sudan when he was abducted from his family at the age of six, taken to become a child soldier in the Sudanese civil war. He and some other boys were able to escape to Kenya and for a decade, Lomong languished in refugee camps. He was finally chosen to be resettled in the United States, one of the "Lost Boys" of Sudan.
Lomong assumed his family had been killed during the civil war, and following his abduction, his family assumed he was dead and buried him in absentia. Though he was later reunited with his Sudanese family, Lomong decided to stay in the United States with his adoptive family, and became a citizen just last year.
Lomong's story inspired his fellow athletes just as it inspires many of us, and their choice of Lomong to lead them into the Bird's Nest Stadium was seen as both a dig at the Chinese, for their role in the turmoil in Sudan's Darfur region, and a recognition of the obstacles he had to overcome to reach the games.
Here is a sampling of the other stories to emerge from Beijing from just the first five days of competition.
American women swept the medals in the sabre competition, the first time Americans have swept a fencing competition since 1904. President George Bush was on hand to watch as three American flags rose over the medal podium on day one.
A quartet of American men came from behind to defeat the favored French team in the 4x100m free relay swim, a win that got Michael Phelps another gold medal in his quest to be the first to win eight in a single Olympic games.
In the women's version of the same event, 4x100m free relay, 41-year-old Dara Torres won her 10th Olympic medal, in her fifth Olympics, when she helped the American woman to a silver medal.
In oft-overlooked men's gymnastics, our team overcame the loss of Paul and Morgan Hamm to injury and pulled ahead to finish with a bronze medal, with Alexander Artemev's performance on pommel horse sealing the deal.
In baseball, a sport that Williston Little League champions should watch carefully since this will be its last appearance at the Olympics for a while, the U.S. team is one of only eight; if history is a guide, the Cubans have a better chance at gold than the U.S., but in exhibition play, the U.S. won a respectable 5 out of 6. After failing to reach the medal round in Athens in 2004, the Americans have something to prove.
Whether you're a sports fan or not, tune in to see what your athletes, and those of the rest of the world, have to offer in the coming week. No doubt you won't be disappointed.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Restoring the world's faith in America
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 31, 2008.
Restoring the world's faith in America
Listening to NPR on Monday, I heard the story of a Billings, Montana businessman who was in a bind. In his low-unemployment city, he was having a hard time filling an information technology position in his small company.
Driving to work one day, Rob Hunter heard the story of Bahjat, an Iraqi IT specialist who worked with the Americans in his country. Because of his work, Bahjat was targeted by Iraqi insurgents. He applied for and got refugee status, moved his mother and sister with him to Florida, and began looking, in vain, for work.
Hunter contacted Bahjat and offered him the open position. Though unsure why someone from so far away would want to help him, Bahjat eventually accepted the job.
As the family drove a donated car from Florida to Montana, Hunter organized his friends and neighbors to contribute home goods to furnish a small apartment and to ensure that Bahjat and his family would feel welcome when they arrived.
Throughout the world, America is reviled, looked down upon, feared, hated. But in a world where crowds are wont to chant "Death to America!", stories like that of Hunter and Bahjat give me some hope that we can turn this negative perception around.
While hatred of America is nothing new, it is surprising when you look back at where we were in September, 2001.
As I'm sure you recall, in the days following the attacks on Washington and New York, we enjoyed an outpouring of support from all corners of the world. The Bush administration, with its arrogant approach to diplomacy, has squandered most of that good will.
We need more Rob Hunters to restore our position in the world.
Locally, we are doing our part. My parents run an employment agency in Burlington, and over the years I've heard many stories of refugees coming here to start over. Be they Vietnamese, Cambodian, Croatian, Bantu, Congolese, or Iraqi, desperate to make their own way, they would take any job they could find.
Similar stories dot the pages of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program's online newsletters: Vermonters lending their language skills to newcomers; Vermonters donating gently-used winter gear to Africans seeing snow for the first time; and Vermonters introducing immigrants to the wonders of an American grocery store.
We Americans have big hearts, and it is disheartening when the world reacts only to the negatives.
So it was with some great enthusiasm that I watched Barack Obama visit Europe last week. According to some estimates, the size of the crowd that he addressed in Berlin was even larger than his largest thus far here in the U.S.
Some of the onlookers were spurred by curiosity, to be sure. But I think there is more to it than that. With some exceptions, I think that most of the world wants, desperately, to look up to the United States. It cannot bring itself to do that while George Bush is at the helm, and John McCain just looks like more of the same.
Obama is bringing ideas to the American people, and, by way of wide media coverage, to the world. Most of them are not new ideas -- they are long-held Democratic Party principles -- but they seem fresh after eight years of Bush.
But more than restating Democratic Party ideals, more than a return to an America that values conversation, diplomacy, and cooperation, Obama is seen as a realization of a classic American ideal, the same ideal that Lincoln's log cabin once evoked.
That's the ideal that anyone, from whatever background, can excel in America. That regardless of our checkered history, even the son of a Kansan and a Kenyan can become our head of state.
Obama is also seeking to restore another classic American ideal - that of John Winthrop's City Upon a Hill. Though Winthrop envisioned an America worthy of almost religious worship, the phrase has evolved to mean an America founded on democratic principles that all nations should aspire to.
Restoring our position of leadership in the world must be a goal of the next president. With people like Barack Obama and Rob Hunter working to that goal, either deliberately or tangentially, we can restore our position, we can be a beacon, we can again be that city upon a hill.
Restoring the world's faith in America
Listening to NPR on Monday, I heard the story of a Billings, Montana businessman who was in a bind. In his low-unemployment city, he was having a hard time filling an information technology position in his small company.
Driving to work one day, Rob Hunter heard the story of Bahjat, an Iraqi IT specialist who worked with the Americans in his country. Because of his work, Bahjat was targeted by Iraqi insurgents. He applied for and got refugee status, moved his mother and sister with him to Florida, and began looking, in vain, for work.
Hunter contacted Bahjat and offered him the open position. Though unsure why someone from so far away would want to help him, Bahjat eventually accepted the job.
As the family drove a donated car from Florida to Montana, Hunter organized his friends and neighbors to contribute home goods to furnish a small apartment and to ensure that Bahjat and his family would feel welcome when they arrived.
