This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 23, 2009.
Despite its flaws, pass the bill
Democrats are in a fine mess now. The public is watching closely to see what kind of health care reform the Democrats can actually pass. Even with sizable majorities in both houses of Congress, the sixty vote majority needed to stop debate in the Senate has been hard to find.
Part of the problem is one of the Democratic Party's strengths — the fact that it is a large tent, happy to encompass a wide diversity of opinion and position. This does, however, make the Party vulnerable to dissenters.
A major problem recently has been Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who threatened to hold up the health care bill unless he managed to have anti-abortion language added. Despite the opposition of many Democrats, Nelson had his way.
Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is another problem. He was, of course, a long-time Democrat, but defected from the party to run as an independent when primary voters managed to knock him out of the running for his seat as a Democrat in 2006. He has since been something of a curmudgeon, becoming a unknown quantity. Will he stick with his previous statements or will he allow his position to shift with the political winds?
The job of a Senator is to take how he feels about the issue at hand, and to combine that with how his constituents feel and his party platform. These three interests are often competing, and for both Senators Lieberman and Nelson, along with some others who have been on the fence, such as Maine's Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, the pull of one interest can sway their statements, their negotiations, their votes.
The problem, from my perspective, is when things are this close (close, of course, being a relative term, since there are more than enough votes for the full-on health care reform bill, complete with consumer protections and a public option — the closeness is in that insane cloture vote), the vote of one Senator can trump what's right, what's best for the country.
I understand Governor Howard Dean's frustration, and his call for the health care bill, in its current stripped-down form, be defeated by those who support true reform. I listened to his arguments with a wide-open mind. His suggestion is to kill the bill and use the reconciliation process, a special process for budget bills, which many have argued the health care bill can reasonably be considered, to pass something closer to what the House passed in November.
The biggest problem Dean has with the current bill is that it does nothing to combat the monopoly that the insurance industry has over the health care industry. In fact, it plays into the insurance industry's hands by requiring the uninsured to buy insurance, or face fines. The uninsured cannot choose a government-run plan, because there isn't one. The insurance industry loves this bill. The people want real choices, Dean says, and with this bill, there are no choices.
He feels the real reforms in the bill, such as the elimination of pre-existing conditions, funding for wellness and prevention programs, and support for community health care centers, should be pulled out, placed in a separate bill, and passed on their own.
He also must feel, considering his former job as chair of the Democratic National Committee, that the current bill be be a blow to Democrats in the 2010 elections — given the majorities Democrats have, we should be able to accomplish more. Will the voters give the Democrats another chance to get the work of government done?
Despite my deep respect for Governor Dean, and the appeal of his suggestion, I don't think that Democrats should take the advice. The current bill is sorely lacking in many areas, but one thing is agreed by all left-wing commentators: this bill, as it is now, will save lives. Yes, it will add undeserved profit to the insurance industry; but in the end, people who otherwise would have died will live.
We can blame many, perhaps even most, of the problems with the bill on the necessity to accommodate the single, contrarian Senator. But despite that, we do have a bill that does something substantive, something real and good. It gives the Democrats something to hang their hats on in 2010, even if it is not what all of us would have liked to see.
The bill should be supported, it should be passed, it should become law.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 10, 2009.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan
After the United States joined World War 2, the Allies had victory over the Axis war machine in less than four years. In doing so, the United States lost over 400,000 soldiers. Few, then or now, doubted that the war was necessary.
Our war in Afghanistan, by contrast, is very different. The first boots hit the ground in 2001, making this war eight years old, with the end only just a nebulous plan.
This war is not a war against a nation or alliance of nations. Our enemy has no capital to capture, no president to arrest. We all want victory, but few can express exactly what victory in the larger war means.
One reason that we are still in Afghanistan now, and will be for years to come, is that we were distracted from this fight by the war in Iraq. While our efforts in Iraq wane, and with the touch of a new commander in chief, we have been reminded of our unfinished business in Afghanistan.
The other reason I've already alluded to — our enemy is not a people, a country, or even a government. It is a loose alliance of organizations, with decentralized command, constantly moving troops, and with often-reluctant support from the people. Worse, they know no borders, and all that does is complicate matters even further.
The president's new plan for Afghanistan is relatively simple: to provide 30,000 additional troops to the war and to be in a position to begin pulling out again in 18 months.
To some, those on the left especially, any extension of the war is a broken promise. By the time the expansion is complete, the United States will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is a far cry from Obama's campaign promise to end the wars and bring all the troops home.
Obama, however, has called the Afghanistan conflict the "right war", contrasting it with the Iraq conflict, the "wrong war." It is not surprising, then, that Obama would want to finish what the United States started in Afghanistan. We have fulfilled only part of what we set out to do. We have removed the Taliban from power, and a new government has been put into place.
These successes are not without issue.
The Taliban is no longer in power, but it is still a threat. Afghanistan security forces must be in a position to oppose and suppress uprisings after we leave, and we must get Pakistan to join the effort in earnest.
The Afghan government is seriously flawed, with corruption and graft the seeming norm, and the results of the last election are a nagging question. In an area with a history like Afghanistan, however, it is a wonder they are as far along as they are.
On the right, the president's plan to begin pull-outs in 18 months is seen as a sign of weakness, a signal to the enemy that all they need to do is wait us out and they can have free reign again. These criticisms ignore too much, though. The president never said we would pull out in 18 months, only that pull-outs could begin then. This past weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates was clear that if the situation does not warrant a withdrawal, one will not happen.
As if to make the point even clearer, United States forces began offensives into Taliban-held towns in Afghanistan almost as soon as the president's announcement was made.
I don't want us to be in Afghanistan a moment longer than we have to be, and as 1500 Vermont Guard forces prepare to deploy there, I don't want any more of our soldiers to have to die over there. But at the same time, we made a commitment to bring peace and stability to the region. We took our eyes off that ball for a long time, and it is time we refocus there, do what we said we would do, and then get out.
The Afghan War may never have the equivalent of a VJ Day, with soldiers and civilians celebrating victory in Times Square. I would give up a thousand VJ Day celebrations to know that the people of Afghanistan have peace, stability, jobs, and prosperity, and no need for the Taliban. When that happens, when hope returns to the Afghan people, then we will have won, and we can bring all of our troops home with the knowledge that we kept our promises.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 25, 2009.
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
A few weeks ago in these pages, I took issue with those who insist we live in a democracy, explaining that a democracy is not an ideal system for a population of any significant size. Our system of representative democracy, where we hire, or elect, people to represent us, is a much better way of running a government.
Along with this indirect form of representation, we have protections in our system to ensure that the majority does not act as a tyrant. Our constitutions, for example, protect the freedoms of all, especially those of the minority.
Given all this, I feel the time is right to rail against one of my least favorite "features" of our legislative process — the filibuster.
The word derives from a Dutch term for a type of pirate. The term was first applied to American adventurers who sought to overthrow Central American governments in the 19th century, and was transferred to Senators who attempt to do the same to legislation.
The filibuster has a long history. At their inception, both houses of Congress allowed for unlimited debate — which is a fancy way of saying that a member of Congress could talk for as long as they wished, on any subject. While the member spoke, no other business could be conducted. If you could get two-like minded members to team up, that house of Congress would grind to a halt.
This is the exact opposite of a democratic principle, a tyranny of one.
The House long ago did away with this practice, as the number of Representatives rose. The Senate, however, retains the practice. For over 100 years, there was no way to stop debate. In 1917, the Senate created the cloture rule. Under the cloture rule, if enough Senators vote to stop debate, it stops. Originally, the number needed to invoke cloture was two-thirds, or 67 Senators in today's Senate. In 1975, the number needed to invoke cloture was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.
There have been several famous filibusters through history. Some are the stuff of legend — Huey Long, Democrat of Louisiana, filibustered the Senate multiple times in the 1930s, as he railed against legislation he felt gave too much to America's upper class. He entertained the nation by reading the phone book, Shakespeare, and the Bible into the public record.
