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.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)