Throughout the world, America is reviled, looked down upon, feared, hated. But in a world where crowds are wont to chant "Death to America!", stories like that of Hunter and Bahjat give me some hope that we can turn this negative perception around.
While hatred of America is nothing new, it is surprising when you look back at where we were in September, 2001.
As I'm sure you recall, in the days following the attacks on Washington and New York, we enjoyed an outpouring of support from all corners of the world. The Bush administration, with its arrogant approach to diplomacy, has squandered most of that good will.
We need more Rob Hunters to restore our position in the world.
Locally, we are doing our part. My parents run an employment agency in Burlington, and over the years I've heard many stories of refugees coming here to start over. Be they Vietnamese, Cambodian, Croatian, Bantu, Congolese, or Iraqi, desperate to make their own way, they would take any job they could find.
Similar stories dot the pages of the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program's online newsletters: Vermonters lending their language skills to newcomers; Vermonters donating gently-used winter gear to Africans seeing snow for the first time; and Vermonters introducing immigrants to the wonders of an American grocery store.
We Americans have big hearts, and it is disheartening when the world reacts only to the negatives.
So it was with some great enthusiasm that I watched Barack Obama visit Europe last week. According to some estimates, the size of the crowd that he addressed in Berlin was even larger than his largest thus far here in the U.S.
Some of the onlookers were spurred by curiosity, to be sure. But I think there is more to it than that. With some exceptions, I think that most of the world wants, desperately, to look up to the United States. It cannot bring itself to do that while George Bush is at the helm, and John McCain just looks like more of the same.
Obama is bringing ideas to the American people, and, by way of wide media coverage, to the world. Most of them are not new ideas -- they are long-held Democratic Party principles -- but they seem fresh after eight years of Bush.
But more than restating Democratic Party ideals, more than a return to an America that values conversation, diplomacy, and cooperation, Obama is seen as a realization of a classic American ideal, the same ideal that Lincoln's log cabin once evoked.
That's the ideal that anyone, from whatever background, can excel in America. That regardless of our checkered history, even the son of a Kansan and a Kenyan can become our head of state.
Obama is also seeking to restore another classic American ideal - that of John Winthrop's City Upon a Hill. Though Winthrop envisioned an America worthy of almost religious worship, the phrase has evolved to mean an America founded on democratic principles that all nations should aspire to.
Restoring our position of leadership in the world must be a goal of the next president. With people like Barack Obama and Rob Hunter working to that goal, either deliberately or tangentially, we can restore our position, we can be a beacon, we can again be that city upon a hill.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Breaking up the Axis of Evil
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 17, 2008.
Breaking up the Axis of Evil
Technically, the United States is not now, nor has it been since 1945, at war. The Constitution is very specific on the point - for a legal state of war to exist, war must be declared by the Congress. No such declaration was made for Korea, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq the second time around.
But in 2002, just a few months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush created a new kind of declaration, a declaration that we still live with every day. This declaration was that some nations, and three in particular, were an Axis of Evil.
In his declaration, Bush put these nations and the world on notice: "America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
Those three nations, of course, were North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.
These nations all seemed to derive perverse pleasure out of goading the United States and the world.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein infamously ordered the use of poison gas against his own people in the 1980's and used "human shields" in 1990. He was dispatched by the most direct of means.
After being told that Hussein had and was ready to use all manner of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear - he was deemed a threat that had to be dealt with harshly.
His nation invaded and overwhelmed by American and British troops, Hussein fled and hid. He was captured by U.S. troops, and was then tried, convicted, and hanged by Iraqi courts.
In North Korea, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il is a megalomaniac dictator who sees nuclear weapons and missile development as more pressing needs than the care and feeding of his people.
Here, Kim has had a better fate than Hussein. Much of this likely has to do with the fact that he actually has nuclear weapons - something Hussein could only dream about. Though his tests seemed to fizzle, they were nukes nonetheless, and the U.S. and four other interested nations have been negotiating with Kim's acolytes for years.
With the symbolic implosion of a cooling tower at North Korea's nuclear fuel processing facility, a potential crisis seems to have been avoided.
The third leg of the Axis is Iran, with which the U.S. has had poor relations for nearly thirty years. The big question is, what to do with Iran?
Iran has cycled through a procession of leaders, both political and religious, over the last thirty years, and so it is hard to point a finger at a single individual to rally public opinion. Iran, though, seems intent on drawing that attention to itself.
Whether it is direct threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz, issuance of threats against the U.S. and Israel (including banners declaring "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in military parades), or the recent test-firing of missiles capable of reaching Israel (going so far as to use PhotoShop to make it look like more missiles were fired than actually were), Iran's saber rattling seems designed to provoke a response.
Though the Bush administration correctly says that a military option is always on the table, my sincere hope is that we take the tack that we took with North Korea.
Unfortunately, preventing a conflict is not going to be easy. Iran is deliberately making Israel feel like it is backed into a corner. Iran's unfortunate and irrational animosity toward Israel could be its undoing, and the undoing of any chance for peace in the region.
Equally unfortunate, diplomacy is not seen as one the Bush administration's strong points.
On this one, though, we can't wait for an Obama administration. This is something Bush will have to deal with in his waning time.
If Iraq was the only example we had, I would not be confident that Bush could fix this one without force. But with the example of North Korea added to the picture, I think we have at least even odds of averting crisis.
Our troops, and civilian populations in Israel and Iran, would not be able to tell the difference between a declared war and an undeclared war. The result in either case is invariably death and destruction. For this last leg of the Axis of Evil, hopefully diplomacy will be the weapon of choice.
Breaking up the Axis of Evil
Technically, the United States is not now, nor has it been since 1945, at war. The Constitution is very specific on the point - for a legal state of war to exist, war must be declared by the Congress. No such declaration was made for Korea, nor Vietnam, nor Iraq, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq the second time around.
But in 2002, just a few months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush created a new kind of declaration, a declaration that we still live with every day. This declaration was that some nations, and three in particular, were an Axis of Evil.
In his declaration, Bush put these nations and the world on notice: "America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security."
Those three nations, of course, were North Korea, Iraq, and Iran.
These nations all seemed to derive perverse pleasure out of goading the United States and the world.
Iraq's Saddam Hussein infamously ordered the use of poison gas against his own people in the 1980's and used "human shields" in 1990. He was dispatched by the most direct of means.