Some filibusters had nothing short of evil intent. Strom Thurmond, Democrat (and Republican) of South Carolina, filibustered for over 24 hours to stop civil rights legislation in 1957. Other anti-civil rights filibusters were the norm until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to move the issue forward.
We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the third, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.
Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate's version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that's part of it. It isn't like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.
But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I've disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.
Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.
Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.
I'm thankful that the Senate voted to allow the health care bill to come to the floor for debate. It is a good step in the right direction. Once we have this important piece of legislation properly vetted, debated, amended, and passed, hopefully the Senate will take a close look at its rules, and decide that the time of the filibuster has long since gone.
Note: The orginally published text said "tyrrany of the quarter" — this text corrects that to "tyranny of the third."
It's Time to Kill the Filibuster
A few weeks ago in these pages, I took issue with those who insist we live in a democracy, explaining that a democracy is not an ideal system for a population of any significant size. Our system of representative democracy, where we hire, or elect, people to represent us, is a much better way of running a government.
Along with this indirect form of representation, we have protections in our system to ensure that the majority does not act as a tyrant. Our constitutions, for example, protect the freedoms of all, especially those of the minority.
Given all this, I feel the time is right to rail against one of my least favorite "features" of our legislative process — the filibuster.
The word derives from a Dutch term for a type of pirate. The term was first applied to American adventurers who sought to overthrow Central American governments in the 19th century, and was transferred to Senators who attempt to do the same to legislation.
The filibuster has a long history. At their inception, both houses of Congress allowed for unlimited debate — which is a fancy way of saying that a member of Congress could talk for as long as they wished, on any subject. While the member spoke, no other business could be conducted. If you could get two-like minded members to team up, that house of Congress would grind to a halt.
This is the exact opposite of a democratic principle, a tyranny of one.
The House long ago did away with this practice, as the number of Representatives rose. The Senate, however, retains the practice. For over 100 years, there was no way to stop debate. In 1917, the Senate created the cloture rule. Under the cloture rule, if enough Senators vote to stop debate, it stops. Originally, the number needed to invoke cloture was two-thirds, or 67 Senators in today's Senate. In 1975, the number needed to invoke cloture was reduced to three-fifths, or 60 Senators.
There have been several famous filibusters through history. Some are the stuff of legend — Huey Long, Democrat of Louisiana, filibustered the Senate multiple times in the 1930s, as he railed against legislation he felt gave too much to America's upper class. He entertained the nation by reading the phone book, Shakespeare, and the Bible into the public record.
Some filibusters had nothing short of evil intent. Strom Thurmond, Democrat (and Republican) of South Carolina, filibustered for over 24 hours to stop civil rights legislation in 1957. Other anti-civil rights filibusters were the norm until 1964, when the Senate was finally able to move the issue forward.
We have made some progress from the tyranny of one, to the tyranny of the third, to the tyranny of the two-fifths. I am a proponent for the protection of the minority, but the main protection for the minority is the Constitution, not an arcane Senate rule. It is time, has been time for a long time, to remove this technical procedure altogether.
Lest you think that this is just some sour grapes, the result of the recent close vote on cloture to allow the Senate's version of the health care bill to come to the floor, I admit that's part of it. It isn't like I sit around mulling over the filibuster and cloture every day.
But the recent vote only brought the issue to the foreground. I've disliked the filibuster and cloture for as long as I can remember. I would support doing away with it when the Senate is controlled by Republicans, too.
Not only is the filibuster anti-democratic, it is also ripe for abuse. Recent reports that Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's vote for cloture was bought with a $100 million gift to Louisiana is just another side of the problem — to get to cloture, the majority party might be willing to buy votes.
Whether that happened here or not is not relevant — what is relevant is that it can happen, that it has happened before, that it will happen again.
I'm thankful that the Senate voted to allow the health care bill to come to the floor for debate. It is a good step in the right direction. Once we have this important piece of legislation properly vetted, debated, amended, and passed, hopefully the Senate will take a close look at its rules, and decide that the time of the filibuster has long since gone.
Note: The orginally published text said "tyrrany of the quarter" — this text corrects that to "tyranny of the third."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 12, 2009.
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
I was having a relaxed lunch with my grandmother the other day, when the subject of Veterans Day came up. The day, set aside to honor all military veterans, is a state and national holiday, but not a day off for most businesses or schools. GE, where I work, does give all of its American employees Veterans Day off, which prompted the turn of conversation.
She spoke of my grandfather's time away during World War 2, but more specifically of what she was doing during those times. While he was off serving in Italy, she was trying to make ends meet back in Massachusetts, with a new-born daughter to take care of.
She told of finding a place to live and work, taking care of the children of a school headmaster; of the friendships my mother, as a toddler, made with his children; of the family dinners they were welcomed at and the dinners where she was expected to help serve the guests.
She told of my grandfather's homecoming, and how he was expected home in the afternoon, but surprised them by arriving in the morning instead. She told of his meeting his daughter for the first time.
As I listened to these stories of "home," a specific feeling began to tug at me — I'll get to that feeling in a moment.
Technically, I am one of the veterans whom we honored yesterday. I served in the National Guard for five years in the early nineties. I feel embarrassed to be included in the category, though. I never saw any combat, never even left the country. I and my comrades watched the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm from the comfort of our living rooms in Vermont, from the comfort of our armory in Swanton.
I feel like I sacrificed nothing more than a few summers in Kentucky, one weekend a month in exotic locales like Jericho, or a few weeks away at far-off Fort Drum. Compared to those veterans who spent years away from home, with those who endured gunfire and artillery, my service was a walk in the park.
My children ask me, from time to time, about what I did in the Army. I have fond memories of my Southern drill sergeants, of the young men from Vermont and New Hampshire that I trained with, of driving tanks through the backwoods of Camp Johnson, of firing shells at plywood cutouts in the hills of the Ethan Allen Firing Range, of waving to the cheering crowds from a perch atop my tank as we drove down the street during a Fourth of July parade.
I tell them that I served in the Guard because I felt it was the least I could do. That I hoped because of what I did and what countless others before me and since had done, that they might never have to put on a uniform. But if they did, that they would join a proud American tradition of military service.
Which brings me back to that feeling — the feeling that while we honor our veterans, we should also honor those they left behind. The spouses who raised the children while the soldier was away. The parents who wished for some news, but not the wrong kind of news. The civilians who endured the shortages and rationing. These people are also veterans of a different sort, and as we honor those who served, I feel that we should also honor those who supported those who served.
In June of this year, according to the Department of Defense, U.S. military personnel were serving in 150 countries across the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from the single soldier in Guyana to 171,000 personnel in Iraq. Significant numbers are also serving in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Djibouti, Belgium, Turkey, and Bahrain.
These men and women currently serving join an estimated 43 million other veterans who have served the United States since the Revolutionary War. Hopefully you were able to take a few moments yesterday to remember all of these people, and to remember those who supported them back at home.
For it is because of "home" that they serve at all.
Remembering All of Our Honored Veterans
I was having a relaxed lunch with my grandmother the other day, when the subject of Veterans Day came up. The day, set aside to honor all military veterans, is a state and national holiday, but not a day off for most businesses or schools. GE, where I work, does give all of its American employees Veterans Day off, which prompted the turn of conversation.
She spoke of my grandfather's time away during World War 2, but more specifically of what she was doing during those times. While he was off serving in Italy, she was trying to make ends meet back in Massachusetts, with a new-born daughter to take care of.
She told of finding a place to live and work, taking care of the children of a school headmaster; of the friendships my mother, as a toddler, made with his children; of the family dinners they were welcomed at and the dinners where she was expected to help serve the guests.
She told of my grandfather's homecoming, and how he was expected home in the afternoon, but surprised them by arriving in the morning instead. She told of his meeting his daughter for the first time.
As I listened to these stories of "home," a specific feeling began to tug at me — I'll get to that feeling in a moment.