After being told that Hussein had and was ready to use all manner of weapons of mass destruction - chemical, biological, nuclear - he was deemed a threat that had to be dealt with harshly.
His nation invaded and overwhelmed by American and British troops, Hussein fled and hid. He was captured by U.S. troops, and was then tried, convicted, and hanged by Iraqi courts.
In North Korea, "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il is a megalomaniac dictator who sees nuclear weapons and missile development as more pressing needs than the care and feeding of his people.
Here, Kim has had a better fate than Hussein. Much of this likely has to do with the fact that he actually has nuclear weapons - something Hussein could only dream about. Though his tests seemed to fizzle, they were nukes nonetheless, and the U.S. and four other interested nations have been negotiating with Kim's acolytes for years.
With the symbolic implosion of a cooling tower at North Korea's nuclear fuel processing facility, a potential crisis seems to have been avoided.
The third leg of the Axis is Iran, with which the U.S. has had poor relations for nearly thirty years. The big question is, what to do with Iran?
Iran has cycled through a procession of leaders, both political and religious, over the last thirty years, and so it is hard to point a finger at a single individual to rally public opinion. Iran, though, seems intent on drawing that attention to itself.
Whether it is direct threats to shipping in the Persian Gulf or the Straits of Hormuz, issuance of threats against the U.S. and Israel (including banners declaring "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!" in military parades), or the recent test-firing of missiles capable of reaching Israel (going so far as to use PhotoShop to make it look like more missiles were fired than actually were), Iran's saber rattling seems designed to provoke a response.
Though the Bush administration correctly says that a military option is always on the table, my sincere hope is that we take the tack that we took with North Korea.
Unfortunately, preventing a conflict is not going to be easy. Iran is deliberately making Israel feel like it is backed into a corner. Iran's unfortunate and irrational animosity toward Israel could be its undoing, and the undoing of any chance for peace in the region.
Equally unfortunate, diplomacy is not seen as one the Bush administration's strong points.
On this one, though, we can't wait for an Obama administration. This is something Bush will have to deal with in his waning time.
If Iraq was the only example we had, I would not be confident that Bush could fix this one without force. But with the example of North Korea added to the picture, I think we have at least even odds of averting crisis.
Our troops, and civilian populations in Israel and Iran, would not be able to tell the difference between a declared war and an undeclared war. The result in either case is invariably death and destruction. For this last leg of the Axis of Evil, hopefully diplomacy will be the weapon of choice.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Disagreement leads to greatness
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 3, 2008.
Disagreement leads to greatness
Recently, I got a call from "Ivan" from the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Ivan wanted to inform me of a forum being held to discuss VPIRG's plans to lobby for the closure of Vermont Yankee. He asked if I wanted to come to the forum.
I addressed this issue here in April and if you, dear reader, can remember that far back, you might be able to guess my answer to his question.
I told Ivan that though I am a supporter of VPIRG and most of what it works toward, I disagree with VPIRG on this issue. Ivan was polite enough to thank me for my support (we have donated to VPIRG off and on over the years), and then just as politely ended the call. We tacitly agreed to disagree.
Another topic I've written about before is gun control, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, guarantee an individual right to own a firearm. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, a broadcaster for whom I have the utmost respect, railed against the ruling, going so far as to laughingly suggest that the only arms the Amendment protects are those that were in common use at the time of its ratification.
I was happy to hear Sen. Patrick Leahy speak out in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling, happy to have another liberal on my side on this issue, though I think that may be more to do with where we hail from than anything else. Those who live in crime-ridden cities or whose lives or families have been directly affected by gun violence have a much different perspective on the issue than we.
Back in January, I gave weak support to Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, saying I "leaned toward" her. Eventually, I voted for Obama, convinced by him and his message throughout the month of February. This is an area where a great many Democrats disagreed. It is now July, and still not all the wounds have healed.
Even as Obama and Clinton appeared together in Unity, New Hampshire, so that Clinton could show her support for Obama, "Clinton for President" placards appeared in the audience and rabid Clinton supporters interviewed by the media continued to insist that she was the better choice. For these people, "quixotic" may be a vocabulary word to which they need introduction.
In February, I wrote about civil union and marriage and the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. In April, the Commission presented its report to the legislature. As it noted, the Commission's charge was not to make any recommendations about expanding or restricting civil union or marriage, and it did not.
What it did do, though, is give a voice to those on both sides of the issue, though the comments were "overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of gay and lesbian couples within the marriage laws." The report also noted that there are differences between marriage and civil union, that those differences do affect families, and that more study is needed.
Like that of Massachusetts before it, the Supreme Court of California recently decided that same sex couples there had to be allowed to marry, bolstering the argument for the institution here. In November, though, Californians will be casting ballots not only for President, but also on a proposition to constitutionally ban the institution that is flourishing now. If it passes, it would likely render all of those unions dissolved. Now that's a fine mess.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has publicly come out against the proposition, saying his state has more important things to worry about.
Finally, a few weeks ago, my column about oil prices, and that of my right-leaning associate Mike Benevento, were very close in both broad concept and in many details. Though I know the adversarial nature of our columns has been called into question, I think the airing of the differences allows us to see where we do have common ground, and from that, we can come to agreement.
With all that said, this brief review has also brought to mind a phrase that has special meaning this week, as we celebrate our 232nd year of independence. That phrase is "the melting pot." Our differences, all combined and mixed together, are what have made, and will continue to make, America great.
Disagreement leads to greatness
Recently, I got a call from "Ivan" from the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. Ivan wanted to inform me of a forum being held to discuss VPIRG's plans to lobby for the closure of Vermont Yankee. He asked if I wanted to come to the forum.
I addressed this issue here in April and if you, dear reader, can remember that far back, you might be able to guess my answer to his question.
I told Ivan that though I am a supporter of VPIRG and most of what it works toward, I disagree with VPIRG on this issue. Ivan was polite enough to thank me for my support (we have donated to VPIRG off and on over the years), and then just as politely ended the call. We tacitly agreed to disagree.
Another topic I've written about before is gun control, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment does, in fact, guarantee an individual right to own a firearm. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, a broadcaster for whom I have the utmost respect, railed against the ruling, going so far as to laughingly suggest that the only arms the Amendment protects are those that were in common use at the time of its ratification.