Technically, I am one of the veterans whom we honored yesterday. I served in the National Guard for five years in the early nineties. I feel embarrassed to be included in the category, though. I never saw any combat, never even left the country. I and my comrades watched the invasion of Iraq in Desert Storm from the comfort of our living rooms in Vermont, from the comfort of our armory in Swanton.
I feel like I sacrificed nothing more than a few summers in Kentucky, one weekend a month in exotic locales like Jericho, or a few weeks away at far-off Fort Drum. Compared to those veterans who spent years away from home, with those who endured gunfire and artillery, my service was a walk in the park.
My children ask me, from time to time, about what I did in the Army. I have fond memories of my Southern drill sergeants, of the young men from Vermont and New Hampshire that I trained with, of driving tanks through the backwoods of Camp Johnson, of firing shells at plywood cutouts in the hills of the Ethan Allen Firing Range, of waving to the cheering crowds from a perch atop my tank as we drove down the street during a Fourth of July parade.
I tell them that I served in the Guard because I felt it was the least I could do. That I hoped because of what I did and what countless others before me and since had done, that they might never have to put on a uniform. But if they did, that they would join a proud American tradition of military service.
Which brings me back to that feeling — the feeling that while we honor our veterans, we should also honor those they left behind. The spouses who raised the children while the soldier was away. The parents who wished for some news, but not the wrong kind of news. The civilians who endured the shortages and rationing. These people are also veterans of a different sort, and as we honor those who served, I feel that we should also honor those who supported those who served.
In June of this year, according to the Department of Defense, U.S. military personnel were serving in 150 countries across the world, from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, from the single soldier in Guyana to 171,000 personnel in Iraq. Significant numbers are also serving in Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, Djibouti, Belgium, Turkey, and Bahrain.
These men and women currently serving join an estimated 43 million other veterans who have served the United States since the Revolutionary War. Hopefully you were able to take a few moments yesterday to remember all of these people, and to remember those who supported them back at home.
For it is because of "home" that they serve at all.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Thankfully, we're not a democracy
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 29, 2009.
Thankfully, we're not a democracy
"We live in a democracy!" is an often-heard cry from those who feel unheard in government. The statement, however, has a basic inaccuracy, an inaccuracy that could be described as simple semantics, but certainly is not.
The United States is not a democracy, and we should be thankful for that. What we are, instead, is a representative democracy. That one word makes all the difference in the world.
A democracy, in its purest form, is rule by the people. Every issue of importance is put to the people for a vote, and the majority rules. The system sounds good - everyone has an equal vote, an equal voice, and the will of the people is the will of the majority.
There are, however, many difficulties with such a system, a couple of which I will detail.
The first is one of practicality. It is impractical to put every issue to the people in any but the smallest of societies. It's often been said that the closest we, as modern Americans, come to pure democracy is that staple of March in Vermont, the town meeting.
While I agree that the town meeting is an important institution, it is notable that even small towns have learned that the town meeting is only effective as a method of governance to a specific point. Most obviously, town meetings are only held once per year. The rest of the year, the town is invariably run by representatives. More to the point, most people simply don't want to be involved in the everyday decision-making of the town.
Western society has a rich history, dating a thousand years, of delegating authority. The authority must be kept in check, however, and in the United States, we have devised institutions to do that. Elections are the most basic check, but we also have term limits, checks and balances, and separation of powers.
So basic is the shift from democracy to representative democracy that we see it at every level of government. Not only in the U.S. Congress, but also in the Vermont Legislature, in the Selectboard, even to the FAP Advisory Council in our schools. Representative democracy is all around us, and unlike pure democracy, it works.
Another major problem with a pure democracy is "majority rule". Most of the time, majority rule works just fine. When we are selecting a representative, the candidate with the most votes should be the winner. If the question of a roundabout on Route 2 is put to a vote, then the majority should carry the question.
But some things should not be subject to majority rule - basic human rights, for example. The ability of a person to speak his mind or to worship as she wishes should not be subject to a vote. If a people voted to institute slavery, the fact that a majority voted for it would make it no less a violation of human rights.
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and the similar Declaration of Rights in the Vermont Constitution lay out for all to see those principles that we hold dear and which are not subject to a vote. "The people have a right to freedom of speech," the Vermont Constitution says. There is no exception that reads "unless the people of the state vote to remove that freedom from any person or group."
This entire discussion came to mind because of a conversation I've been having with someone who is unsatisfied with our current national government. He advocates the abolition of the Congress and its replacement with the votes of the people. The idea sounds great in sound-bite format: "Your voice will be heard! Your vote will really count! Take the influence of lobbyists out of the government!"
These slogans are rooted in democratic principles, and might be true in a pure democracy. As noted above, though, it is impractical. We do not all want to be part-time politicians. We want to elect people to do that for us.
Democracy is a great idea in principle but a lousy one in practice. What we have done is taken that principle and tweaked the system to make it work for each of our levels of government. It can be improved, no doubt about that; but our attempts to improve the system should not include throwing it out and replacing it with something we know will not work.
Thankfully, we're not a democracy
"We live in a democracy!" is an often-heard cry from those who feel unheard in government. The statement, however, has a basic inaccuracy, an inaccuracy that could be described as simple semantics, but certainly is not.
The United States is not a democracy, and we should be thankful for that. What we are, instead, is a representative democracy. That one word makes all the difference in the world.
A democracy, in its purest form, is rule by the people. Every issue of importance is put to the people for a vote, and the majority rules. The system sounds good - everyone has an equal vote, an equal voice, and the will of the people is the will of the majority.
There are, however, many difficulties with such a system, a couple of which I will detail.
The first is one of practicality. It is impractical to put every issue to the people in any but the smallest of societies. It's often been said that the closest we, as modern Americans, come to pure democracy is that staple of March in Vermont, the town meeting.
While I agree that the town meeting is an important institution, it is notable that even small towns have learned that the town meeting is only effective as a method of governance to a specific point. Most obviously, town meetings are only held once per year. The rest of the year, the town is invariably run by representatives. More to the point, most people simply don't want to be involved in the everyday decision-making of the town.
Western society has a rich history, dating a thousand years, of delegating authority. The authority must be kept in check, however, and in the United States, we have devised institutions to do that. Elections are the most basic check, but we also have term limits, checks and balances, and separation of powers.
So basic is the shift from democracy to representative democracy that we see it at every level of government. Not only in the U.S. Congress, but also in the Vermont Legislature, in the Selectboard, even to the FAP Advisory Council in our schools. Representative democracy is all around us, and unlike pure democracy, it works.
Another major problem with a pure democracy is "majority rule". Most of the time, majority rule works just fine. When we are selecting a representative, the candidate with the most votes should be the winner. If the question of a roundabout on Route 2 is put to a vote, then the majority should carry the question.
But some things should not be subject to majority rule - basic human rights, for example. The ability of a person to speak his mind or to worship as she wishes should not be subject to a vote. If a people voted to institute slavery, the fact that a majority voted for it would make it no less a violation of human rights.
The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution and the similar Declaration of Rights in the Vermont Constitution lay out for all to see those principles that we hold dear and which are not subject to a vote. "The people have a right to freedom of speech," the Vermont Constitution says. There is no exception that reads "unless the people of the state vote to remove that freedom from any person or group."
This entire discussion came to mind because of a conversation I've been having with someone who is unsatisfied with our current national government. He advocates the abolition of the Congress and its replacement with the votes of the people. The idea sounds great in sound-bite format: "Your voice will be heard! Your vote will really count! Take the influence of lobbyists out of the government!"
These slogans are rooted in democratic principles, and might be true in a pure democracy. As noted above, though, it is impractical. We do not all want to be part-time politicians. We want to elect people to do that for us.
Democracy is a great idea in principle but a lousy one in practice. What we have done is taken that principle and tweaked the system to make it work for each of our levels of government. It can be improved, no doubt about that; but our attempts to improve the system should not include throwing it out and replacing it with something we know will not work.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Confronting Judicial Uncertainties
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 15, 2009.