I was happy to hear Sen. Patrick Leahy speak out in favor of the Supreme Court's ruling, happy to have another liberal on my side on this issue, though I think that may be more to do with where we hail from than anything else. Those who live in crime-ridden cities or whose lives or families have been directly affected by gun violence have a much different perspective on the issue than we.
Back in January, I gave weak support to Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama, saying I "leaned toward" her. Eventually, I voted for Obama, convinced by him and his message throughout the month of February. This is an area where a great many Democrats disagreed. It is now July, and still not all the wounds have healed.
Even as Obama and Clinton appeared together in Unity, New Hampshire, so that Clinton could show her support for Obama, "Clinton for President" placards appeared in the audience and rabid Clinton supporters interviewed by the media continued to insist that she was the better choice. For these people, "quixotic" may be a vocabulary word to which they need introduction.
In February, I wrote about civil union and marriage and the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection. In April, the Commission presented its report to the legislature. As it noted, the Commission's charge was not to make any recommendations about expanding or restricting civil union or marriage, and it did not.
What it did do, though, is give a voice to those on both sides of the issue, though the comments were "overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of gay and lesbian couples within the marriage laws." The report also noted that there are differences between marriage and civil union, that those differences do affect families, and that more study is needed.
Like that of Massachusetts before it, the Supreme Court of California recently decided that same sex couples there had to be allowed to marry, bolstering the argument for the institution here. In November, though, Californians will be casting ballots not only for President, but also on a proposition to constitutionally ban the institution that is flourishing now. If it passes, it would likely render all of those unions dissolved. Now that's a fine mess.
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has publicly come out against the proposition, saying his state has more important things to worry about.
Finally, a few weeks ago, my column about oil prices, and that of my right-leaning associate Mike Benevento, were very close in both broad concept and in many details. Though I know the adversarial nature of our columns has been called into question, I think the airing of the differences allows us to see where we do have common ground, and from that, we can come to agreement.
With all that said, this brief review has also brought to mind a phrase that has special meaning this week, as we celebrate our 232nd year of independence. That phrase is "the melting pot." Our differences, all combined and mixed together, are what have made, and will continue to make, America great.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Bite the bullet on gas prices
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 19, 2008.
Bite the bullet on gas prices
Back in 1998, I stood at a gas station pumping gas at $1.11 per gallon and noticed that the station next door sold its gas for $1.01. I had a light bulb moment and created The GasMan website to track local gas prices.
Keeping such a thing up to date is a lot harder than it sounds, and five years later I closed the site down. The average price I was posting at the time of the site's demise was $1.65 per gallon. $1.11? $1.65? Those were the days.
Today, you can buy GPS units that provide directions to the closest, cheapest gas. Finding the cheapest gas in the area, though, might save you $70 or $80 per year. Is there anything that can be done to save $500 or $1000 per year?
There are many factors that affect the price of gasoline. The most basic, though, is increasing demand. In places like China and India, car ownership is skyrocketing. In the past few years, oil production has little changed, but demand continues to rise. Basic economics tells us that rinsing demand with no change in supply leads to rising prices.
The reality is that I will probably never see $1.65 gas ever again in my lifetime. When you're on a budget, that's a hard reality to face.
When reality raises its ugly head, politicians smell blood. Every politician wishes they could come up with a way to tax us back to $2 gas, or to force Saudi Arabia to open the floodgates and let the oil pour forth, or to drill holes in the Alaskan tundra or the continental shelf to extract our own oil. Something, anything, to reduce the price.
The problem is that some of these "solutions" will only work in the short or medium term, but help us not one whit in the long term.
There is almost nothing the current president, nor the next president, nor the Congress can do to manipulate gas prices.
One idea is to cut the federal gas tax -- a tax holiday. Cutting the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, though, hardly seems worth it. Remember good old supply and demand? Increased demand for something in short supply means higher prices. That 18 cents will disappear in a week, and the deficit will do nothing but grow.
Some members of Congress want to impose windfall profits taxes on oil companies. This is an idea that I can support, but the new money should have a dedicated purpose having nothing to do with gas prices because such a tax will do nothing to lower the price of gas, and could make it go up.
Midwest farmers see the alternative fuels market as a great way to get paid more for their crops. They get more money when their corn is converted to ethanol than if it is sold as food. But if food costs rise as fuel prices go down, have we gained anything? And who's to say more ethanol means lower prices?
Increased domestic supply is also touted as a solution, extracting oil from shale or drilling at ANWR or off shore. But as environmental consciousness rises, more people don't see solutions in exploiting nature this way, they only see folly.
No, the real solutions are all long-term. We are going to have to bite the bullet.
The best solution is to decrease our need for oil. Higher CAFE standards, so that new cars get better mileage, are a start, but only just. What we really need is alternatively fueled vehicles.
We need bio-fuels, especially from non-food sources like switch grass, and they need to power hybrids that can eke out 100 or 200 miles per gallon. We need to develop hydrogen. We need better electric cars. Something. Anything!
What we need is an Apollo project for fuel. We need to invest time, money, and brain power in the problem. There is a solution out there, and I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with petroleum.
One day, there will be a need for the GasMan web site again, but instead of tracking the price of a gallon of gas, it will track the price of a liter of hydrogen or the cost to top off a quick-charge battery. The day cannot come soon enough.
Bite the bullet on gas prices
Back in 1998, I stood at a gas station pumping gas at $1.11 per gallon and noticed that the station next door sold its gas for $1.01. I had a light bulb moment and created The GasMan website to track local gas prices.
Keeping such a thing up to date is a lot harder than it sounds, and five years later I closed the site down. The average price I was posting at the time of the site's demise was $1.65 per gallon. $1.11? $1.65? Those were the days.
Today, you can buy GPS units that provide directions to the closest, cheapest gas. Finding the cheapest gas in the area, though, might save you $70 or $80 per year. Is there anything that can be done to save $500 or $1000 per year?
There are many factors that affect the price of gasoline. The most basic, though, is increasing demand. In places like China and India, car ownership is skyrocketing. In the past few years, oil production has little changed, but demand continues to rise. Basic economics tells us that rinsing demand with no change in supply leads to rising prices.
The reality is that I will probably never see $1.65 gas ever again in my lifetime. When you're on a budget, that's a hard reality to face.
When reality raises its ugly head, politicians smell blood. Every politician wishes they could come up with a way to tax us back to $2 gas, or to force Saudi Arabia to open the floodgates and let the oil pour forth, or to drill holes in the Alaskan tundra or the continental shelf to extract our own oil. Something, anything, to reduce the price.
The problem is that some of these "solutions" will only work in the short or medium term, but help us not one whit in the long term.
There is almost nothing the current president, nor the next president, nor the Congress can do to manipulate gas prices.
One idea is to cut the federal gas tax -- a tax holiday. Cutting the federal tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, though, hardly seems worth it. Remember good old supply and demand? Increased demand for something in short supply means higher prices. That 18 cents will disappear in a week, and the deficit will do nothing but grow.
Some members of Congress want to impose windfall profits taxes on oil companies. This is an idea that I can support, but the new money should have a dedicated purpose having nothing to do with gas prices because such a tax will do nothing to lower the price of gas, and could make it go up.
Midwest farmers see the alternative fuels market as a great way to get paid more for their crops. They get more money when their corn is converted to ethanol than if it is sold as food. But if food costs rise as fuel prices go down, have we gained anything? And who's to say more ethanol means lower prices?
Increased domestic supply is also touted as a solution, extracting oil from shale or drilling at ANWR or off shore. But as environmental consciousness rises, more people don't see solutions in exploiting nature this way, they only see folly.
No, the real solutions are all long-term. We are going to have to bite the bullet.
The best solution is to decrease our need for oil. Higher CAFE standards, so that new cars get better mileage, are a start, but only just. What we really need is alternatively fueled vehicles.
We need bio-fuels, especially from non-food sources like switch grass, and they need to power hybrids that can eke out 100 or 200 miles per gallon. We need to develop hydrogen. We need better electric cars. Something. Anything!
What we need is an Apollo project for fuel. We need to invest time, money, and brain power in the problem. There is a solution out there, and I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with petroleum.
One day, there will be a need for the GasMan web site again, but instead of tracking the price of a gallon of gas, it will track the price of a liter of hydrogen or the cost to top off a quick-charge battery. The day cannot come soon enough.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Mixing personal and political
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 5, 2008.
Mixing personal and political
It isn't often that the ordinary citizen gets to represent his or her town, but a couple of weekends ago, that's just what I, and other fellow Willistonians, did.
The Democratic primary held on Town Meeting Day was not the end of the delegate selection process. Several weeks after the election, in towns throughout Vermont, Democrats met to select delegates for the state convention. In Williston, less than two dozen people congregated in the library's Community Room. We mingled and sipped coffee until it was time to tend to business.
That business was the selection of some of us to go to Barre in May, to be town delegates at the state convention. Turns out, Williston was allocated more delegates than there were people at the meeting, meaning that if we wanted to go, we could all go.
We separated into two camps, one for Obama and one for Clinton, signed our names to a sheet of paper, and left to go finish whatever weekend chores we had to do.
When I got home, I announced that I was an official Obama delegate from the town of Williston. My family's reaction was underwhelming, but I was excited. I had gone to the meeting to see what it was all about, and walked out a delegate. For a political junkie like myself, this was heady stuff.
I went to mark the date on the calendar and I quickly spotted a nexus between the political and the personal -- that weekend was when my sister was getting married, and family from all over the country would be descending on Vermont for the event. Since I was not in the wedding party, however, I figured the timing would work out.
As the time for the convention grew near, I started getting a new kind of email in my in-box. Other delegates to the state convention were vying for one of ten positions in Vermont's delegation to the national convention in Denver. The trickle of emails soon turned into a flood as delegates from around the state tried to get their name out there.
I'd already met one of these candidates in the library back in March -- Taylor Bates had been festooned in Obama regalia and made it a point to meet and greet each person who came into the room. He was already campaigning to be a delegate at the national convention. Though just barely old enough to vote and not even yet out of high school, he has been active in Democratic politics since he was 14.
The way the statewide voting went, Vermont was to send six Obama-pledged delegates and four Clinton-pledged delegates. Half of the delegation would be male, the other female. Bates, then, would be competing for one of three seats, against over 60 other men. There were so many candidates at the Obama sub-convention that candidate speeches were limited to 30 seconds each.
Based on the emails I'd already received and read, I'd made up my mind on the three men and three women I'd be voting for. When the results were read, three of my six choices had been elected. One of them was Taylor Bates. In fact, Bates was the second highest vote-getter, so he had more than just the Williston delegation pulling for him.
We heard speeches that day from former governor Madeleine Kunin, Senator Patrick Leahy, Representative Peter Welch, and Speaker of the House, and gubernatorial candidate, Gaye Symington. From my seat in the tenth row, it was inspiring to hear them speak, to call for action in the party, and to rally the troops to fight for Democratic candidates in the fall.
After a long day in Barre, I headed home, happy that I'd been able to do more for the Democratic Party than I ever had in any other election cycle. I enjoyed the quiet of my car trip back to Williston, knowing that when I arrived home, I'd be swept up in the excitement of seeing cousins, aunts, and uncles, and in the happiness of a nuptial weekend.
Though I was very proud of my town that weekend, and of Taylor Bates in particular, it all shadowed in comparison to the pride I felt for my family that next day. I got to escort my mother down the aisle. My brother officiated the ceremony wonderfully. And my only sister married a wonderful man. Congratulations, Kristin and Nick.
Mixing personal and political
It isn't often that the ordinary citizen gets to represent his or her town, but a couple of weekends ago, that's just what I, and other fellow Willistonians, did.
The Democratic primary held on Town Meeting Day was not the end of the delegate selection process. Several weeks after the election, in towns throughout Vermont, Democrats met to select delegates for the state convention. In Williston, less than two dozen people congregated in the library's Community Room. We mingled and sipped coffee until it was time to tend to business.
That business was the selection of some of us to go to Barre in May, to be town delegates at the state convention. Turns out, Williston was allocated more delegates than there were people at the meeting, meaning that if we wanted to go, we could all go.
We separated into two camps, one for Obama and one for Clinton, signed our names to a sheet of paper, and left to go finish whatever weekend chores we had to do.
When I got home, I announced that I was an official Obama delegate from the town of Williston. My family's reaction was underwhelming, but I was excited. I had gone to the meeting to see what it was all about, and walked out a delegate. For a political junkie like myself, this was heady stuff.
I went to mark the date on the calendar and I quickly spotted a nexus between the political and the personal -- that weekend was when my sister was getting married, and family from all over the country would be descending on Vermont for the event. Since I was not in the wedding party, however, I figured the timing would work out.