Confronting Judicial Uncertainties
Our justice system is one of the best in the world. It exemplifies many of our basic beliefs: that one is innocent until proved guilty; the importance of due process; the concept of equal justice.
As with any human institution, our justice system is not perfect. Over time, a long series of Supreme Court decisions have ensured that our principles are applied.
One of the most famous, 1966's Miranda v Arizona, is the source of the Miranda Warning, which begins "You have the right to remain silent..." The decision in this case ensures that suspects are at least aware of their rights when they talk to police. Whether the suspects take the advice the Miranda Warning gives them is another story entirely.
Another famous case is 1963's Gideon v Wainwright, immortalized in the book Gideon's Trumpet, and the TV movie of the same name. This case ensured that all criminal defendants, even those not accused of a capital crime, must be provided a lawyer. One of my earliest memories of our justice system is watching Henry Fonda, playing Clarence Gideon, writing a motion to the Supreme Court by hand.
These cases, both decided before I was even born, stay with us today. They are applied in interrogation rooms and courtrooms on a daily basis. The police and prosecutors constantly push the boundaries of these and other important decisions, and the courts are constantly refining those boundaries for the next set of cases.
But even with all these defined boundaries, these legal limits, there still come times when we have to take serious looks at our system. The mere fact that the law and the processes to apply the law need refinement shows that what we have is not yet perfect.
As I watch and read news stories about national and local court cases, I grapple with these conflicts constantly. I'll take two examples to show what I mean.
First is the grand and divisive issue of the death penalty. Vermont, among other states, has decided that the death penalty is not a punishment we want to use. As we've seen in many cases, famous and infamous, those on death row can be placed there in error. The problem with the death penalty is its finality. Once the punishment is meted out, there is no going back.
Because we can, and do, err, my sense of justice tells me that the death penalty is unjust. But at the same time, my sense of justice tells me that in cases like those of now-executed Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh, justice was served in a way no other penalty could have satisfied. I struggle with this dichotomy in my own principles.
The second example involves another basic tenet of our criminal justice system: that after a convicted criminal does his time, he is then released back into society, and that's the end of it. It would be the height of unfairness, of injustice, to impose a higher penalty after someone has served his time or at any time after sentencing.
This, however, seems exactly what we do when we put convicted sex offenders on a list for the rest of their lives, and track them, publicly, after they are released. My senses are piqued when I hear about this, because it seems unfair, unjust. But at the same time, as a father, as a neighbor, as a member of the community, this is information I feel the need to know and the right to have.
Questions of fairness, of justice, can be hard to answer. The right thing to do can seem obvious in the abstract, but once you hear the details, see the effects on real people, imagine how you would react as you sat in a jury or if you or a friend or family member were a victim of a crime with similar circumstances, the obvious can be less so.
Fortunately, most of the time, these nagging issues do not become a part of an individual criminal case. Be it embezzlement, drunk driving, stalking, sexual assault, burglary, or murder, most of the details of the case are not cast into constitutional waters. When they are, however, we can be assured that those arguing the case, on both sides, are looking out for all of our best interests, both the interests of the public and the interests of the individual.
Note: the originally published column had Peter Fonda playing the role of Clarence Gideon in Gideon's Trumpet. The actor was actually Henry Fonda.
Confronting Judicial Uncertainties
Our justice system is one of the best in the world. It exemplifies many of our basic beliefs: that one is innocent until proved guilty; the importance of due process; the concept of equal justice.
As with any human institution, our justice system is not perfect. Over time, a long series of Supreme Court decisions have ensured that our principles are applied.
One of the most famous, 1966's Miranda v Arizona, is the source of the Miranda Warning, which begins "You have the right to remain silent..." The decision in this case ensures that suspects are at least aware of their rights when they talk to police. Whether the suspects take the advice the Miranda Warning gives them is another story entirely.
Another famous case is 1963's Gideon v Wainwright, immortalized in the book Gideon's Trumpet, and the TV movie of the same name. This case ensured that all criminal defendants, even those not accused of a capital crime, must be provided a lawyer. One of my earliest memories of our justice system is watching Henry Fonda, playing Clarence Gideon, writing a motion to the Supreme Court by hand.
These cases, both decided before I was even born, stay with us today. They are applied in interrogation rooms and courtrooms on a daily basis. The police and prosecutors constantly push the boundaries of these and other important decisions, and the courts are constantly refining those boundaries for the next set of cases.
But even with all these defined boundaries, these legal limits, there still come times when we have to take serious looks at our system. The mere fact that the law and the processes to apply the law need refinement shows that what we have is not yet perfect.
As I watch and read news stories about national and local court cases, I grapple with these conflicts constantly. I'll take two examples to show what I mean.
First is the grand and divisive issue of the death penalty. Vermont, among other states, has decided that the death penalty is not a punishment we want to use. As we've seen in many cases, famous and infamous, those on death row can be placed there in error. The problem with the death penalty is its finality. Once the punishment is meted out, there is no going back.
Because we can, and do, err, my sense of justice tells me that the death penalty is unjust. But at the same time, my sense of justice tells me that in cases like those of now-executed Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh, justice was served in a way no other penalty could have satisfied. I struggle with this dichotomy in my own principles.
The second example involves another basic tenet of our criminal justice system: that after a convicted criminal does his time, he is then released back into society, and that's the end of it. It would be the height of unfairness, of injustice, to impose a higher penalty after someone has served his time or at any time after sentencing.
This, however, seems exactly what we do when we put convicted sex offenders on a list for the rest of their lives, and track them, publicly, after they are released. My senses are piqued when I hear about this, because it seems unfair, unjust. But at the same time, as a father, as a neighbor, as a member of the community, this is information I feel the need to know and the right to have.
Questions of fairness, of justice, can be hard to answer. The right thing to do can seem obvious in the abstract, but once you hear the details, see the effects on real people, imagine how you would react as you sat in a jury or if you or a friend or family member were a victim of a crime with similar circumstances, the obvious can be less so.
Fortunately, most of the time, these nagging issues do not become a part of an individual criminal case. Be it embezzlement, drunk driving, stalking, sexual assault, burglary, or murder, most of the details of the case are not cast into constitutional waters. When they are, however, we can be assured that those arguing the case, on both sides, are looking out for all of our best interests, both the interests of the public and the interests of the individual.
Note: the originally published column had Peter Fonda playing the role of Clarence Gideon in Gideon's Trumpet. The actor was actually Henry Fonda.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Constitutional FAQ
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 1, 2009.
Constitutional FAQ
One of the most popular pages on my U.S. Constitution web site is the FAQ. As you may already know, "FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Questions." The concept is to place such questions in a central location so that as the same questions arise again and again, the answers can be quickly found.
Despite the FAQ, I still get a lot of the same frequently asked questions, especially, it seems, from students who have come to expect that answers should fall into their laps, rather than come to them through a bit of research. I find these to be "teachable moments," and often refer these students to specific sections of the Constitution, writing "If you read this section, you'll find your answer."
The past year has brought about a whole new set of questions that I had not seen before — whether they will attain "Frequently Asked" status or not, only time will tell.
One perfectly reasonable question often goes like this: "I've searched through the Constitution and cannot find the words 'health care' anywhere. What gives Congress the right to enact health care legislation at all?"
Parenthetically, I usually tell such questioners that the Congress doesn't have "rights" to do anything. It does, however, have the "power" to do things. The discussion of rights versus powers is sometimes an overwhelmingly philosophical one, but the distinction is important.
That detail aside, the answer to many questions of this type have the same answer: Article 1, Section 8 is a list of the powers of Congress. Some of them are quite specific and limited (for example, the power to coin money or establish post offices).
Others, however, are succinct in their phrasing but expansive in their practical effects. Clause 1 is one of the most expansive, granting Congress the power to collect taxes in order to, among other things, provide for the "general Welfare" of the United States.
If health care cannot be called a component of the general welfare of the people, nothing can be.