As the time for the convention grew near, I started getting a new kind of email in my in-box. Other delegates to the state convention were vying for one of ten positions in Vermont's delegation to the national convention in Denver. The trickle of emails soon turned into a flood as delegates from around the state tried to get their name out there.
I'd already met one of these candidates in the library back in March -- Taylor Bates had been festooned in Obama regalia and made it a point to meet and greet each person who came into the room. He was already campaigning to be a delegate at the national convention. Though just barely old enough to vote and not even yet out of high school, he has been active in Democratic politics since he was 14.
The way the statewide voting went, Vermont was to send six Obama-pledged delegates and four Clinton-pledged delegates. Half of the delegation would be male, the other female. Bates, then, would be competing for one of three seats, against over 60 other men. There were so many candidates at the Obama sub-convention that candidate speeches were limited to 30 seconds each.
Based on the emails I'd already received and read, I'd made up my mind on the three men and three women I'd be voting for. When the results were read, three of my six choices had been elected. One of them was Taylor Bates. In fact, Bates was the second highest vote-getter, so he had more than just the Williston delegation pulling for him.
We heard speeches that day from former governor Madeleine Kunin, Senator Patrick Leahy, Representative Peter Welch, and Speaker of the House, and gubernatorial candidate, Gaye Symington. From my seat in the tenth row, it was inspiring to hear them speak, to call for action in the party, and to rally the troops to fight for Democratic candidates in the fall.
After a long day in Barre, I headed home, happy that I'd been able to do more for the Democratic Party than I ever had in any other election cycle. I enjoyed the quiet of my car trip back to Williston, knowing that when I arrived home, I'd be swept up in the excitement of seeing cousins, aunts, and uncles, and in the happiness of a nuptial weekend.
Though I was very proud of my town that weekend, and of Taylor Bates in particular, it all shadowed in comparison to the pride I felt for my family that next day. I got to escort my mother down the aisle. My brother officiated the ceremony wonderfully. And my only sister married a wonderful man. Congratulations, Kristin and Nick.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The legislative session - a brief review
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 22, 2008. This version includes a correction and information about a few more pieces of legislation that had to be cut for length.
The legislative session - a brief review
One of the biggest surprises of the 2008 legislative session was not in what passed or what was vetoed, but rather in who would not be back at the podium in the fall. Speaker of the House Gaye Symington announced that she would not be seeking reelection. Symington will, instead, focus her electoral efforts on winning the governor's seat.
Unless Governor Jim Douglas does something really stupid in the interim, however, I think it likely he will be reelected in November. This is nothing to do with Symington's credentials - she has garnered a lot of good will from her three years as Speaker and dozen as a representative. Instead, it has more to do with the built-in protection that incumbency gives Vermont governors, from Snelling to Dean to Douglas.
As I've mentioned in this column before, however, the splitting of the government between the parties, though frustrating at times, tends toward better law as the parties have to work together, to compromise, to get things done.
That sort of compromise was evident in much of the legislation that did make its way out of the legislature this year.
First, though, it was a busy year for action on suffrage issues which I, as a student of political science, found very interesting.
The effort to extend two-year terms to four years, of which I've written before, failed in committee, to my great relief.
A bill designed to help revamp the national Electoral College by mutual agreement between the states passed both houses of the legislature, but was vetoed by the governor. I have a certain fondness for the Electoral College, but after some soul-searching, I'm convinced it is time for a change.
The bill would have had Vermont join a coalition of states which vow to allocate their electoral votes according to the direction of the national popular vote. The compact would only take effect when enough states sign on to make a majority of the electoral votes. Adding Vermont's three votes would have been a drop in the bucket, but I think it would have been a nice boost to the effort.
One constitutional amendment that did make it through this session, and will come up for consideration by the next session. The amendment, if passed in the next biennium and by the people, will allow the Freeman's Oath to be self-administered. I support this amendment, which will make same-day registration and by-mail registration much easier.
Finally, the legislature passed, but the governor vetoed, a bill to authorize instant run-off voting for federal elections. I think IRV is a good idea and deserves to be taken up again.
The legislature did as good a job as they could to keep costs down, with compromises between the legislature and the governor allowing progress to be made in health care, transportation, and job retention and creation.
In these difficult economic times, it was heartening to see some belt-tightening which, even if relatively small, gave struggling Vermonters the feeling that they are not alone. The governor was able to get agreement to half million dollars.
One particularly short-sighted plan from the governor, to lease the lottery to a private interest, was widely and wisely lambasted by many and died a quiet death.
A few other highlights include an independent audit of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant; the creation of a new type of charitable organization, a hybrid between a non-profit and a corporation; a bill providing libraries with some backup when they refuse to release lending records to authorities without a court order; a law that closes a loophole in existing law that allowed some mammograms to be charged out at exorbitant prices; and a bill allowing students on maintenance drugs for allergies and asthma to administer those drugs themselves, without the need for a school nurse to become involved.
In the end, we got some good law, stifled some bad, and did it all on a balanced budget - going into election season, the legislators and the governor have much to be proud of.
Note: the original column mentions a constitutional amendment that allows those not yet 18, but who will be at the time of the general election, to vote in the primaries for that election. This legislation was reported on a web page from the Burlington Free Press, but the page is mistaken. The proposed amendment is the "self-administered oath" amendment mentioned above. The following is the stricken text from the original column:
One constitutional amendment that did make it through this session, and will come up for consideration by the next session. The amendment would allow those who will be 18 at the next election, but who are not yet 18, to vote in the primaries for that future election. Any plan that gives young adults a chance to join the process is a positive step, and I encourage the next legislature to pass the amendment and for we, the people, to pass it also.
The legislative session - a brief review
One of the biggest surprises of the 2008 legislative session was not in what passed or what was vetoed, but rather in who would not be back at the podium in the fall. Speaker of the House Gaye Symington announced that she would not be seeking reelection. Symington will, instead, focus her electoral efforts on winning the governor's seat.
Unless Governor Jim Douglas does something really stupid in the interim, however, I think it likely he will be reelected in November. This is nothing to do with Symington's credentials - she has garnered a lot of good will from her three years as Speaker and dozen as a representative. Instead, it has more to do with the built-in protection that incumbency gives Vermont governors, from Snelling to Dean to Douglas.
As I've mentioned in this column before, however, the splitting of the government between the parties, though frustrating at times, tends toward better law as the parties have to work together, to compromise, to get things done.
That sort of compromise was evident in much of the legislation that did make its way out of the legislature this year.
First, though, it was a busy year for action on suffrage issues which I, as a student of political science, found very interesting.
The effort to extend two-year terms to four years, of which I've written before, failed in committee, to my great relief.
A bill designed to help revamp the national Electoral College by mutual agreement between the states passed both houses of the legislature, but was vetoed by the governor. I have a certain fondness for the Electoral College, but after some soul-searching, I'm convinced it is time for a change.
The bill would have had Vermont join a coalition of states which vow to allocate their electoral votes according to the direction of the national popular vote. The compact would only take effect when enough states sign on to make a majority of the electoral votes. Adding Vermont's three votes would have been a drop in the bucket, but I think it would have been a nice boost to the effort.
One constitutional amendment that did make it through this session, and will come up for consideration by the next session. The amendment, if passed in the next biennium and by the people, will allow the Freeman's Oath to be self-administered. I support this amendment, which will make same-day registration and by-mail registration much easier.
Finally, the legislature passed, but the governor vetoed, a bill to authorize instant run-off voting for federal elections. I think IRV is a good idea and deserves to be taken up again.
The legislature did as good a job as they could to keep costs down, with compromises between the legislature and the governor allowing progress to be made in health care, transportation, and job retention and creation.
In these difficult economic times, it was heartening to see some belt-tightening which, even if relatively small, gave struggling Vermonters the feeling that they are not alone. The governor was able to get agreement to half million dollars.
One particularly short-sighted plan from the governor, to lease the lottery to a private interest, was widely and wisely lambasted by many and died a quiet death.
A few other highlights include an independent audit of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant; the creation of a new type of charitable organization, a hybrid between a non-profit and a corporation; a bill providing libraries with some backup when they refuse to release lending records to authorities without a court order; a law that closes a loophole in existing law that allowed some mammograms to be charged out at exorbitant prices; and a bill allowing students on maintenance drugs for allergies and asthma to administer those drugs themselves, without the need for a school nurse to become involved.
In the end, we got some good law, stifled some bad, and did it all on a balanced budget - going into election season, the legislators and the governor have much to be proud of.
Note: the original column mentions a constitutional amendment that allows those not yet 18, but who will be at the time of the general election, to vote in the primaries for that election. This legislation was reported on a web page from the Burlington Free Press, but the page is mistaken. The proposed amendment is the "self-administered oath" amendment mentioned above. The following is the stricken text from the original column:
One constitutional amendment that did make it through this session, and will come up for consideration by the next session. The amendment would allow those who will be 18 at the next election, but who are not yet 18, to vote in the primaries for that future election. Any plan that gives young adults a chance to join the process is a positive step, and I encourage the next legislature to pass the amendment and for we, the people, to pass it also.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Shining light on our own flaws
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 8, 2008. This version includes expanded commentary on the various books listed.
Shining light on our own flaws
A few months ago, one of my sons asked me to help him with a homework assignment by reading aloud a few chapters from a book. The book was
The Giver by Lois Lowry, and reading the back cover, I was curious and quickly agreed. After reading through two chapters, I was intrigued by the depth of a book given to a fourth grader to read, and by the memories it prompted in me, memories of stories of dystopia.
A dystopian society is one which may seem idyllic on the surface, but which has fatal flaws, at least from our perspective. I devoured science fiction novels in high school, and many have this theme. They raised deep thoughts and hard questions, and after reading some of The Giver, I wanted to ask those same questions of my son.
What would it be like in a world with no war? It could be wonderful - but what if the cost was that everyone was the same, that the state chose your profession, dictated your life down to the meals you ate and the pills you took?
What about family? Would it be worth it, for everyone to have a perfect family, if the cost was that the state not only chose your spouse, but also assigned you your children? Are the differences in people so antithetical to peace that they have to be eliminated?
Heavy questions for a ten-year-old, answered admirably. But I wanted to revisit these themes for myself, so I read all of The Giver, and then bought and reread many of my old favorites along with some new discoveries. All of them provoke questions worthy of asking and answering.
For example, in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, all humans are produced in test tubes and raised by the state to do specific jobs. Individual achievement is discouraged. Whether you're born a ruling-class Alpha or a lowly Gamma, you're conditioned from birth to love your role in society and eschew all others. Everyone is happy, because no one has any choices of consequence. And if you ever find yourself unhappy, in need of a "vacation", a dose of government-issued soma will fix that.
In The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, the government of the United States has been taken over by a fundamentalist religion in the wake of environmental disasters. Mirroring the situation of many women in Muslim societies, women are highly respected and protected - to the point where they have no freedom. Because fertility is in rapid decline, some women are assigned to roles by the government, with the few remaining fertile women parceled out to high governmental officials for use as breeders. The story is told in the first-person, by a woman who used to be free, have a husband and daughter, a life. As she write, she recounts how she learned to wear the red dress of the breeders, and how she was conflicted between the self that wanted everything back the way it was and the self that wanted to just get along with the new order.
In Make Room Make Room! by Harry Harrison, the disasters of unfettered population growth, global warming, and declining agricultural production and water supplies lead to a world of have-nots, with only a few haves who can afford electricity, fresh food, and air conditioning. A luxury for the masses is a soylent burger, made of soybeans and lentil, or meat flakes, made from plankton. The water table around the city has sunk, replaced with undrinkable sea water; upstate farmers hold the city hostage by withholding water during the hottest summer on record.
In Jennifer Government by Max Barry, capitalism has gone awry. The Police has been converted to a private agency, available for hire, and only The Government, with no product to sell, watches out for the public - but with no taxes, The Government has to charge citizens for its services, like tracking down murderers. Murder, by the way, has become a marketing tool. One shoe company, for example, increases demand for its products by hiring someone to kill purchasers in a few large cities.
While usually not thought of as a dystopian novel, Lord of the Flies by William Golding fits my criteria. It involves a group of young British boys marooned on a tropical island in the confusion of a nuclear war. One group tries desperately to organize the boys into a working society, with some gathering food, others building shelters, and still another group hunting for food. Paradise disintegrates, however, when the hunters decide they should run the show. I've written about Lord of the Flies before - in the end, savagery wins out over civilization, mostly because of fear and confusion.