Clause 18 completes the picture. This clause grants Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" to carrying out the powers listed previously. Whether the Framers of the Constitution understood what they had done when they wrote clauses 1 and 18 is a subject of some debate in historical and political science circles, but for all practical purposes the debate is settled.
When the Bush and Obama administrations were bailing out troubled banks, a common question went like this: "Under what authority does the government gain control of private business by giving or loaning them taxpayer money?"
The answer is another expansive clause of Article 1, Section 8; Clause 3, the interstate commerce clause. Under this clause, paired with Clause 18 again, the Congress has the power to enter into arrangements with business such as it did at the beginning of this year. I hasten to note that the government was not looking for an actual take-over of the affected businesses, but some degree of control was thought necessary (and proper, if you'll forgive the constitutional pun) to bring banks under control. This would give Congress and government agencies time to come up with new regulations to prevent such crises in the future, once the direct government influence of the businesses was removed.
Finally, this question came to me recently: "How does the Constitution say the people can kick out the Congress or the President?"
Questions such as these bemuse me, and it happens quite often. A plain reading of the Constitution reveals that there is nothing like a "recall clause", but the questioner assumes it must be there.
In my response, I told the questioner that there is no such clause in the Constitution, and that it was actually a good thing that it's not there. Recall efforts are disruptive and take attention away from the work that the Congress or the President should be doing. If a member of Congress or the President acts in an egregious manner, there are ways of removing them from office (to wit, impeachment). Short of that extreme and rare measure, the people are free to exercise their rights of free speech, of petition, and, ultimately, the power of the vote.
Constitutional FAQ
One of the most popular pages on my U.S. Constitution web site is the FAQ. As you may already know, "FAQ" stands for "Frequently Asked Questions." The concept is to place such questions in a central location so that as the same questions arise again and again, the answers can be quickly found.
Despite the FAQ, I still get a lot of the same frequently asked questions, especially, it seems, from students who have come to expect that answers should fall into their laps, rather than come to them through a bit of research. I find these to be "teachable moments," and often refer these students to specific sections of the Constitution, writing "If you read this section, you'll find your answer."
The past year has brought about a whole new set of questions that I had not seen before — whether they will attain "Frequently Asked" status or not, only time will tell.
One perfectly reasonable question often goes like this: "I've searched through the Constitution and cannot find the words 'health care' anywhere. What gives Congress the right to enact health care legislation at all?"
Parenthetically, I usually tell such questioners that the Congress doesn't have "rights" to do anything. It does, however, have the "power" to do things. The discussion of rights versus powers is sometimes an overwhelmingly philosophical one, but the distinction is important.
That detail aside, the answer to many questions of this type have the same answer: Article 1, Section 8 is a list of the powers of Congress. Some of them are quite specific and limited (for example, the power to coin money or establish post offices).
Others, however, are succinct in their phrasing but expansive in their practical effects. Clause 1 is one of the most expansive, granting Congress the power to collect taxes in order to, among other things, provide for the "general Welfare" of the United States.
If health care cannot be called a component of the general welfare of the people, nothing can be.
Clause 18 completes the picture. This clause grants Congress the power to make all laws "necessary and proper" to carrying out the powers listed previously. Whether the Framers of the Constitution understood what they had done when they wrote clauses 1 and 18 is a subject of some debate in historical and political science circles, but for all practical purposes the debate is settled.
When the Bush and Obama administrations were bailing out troubled banks, a common question went like this: "Under what authority does the government gain control of private business by giving or loaning them taxpayer money?"
The answer is another expansive clause of Article 1, Section 8; Clause 3, the interstate commerce clause. Under this clause, paired with Clause 18 again, the Congress has the power to enter into arrangements with business such as it did at the beginning of this year. I hasten to note that the government was not looking for an actual take-over of the affected businesses, but some degree of control was thought necessary (and proper, if you'll forgive the constitutional pun) to bring banks under control. This would give Congress and government agencies time to come up with new regulations to prevent such crises in the future, once the direct government influence of the businesses was removed.
Finally, this question came to me recently: "How does the Constitution say the people can kick out the Congress or the President?"
Questions such as these bemuse me, and it happens quite often. A plain reading of the Constitution reveals that there is nothing like a "recall clause", but the questioner assumes it must be there.
In my response, I told the questioner that there is no such clause in the Constitution, and that it was actually a good thing that it's not there. Recall efforts are disruptive and take attention away from the work that the Congress or the President should be doing. If a member of Congress or the President acts in an egregious manner, there are ways of removing them from office (to wit, impeachment). Short of that extreme and rare measure, the people are free to exercise their rights of free speech, of petition, and, ultimately, the power of the vote.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Sizing up the 2010 governor's race
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 17, 2009.
Sizing up the 2010 governor's race
Just a little under a year ago, in this space, I noted that Governor Jim Douglas was a virtual shoo-in for governor in the 2010 election, should he decide to run. As you've surely heard or read by now, Douglas has, indeed, announced his intention to not run in 2010.
True to his Vermont spirit, Douglas assured Vermonters that he would serve out his term, unlike some other notable Republican governors. When VPR's Bob Kinzel suggested that Douglas could give his Republican lieutenant governor Brian Dubie a leg up in the 2010 election by stepping down early, Douglas was unequivocal about his intention to go the distance.
With the curtain on the Incumbent Protection Plan drawn back, Douglas's decision opens up possibilities for a new face in the office, the same way Howard Dean's decision gave Douglas his chance, and Madeleine Kunin's decision allowed Richard Snelling to step back into the governor's office.
On the Republican side, there are several familiar names mentioned as contenders, though none have officially announced as yet. These include Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, former Vermont National Guard Commander Gen. Martha Rainville, recent Republican convert Tom Salmon, and Mark Snelling, son of the late aforementioned governor. The general consensus is that everyone else is awaiting Dubie's decision before moving ahead with their own plans.
On the Democratic side, there are several familiar names, many of whom are now serving the state with distinction. Unlike the Republicans, though, some are not waiting to make their intentions known.
Deborah Markowitz has been Vermont's Secretary of State since 1998, having been elected to the office six times. In 2008, she was reelected with 70.8% of the vote. In her role, she has been a champion of towns and cities and of open government. I've been impressed with her efforts promoting free and fair elections, and in her office's efforts to move the state to higher and higher voter turn-outs. Though she is the veteran of many statewide elections, I'm not sure of her experience as an executive.
Doug Racine is a former lieutenant governor and on-again-off-again member of the state Senate. Racine lost a bid for the governor's office in 2002, to Douglas. Racine has the benefit of statewide name recognition and executive experience, both in business and government. In Chittenden County, at least, he enjoys wide popularity, being re-elected to the Senate in 2008 by the highest vote count in history. Fair or not, though, I do feel like Racine had his chance in 2002.
Both Markowitz and Racine have officially announced their intention to run for governor in 2010.
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin has been mentioned frequently as a possible contender, but has not made a formal announcement as yet. Shumlin has served in the House and the Senate since 1989. Shumlin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002, losing to Dubie. It would be interesting to see the two lock horns again for the big chair in 2010, but I have a feeling the experience may have left Shumlin gun shy. He may be more content to serve the state on the legislative side.
A possible dark-horse candidate could be Treasurer Jeb Spaulding. TV commercials produced for the Treasurer's office, offering Vermonters a chance to recover misplaced bank accounts, have graced the airwaves for years, boosting Spaulding's statewide name recognition. Spaulding also enjoyed a whopping 89.9% support rate in the last election, though he had no serious Republican opponent, a luxury he would not enjoy in 2010.
Finally, there are rumblings that our U.S. Representative Peter Welch might be interested in the governor's job, and also that recently selected Speaker of the Vermont House, Shap Smith, is contemplating a run. I'm dubious, however. Welch, like Racine, has made a trip to the trough, in 1990, losing to Richard Snelling; and Smith, with even less experience than 2008 Democratic loser Gaye Symington had in the same job, might not see statewide office as attainable just yet.
Lastly, this question: Kunin, after leaving office, joined the U.S. diplomatic corps, serving her adopted country as ambassador to her native Switzerland. Dean, as we can well-remember, ran for president in 2000, then became head of the Democratic National Committee. What, then, is in store for Douglas?
When he spoke with Kinzel at the end of August, he had no plans yet, but I'm sure offers will begin to flow soon, if they have not already. Whatever role he plays, I am certain of one thing. He will play it with distinction.
Sizing up the 2010 governor's race
Just a little under a year ago, in this space, I noted that Governor Jim Douglas was a virtual shoo-in for governor in the 2010 election, should he decide to run. As you've surely heard or read by now, Douglas has, indeed, announced his intention to not run in 2010.
True to his Vermont spirit, Douglas assured Vermonters that he would serve out his term, unlike some other notable Republican governors. When VPR's Bob Kinzel suggested that Douglas could give his Republican lieutenant governor Brian Dubie a leg up in the 2010 election by stepping down early, Douglas was unequivocal about his intention to go the distance.
With the curtain on the Incumbent Protection Plan drawn back, Douglas's decision opens up possibilities for a new face in the office, the same way Howard Dean's decision gave Douglas his chance, and Madeleine Kunin's decision allowed Richard Snelling to step back into the governor's office.
On the Republican side, there are several familiar names mentioned as contenders, though none have officially announced as yet. These include Lt. Governor Brian Dubie, former Vermont National Guard Commander Gen. Martha Rainville, recent Republican convert Tom Salmon, and Mark Snelling, son of the late aforementioned governor. The general consensus is that everyone else is awaiting Dubie's decision before moving ahead with their own plans.
On the Democratic side, there are several familiar names, many of whom are now serving the state with distinction. Unlike the Republicans, though, some are not waiting to make their intentions known.
Deborah Markowitz has been Vermont's Secretary of State since 1998, having been elected to the office six times. In 2008, she was reelected with 70.8% of the vote. In her role, she has been a champion of towns and cities and of open government. I've been impressed with her efforts promoting free and fair elections, and in her office's efforts to move the state to higher and higher voter turn-outs. Though she is the veteran of many statewide elections, I'm not sure of her experience as an executive.
Doug Racine is a former lieutenant governor and on-again-off-again member of the state Senate. Racine lost a bid for the governor's office in 2002, to Douglas. Racine has the benefit of statewide name recognition and executive experience, both in business and government. In Chittenden County, at least, he enjoys wide popularity, being re-elected to the Senate in 2008 by the highest vote count in history. Fair or not, though, I do feel like Racine had his chance in 2002.
Both Markowitz and Racine have officially announced their intention to run for governor in 2010.
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin has been mentioned frequently as a possible contender, but has not made a formal announcement as yet. Shumlin has served in the House and the Senate since 1989. Shumlin ran for lieutenant governor in 2002, losing to Dubie. It would be interesting to see the two lock horns again for the big chair in 2010, but I have a feeling the experience may have left Shumlin gun shy. He may be more content to serve the state on the legislative side.
A possible dark-horse candidate could be Treasurer Jeb Spaulding. TV commercials produced for the Treasurer's office, offering Vermonters a chance to recover misplaced bank accounts, have graced the airwaves for years, boosting Spaulding's statewide name recognition. Spaulding also enjoyed a whopping 89.9% support rate in the last election, though he had no serious Republican opponent, a luxury he would not enjoy in 2010.
Finally, there are rumblings that our U.S. Representative Peter Welch might be interested in the governor's job, and also that recently selected Speaker of the Vermont House, Shap Smith, is contemplating a run. I'm dubious, however. Welch, like Racine, has made a trip to the trough, in 1990, losing to Richard Snelling; and Smith, with even less experience than 2008 Democratic loser Gaye Symington had in the same job, might not see statewide office as attainable just yet.
Lastly, this question: Kunin, after leaving office, joined the U.S. diplomatic corps, serving her adopted country as ambassador to her native Switzerland. Dean, as we can well-remember, ran for president in 2000, then became head of the Democratic National Committee. What, then, is in store for Douglas?
When he spoke with Kinzel at the end of August, he had no plans yet, but I'm sure offers will begin to flow soon, if they have not already. Whatever role he plays, I am certain of one thing. He will play it with distinction.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Quality health care is a right
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 3, 2009.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Quality health care is a right
If you've read more than one or two of these columns, you know that I'm a big fan of President Barack Obama. He represents the best that America has to offer, and I'm happy to see him occupying the big chair in the White House.
But I'm no sycophant. Obama and his crew are not above criticism. To paraphrase James Madison, if Obama was an angel, there would be no need for criticism. But he is not an angel, and as such, he is subject to error.
So it is with his handling of the health care debate of late.
Democrats had a long wait to get to where we are today. We hold the White House, we hold a strong majority in the House, and we even hold a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In theory, we could do whatever we feel is best for the country.
The President, however, has waffled on too many points, allowing a strong stance to wither to a soft position on the issue. I agree with him that some reform of our current system is necessary. Using haberdashery as a metaphor, he said insurance reform is a belt and the public insurance option is a pair of suspenders — both will keep up your pants. Using his analogy, though, I say that if reform is the belt, the public option is the belt loops. If you don't have the latter, the former won't be effective.
The far-right lie machine is partially to blame for Obama's shift. The President has been working so hard to squashing the lies, there's little time left to talk about the basic issues. But the lies keep coming: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, taxing the middle class, rationing health care, socialized medicine, and, most recently "The Death Book." If I didn't know better, I'd be scared.
But I'm more scared of what will happen without a strong public insurance option, and part of this fear is for myself. What if a I lose my insurance? I'm a Type 1 diabetic, completely reliant on insulin injected on a minute-by-minute basis to stay healthy and, indeed, alive. I am the definition of "pre-existing condition."
I've been fortunate that I love my job and the people I work with, that I've made good choices with my career path, and that I've had a bit of luck here and there. I hear horror stories about people like me who lose their jobs, or change a job willingly, or move to a new city, or even who graduate from college to the work force (and, thus, transition from their parents' insurance plan to their own), and have to wait for benefits to kick in.
It is a simple concept: No one should have to live with the fear of losing their insurance.
Recently-departed Senator Edward Kennedy was a champion of health care for all, and in the course of several television and radio obituraries last week, it was noted that one of his biggest frustrations over the past four decades was the lack of movement on universal health care coverage. Obama and the Democrats should honor Kennedy's memory by renewing their efforts to push for a better plan.
President Obama needs to use the power of the bully pulpit to bring Democratic leaders together and come up with a comprehensive plan for American's health care future. The public health insurance option must be a part of that plan, as a safety net and as an alternative for business.
We must reform how insurance works in this country so that insurance companies are more concerned with patient outcomes than with profits.
We must spend money to find the most beneficial and cost-effective treatments for common conditions. We must work to prevent disease that is the result of lifestyle choices like smoking, overeating, and inactivity. We must continue to develop new equipment, techniques, and treatments that will help us or our loved ones.
We must leverage technology to contain costs and ensure the best care is cost-effective care.
I've wrestled with the notion of health care being a right versus a privilege, but I've come to the conclusion that without good health, there is no point to having freedom of worship or speech or expression. Good health is a right — a basic human right — and our government should start acting like it is.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Milking the Market
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 20, 2009.
Milking the Market
Anyone who has ever prepared a family budget knows that there is one basic, overriding principle: don't spend more than you take in. If you earn $100, don't spend $110. If you do, you'll either dip into savings or start to accumulate debt. Vermont dairy farmers are keenly aware of this simple formula. They have one problem, though: It costs more to produce a gallon of milk than anyone is willing to pay for it.
The individual farmer can do nothing to change milk prices. The price is set in an international marketplace, and that price has been going down. The farmer could try to get into a niche market, like organic products, and some supplement their income by selling small amounts of raw milk to neighbors, but the real money is (or should be) in the general bulk market.