One last example is a classic: In The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, the Time Traveler takes his machine from urban 19th century London 800,000 years into the future, only to find that all of the buildings have been replaced by a verdant landscape inhabited by the gentle and diminutive Eloi. It doesn't take long for the Traveler to discover the horrible Darwinian secret of the Eloi - they are tended like cattle for consumption by the Morlocks, underground dwellers that tend the machinery of the planet.
And there are several other classics of the genre still on my reread list: 1984 by George Orwell, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess.
If movies are more to your liking, there are also many in this genre: Soylent Green, Silent Running, Logan's Run, and THX-1138 are classics. More recently, the TV series Sliders and the films Escape from New York, Blade Runner, V for Vendetta, and I Am Legend use dystopian themes.
In any case, be it a book, short story, or film, the intent of all of these works is to shine light on something in our own time or society, in a way that not only provokes thought but also entertains. Non-fiction works like An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore or The World Without Us by Alan Weisman can inform us, too, of course, but there is something about fiction that opens the topic up to a wider audience.
We all have lives to live, in the here and now. We have to worry about our jobs, the configuration of our schools, the price of gas and food, who the next president will be. These are all important concerns, and they can be all-consuming.
But what these works all tell us, fiction or non-fiction, is that we have to look beyond ourselves. Our society is not perfect, by any means. But we have a strong foundation, and if we are diligent and use some forethought, we can avoid the pitfalls all of these works show us are possible.
Shining light on our own flaws
A few months ago, one of my sons asked me to help him with a homework assignment by reading aloud a few chapters from a book. The book was
The Giver by Lois Lowry, and reading the back cover, I was curious and quickly agreed. After reading through two chapters, I was intrigued by the depth of a book given to a fourth grader to read, and by the memories it prompted in me, memories of stories of dystopia.
A dystopian society is one which may seem idyllic on the surface, but which has fatal flaws, at least from our perspective. I devoured science fiction novels in high school, and many have this theme. They raised deep thoughts and hard questions, and after reading some of The Giver, I wanted to ask those same questions of my son.
What would it be like in a world with no war? It could be wonderful - but what if the cost was that everyone was the same, that the state chose your profession, dictated your life down to the meals you ate and the pills you took?
What about family? Would it be worth it, for everyone to have a perfect family, if the cost was that the state not only chose your spouse, but also assigned you your children? Are the differences in people so antithetical to peace that they have to be eliminated?
Heavy questions for a ten-year-old, answered admirably. But I wanted to revisit these themes for myself, so I read all of The Giver, and then bought and reread many of my old favorites along with some new discoveries. All of them provoke questions worthy of asking and answering.
For example, in Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, all humans are produced in test tubes and raised by the state to do specific jobs. Individual achievement is discouraged. Whether you're born a ruling-class Alpha or a lowly Gamma, you're conditioned from birth to love your role in society and eschew all others. Everyone is happy, because no one has any choices of consequence. And if you ever find yourself unhappy, in need of a "vacation", a dose of government-issued soma will fix that.
In The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood, the government of the United States has been taken over by a fundamentalist religion in the wake of environmental disasters. Mirroring the situation of many women in Muslim societies, women are highly respected and protected - to the point where they have no freedom. Because fertility is in rapid decline, some women are assigned to roles by the government, with the few remaining fertile women parceled out to high governmental officials for use as breeders. The story is told in the first-person, by a woman who used to be free, have a husband and daughter, a life. As she write, she recounts how she learned to wear the red dress of the breeders, and how she was conflicted between the self that wanted everything back the way it was and the self that wanted to just get along with the new order.
In Make Room Make Room! by Harry Harrison, the disasters of unfettered population growth, global warming, and declining agricultural production and water supplies lead to a world of have-nots, with only a few haves who can afford electricity, fresh food, and air conditioning. A luxury for the masses is a soylent burger, made of soybeans and lentil, or meat flakes, made from plankton. The water table around the city has sunk, replaced with undrinkable sea water; upstate farmers hold the city hostage by withholding water during the hottest summer on record.
In Jennifer Government by Max Barry, capitalism has gone awry. The Police has been converted to a private agency, available for hire, and only The Government, with no product to sell, watches out for the public - but with no taxes, The Government has to charge citizens for its services, like tracking down murderers. Murder, by the way, has become a marketing tool. One shoe company, for example, increases demand for its products by hiring someone to kill purchasers in a few large cities.
While usually not thought of as a dystopian novel, Lord of the Flies by William Golding fits my criteria. It involves a group of young British boys marooned on a tropical island in the confusion of a nuclear war. One group tries desperately to organize the boys into a working society, with some gathering food, others building shelters, and still another group hunting for food. Paradise disintegrates, however, when the hunters decide they should run the show. I've written about Lord of the Flies before - in the end, savagery wins out over civilization, mostly because of fear and confusion.
One last example is a classic: In The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, the Time Traveler takes his machine from urban 19th century London 800,000 years into the future, only to find that all of the buildings have been replaced by a verdant landscape inhabited by the gentle and diminutive Eloi. It doesn't take long for the Traveler to discover the horrible Darwinian secret of the Eloi - they are tended like cattle for consumption by the Morlocks, underground dwellers that tend the machinery of the planet.
And there are several other classics of the genre still on my reread list: 1984 by George Orwell, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, and A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess.
If movies are more to your liking, there are also many in this genre: Soylent Green, Silent Running, Logan's Run, and THX-1138 are classics. More recently, the TV series Sliders and the films Escape from New York, Blade Runner, V for Vendetta, and I Am Legend use dystopian themes.
In any case, be it a book, short story, or film, the intent of all of these works is to shine light on something in our own time or society, in a way that not only provokes thought but also entertains. Non-fiction works like An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore or The World Without Us by Alan Weisman can inform us, too, of course, but there is something about fiction that opens the topic up to a wider audience.
We all have lives to live, in the here and now. We have to worry about our jobs, the configuration of our schools, the price of gas and food, who the next president will be. These are all important concerns, and they can be all-consuming.
But what these works all tell us, fiction or non-fiction, is that we have to look beyond ourselves. Our society is not perfect, by any means. But we have a strong foundation, and if we are diligent and use some forethought, we can avoid the pitfalls all of these works show us are possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)