If a farmer cannot make money on his farm, there are only a few options. One is to change what he produces. This is a viable option for a grower, but not so much for a dairy farmer, who has a herd to take care of. Another is to get out of the business completely. The loss of a farm or two might not be any more than a local tragedy, but according to the Rutland Times-Argus, since January 1, Vermont has lost over thirty farms.
The federal government has resurrected the Milk Income Loss Compact (MILC) program through which farmers can receive payments from the government when milk prices fall below a certain level. The formula is a bit complicated, because it is adjusted monthly for feed costs, but it is roughly $17.50 per hundred pounds of milk.
The government is also helping by increasing the floor that it pays for milk for its own needs. Vermont's congressional delegation pushed hard for this increase, and spoke favorably of Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's announcement.
Senator Bernie Sanders is attacking the problem from another angle, directing his office to investigate the pricing policies of monopolistic dairy companies, companies large enough to be able to influence prices in ways that individual producers can only dream of.
If this all sounds familiar, it's because dairy prices rise and fall in cycles. The problem is the low end of the cycle is often far too low. The last big dip was in 2006. Back then, Vermont Public Radio commentator John McClaughry touted programs that were trying to make dairy farmers more productive in their business. Watching the nightly news on WCAX, it seems that there are unending reports of dairy farmers who are making milking or feeding more efficient.
Our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all subsidies. Government subsidies and tariffs are generally not a good thing, and can have far-reaching economic implications.
The imposition of tariffs on imports can hurt domestic producers, to the point where the exporting country retaliates with tariffs of its own. This sort of tit-for-tat economics has the real possibility of cutting goods off from a nation in the best case, and becoming a diplomatic crisis even leading to war in the worst case.
Looking to avoid such games, the United States has sought and supported free trade agreements across the world, from our own continental neighborhood to the tiny nation of Singapore. Even so, most free trade agreements have exceptions, as with the prohibition of Mexican trucks on most U.S. roads and U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwoods.
The increase in the number of free trade agreements the U.S. has with other nations is a recognition of the general proposition that tariffs and subsidies are not of long-term benefit. Though dairy may be a special case, given the perishable nature of liquid milk, we should still try to avoid subsidies when we can.
Because dairy is in a precarious position right now, we should continue to pay out subsidies. At the same time, we should be increasing our technological aid to dairy farmers, to ensure that those who are capable can get their product out for the least cost possible. We should take a close look at each dairy operation and make hard but necessary choices about farms that are beyond saving. And we should ensure that no one company has too great an effect on pricing.
Taking coordinated steps such as these can provide us with an industry that is both local and sustainable, and which protects vital national interests.
Milking the Market
Anyone who has ever prepared a family budget knows that there is one basic, overriding principle: don't spend more than you take in. If you earn $100, don't spend $110. If you do, you'll either dip into savings or start to accumulate debt. Vermont dairy farmers are keenly aware of this simple formula. They have one problem, though: It costs more to produce a gallon of milk than anyone is willing to pay for it.
The individual farmer can do nothing to change milk prices. The price is set in an international marketplace, and that price has been going down. The farmer could try to get into a niche market, like organic products, and some supplement their income by selling small amounts of raw milk to neighbors, but the real money is (or should be) in the general bulk market.
If a farmer cannot make money on his farm, there are only a few options. One is to change what he produces. This is a viable option for a grower, but not so much for a dairy farmer, who has a herd to take care of. Another is to get out of the business completely. The loss of a farm or two might not be any more than a local tragedy, but according to the Rutland Times-Argus, since January 1, Vermont has lost over thirty farms.
The federal government has resurrected the Milk Income Loss Compact (MILC) program through which farmers can receive payments from the government when milk prices fall below a certain level. The formula is a bit complicated, because it is adjusted monthly for feed costs, but it is roughly $17.50 per hundred pounds of milk.
The government is also helping by increasing the floor that it pays for milk for its own needs. Vermont's congressional delegation pushed hard for this increase, and spoke favorably of Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's announcement.
Senator Bernie Sanders is attacking the problem from another angle, directing his office to investigate the pricing policies of monopolistic dairy companies, companies large enough to be able to influence prices in ways that individual producers can only dream of.
If this all sounds familiar, it's because dairy prices rise and fall in cycles. The problem is the low end of the cycle is often far too low. The last big dip was in 2006. Back then, Vermont Public Radio commentator John McClaughry touted programs that were trying to make dairy farmers more productive in their business. Watching the nightly news on WCAX, it seems that there are unending reports of dairy farmers who are making milking or feeding more efficient.
Our ultimate goal should be the elimination of all subsidies. Government subsidies and tariffs are generally not a good thing, and can have far-reaching economic implications.
The imposition of tariffs on imports can hurt domestic producers, to the point where the exporting country retaliates with tariffs of its own. This sort of tit-for-tat economics has the real possibility of cutting goods off from a nation in the best case, and becoming a diplomatic crisis even leading to war in the worst case.
Looking to avoid such games, the United States has sought and supported free trade agreements across the world, from our own continental neighborhood to the tiny nation of Singapore. Even so, most free trade agreements have exceptions, as with the prohibition of Mexican trucks on most U.S. roads and U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwoods.
The increase in the number of free trade agreements the U.S. has with other nations is a recognition of the general proposition that tariffs and subsidies are not of long-term benefit. Though dairy may be a special case, given the perishable nature of liquid milk, we should still try to avoid subsidies when we can.
Because dairy is in a precarious position right now, we should continue to pay out subsidies. At the same time, we should be increasing our technological aid to dairy farmers, to ensure that those who are capable can get their product out for the least cost possible. We should take a close look at each dairy operation and make hard but necessary choices about farms that are beyond saving. And we should ensure that no one company has too great an effect on pricing.
Taking coordinated steps such as these can provide us with an industry that is both local and sustainable, and which protects vital national interests.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 6, 2009.
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
Friends and neighbors, I have decided to come clean. There is some personal risk — I could lose my membership in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy — but I find I cannot keep our secrets from you any longer.
The truth is that I have been working with VLWC for some time, doing my small part to coordinate and orchestrate some events that would be unbelievable in any novel.
To wit: at our behest, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert recently signed on as co-sponsor to the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide irrefutable proof of their eligibility to become president, such as an official state-issued birth certificate. His action brought renewed attention to the bill.
What does Gohmert have to do with the VLWC? While Gohmert purports to be a Republican, in truth, Gohmert has been working for us since his election in 2004. The role of our operatives is to spread misinformation that sounds scary but is easily disproven. The VLWC then sits back to watch the fireworks that ensue.
The VLWC wasn't sure we'd be able to get any traction from the Obama birth certificate controversy. We'd tried to get that ball rolling before the election, but then an Obama staffer, who had not been briefed about the VLWC's tactics, had the candidate's actual Hawaii-issued birth certificate released to the press. It is now easily viewable on the web.
However, after the truth settled in, we decided to resurrect the rumor. Soon, we were delighted to see Republican members of Congress blind-sided by birthers at town hall meetings, demanding that "Obama release his official birth certificate."
The VLWC also assigned Gohmert the task of helping spread the rumor that a current draft of the health care reform bill encourages and actually requires our elderly Medicare population to prepare themselves for euthanasia. As with the birther rumor, we have also assigned other undercover operatives, including Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina.
As is typical with our operations, you can quickly see the results of our tinkering on easily-duped websites like the Drudge Report and World Net Daily. Within a few days, and some times within a few hours, the snowball has begun to roll as we pick up the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity. From there, the path to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post is a short one. With the right critical mass, soon the mainstream press is forced to cover the story, and the debunking process begins.
It is here that the rubber really hits the road. Neutral websites like FactCheck.org and Snopes.com weigh in and suddenly the big story is not the information we planted but the fact that the information is false. As time wears on, and the story continues to propagate, those who keep bringing it up move from the mainstream column to the wing-nut column.
Sometimes there are bonus off-shoots of craziness; the health care debate has a classic example. You may have recently seen a television advertisement produced by the Family Research Council that features a senior couple lamenting the fact that the new proposal will mean that while their health care wanes, government-financed abortions will be on the uptick. We didn't even think to plant the abortion canard — they made that one up all on their own.
The final stage is satire. When David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show spoof the story, the VLWC lets out a collective yelp of pleasure, in celebration of a job well done...
I know, dear reader, that I have not fooled you. There is, of course, no VLWC to help make the wing-nuts of the conservative movement look bad. Unfortunately, they do this all on their own.
My sincere hope is that if you listen to the right wing media, you listen with a critical ear, and verify the "facts" that you hear for yourself. The Internet is a double-edged sword here: while it allows misinformation to spread faster and further than ever before, it also allows facts to be checked faster and by more authoritative experts than ever before.
To be fair, I fully acknowledge that the left wing is not immune from the spreading of misinformation. On balance, however, it seems that when there is misinformation to be spread, it starts much further up the right-wing totem pole, lending it gravitas that makes it particularly dangerous.
Coming clean on spreading misinformation
Friends and neighbors, I have decided to come clean. There is some personal risk — I could lose my membership in the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy — but I find I cannot keep our secrets from you any longer.
The truth is that I have been working with VLWC for some time, doing my small part to coordinate and orchestrate some events that would be unbelievable in any novel.
To wit: at our behest, Texas Representative Louie Gohmert recently signed on as co-sponsor to the so-called "birther bill," which would require future presidential candidates to provide irrefutable proof of their eligibility to become president, such as an official state-issued birth certificate. His action brought renewed attention to the bill.
What does Gohmert have to do with the VLWC? While Gohmert purports to be a Republican, in truth, Gohmert has been working for us since his election in 2004. The role of our operatives is to spread misinformation that sounds scary but is easily disproven. The VLWC then sits back to watch the fireworks that ensue.
The VLWC wasn't sure we'd be able to get any traction from the Obama birth certificate controversy. We'd tried to get that ball rolling before the election, but then an Obama staffer, who had not been briefed about the VLWC's tactics, had the candidate's actual Hawaii-issued birth certificate released to the press. It is now easily viewable on the web.
However, after the truth settled in, we decided to resurrect the rumor. Soon, we were delighted to see Republican members of Congress blind-sided by birthers at town hall meetings, demanding that "Obama release his official birth certificate."
The VLWC also assigned Gohmert the task of helping spread the rumor that a current draft of the health care reform bill encourages and actually requires our elderly Medicare population to prepare themselves for euthanasia. As with the birther rumor, we have also assigned other undercover operatives, including Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina.
As is typical with our operations, you can quickly see the results of our tinkering on easily-duped websites like the Drudge Report and World Net Daily. Within a few days, and some times within a few hours, the snowball has begun to roll as we pick up the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and Sean Hannity. From there, the path to Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post is a short one. With the right critical mass, soon the mainstream press is forced to cover the story, and the debunking process begins.
It is here that the rubber really hits the road. Neutral websites like FactCheck.org and Snopes.com weigh in and suddenly the big story is not the information we planted but the fact that the information is false. As time wears on, and the story continues to propagate, those who keep bringing it up move from the mainstream column to the wing-nut column.
Sometimes there are bonus off-shoots of craziness; the health care debate has a classic example. You may have recently seen a television advertisement produced by the Family Research Council that features a senior couple lamenting the fact that the new proposal will mean that while their health care wanes, government-financed abortions will be on the uptick. We didn't even think to plant the abortion canard — they made that one up all on their own.
The final stage is satire. When David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, the Colbert Report, or the Daily Show spoof the story, the VLWC lets out a collective yelp of pleasure, in celebration of a job well done...
I know, dear reader, that I have not fooled you. There is, of course, no VLWC to help make the wing-nuts of the conservative movement look bad. Unfortunately, they do this all on their own.
My sincere hope is that if you listen to the right wing media, you listen with a critical ear, and verify the "facts" that you hear for yourself. The Internet is a double-edged sword here: while it allows misinformation to spread faster and further than ever before, it also allows facts to be checked faster and by more authoritative experts than ever before.
To be fair, I fully acknowledge that the left wing is not immune from the spreading of misinformation. On balance, however, it seems that when there is misinformation to be spread, it starts much further up the right-wing totem pole, lending it gravitas that makes it particularly dangerous.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The sticky problem with "judicial activism"
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 23, 2009.
The sticky problem with "judicial activism"
Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court hold a unique position in our governmental system, with special protections for their positions enumerated in Article 3 of the Constitution. Specifically, the positions are appointed; the positions are held for life; and while a judge holds a seat, their salary may not be reduced.
These three protections are notable for a few reasons. First, they tie directly to one of the complaints against the King the colonists listed in the Declaration of Independence. Second, they are designed to make the federal bench apolitical, allowing judges to focus on the law and ignore political considerations. Lastly, ironically, they make the process of confirmation particularly political.
As we saw last week with the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, nominees come under intense scrutiny; indeed, the scrutiny is mandated by the Constitution, as part of the separation of powers. A potential justice must not only satisfy the requirements of the President but of the Senate as well.
Senators look for disqualifying comments or rulings; they dig for prejudices and bigotry; they look for indications of bad character or conduct unbecoming of a judge. Since the 1950's, Senators have looked specifically for something called "judicial activism."
Judicial activism has no concrete meaning, but it is generally taken to mean a judge who would look at cases with some specific agenda in mind. They might find more weight in an argument that appeals to their political leanings than one that appeals to the letter of the law.
That's what much of the lengthy questioning of Sotomayor was all about — an attempt to pin the "activist judge" label on her. Conservatives were gleeful when two comments by Sotomayor, in particular, came to light. The first was her now infamous "wise Latina" comment; the other was a comment where Sotomayor acknowledged a truism: that it is in the courts "where policy is made."
To her first comment, Sotomayor's backers pointed out that the comment, in context, is far less onerous than it has been made out to be. Sotomayor herself said that she made a poor choice of words, and that the comment was not meant to say that her life experiences made her a better judge than someone with different experiences.
What does this have to do with judicial activism? The message Republicans were trying to convey is that Sotomayor would go into the job thinking that her background gave her a better perspective on some cases than the experiences of the men on the Court, a perspective that would allow her to see a different side to a case, a side that was not in line with the law. And it is the law, after all, that judges are sworn to uphold.
Sotomayor's response was basically this: she believes the law to be paramount, her comments and various interpretations of those comments notwithstanding. In my opinion, without a smoking gun to contradict her, she must be taken at her word on this point, as much as any person would be.
To her second comment, I noted that the "policy" statement is a truism. That may make some cringe, but it is reality. The legislative branch makes laws; the executive branch puts procedures in place to implement the laws; and the judiciary interprets the laws. Often, in the interpretation, policy is made.
Jeffrey Segal, of Stony Brook University, gave a perfect example: recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a school official could be sued for having a strip search conducted on a 13-year-old girl believed to be carrying contraband ibuprofen. This is now a policy of the United States, a policy that is not found in the US Code and not in the Federal Register, but a policy nonetheless. When the law and procedures are unclear, it is the courts that set policy.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue — it is simply a fact.
Looking for activist judges is a good thing. We do not want judges with an agenda sitting on the bench, especially the federal bench. The problem is in the widening definition of what it means to be activist. So long as only a few partisan Senators carry the banner ad nauseum, the process is safe. Congress must ensure that judges will not overstep their bounds. We, however, must ensure the in that quest, Congress does not overstep its own bounds.
The sticky problem with "judicial activism"
Federal judges and justices of the Supreme Court hold a unique position in our governmental system, with special protections for their positions enumerated in Article 3 of the Constitution. Specifically, the positions are appointed; the positions are held for life; and while a judge holds a seat, their salary may not be reduced.
These three protections are notable for a few reasons. First, they tie directly to one of the complaints against the King the colonists listed in the Declaration of Independence. Second, they are designed to make the federal bench apolitical, allowing judges to focus on the law and ignore political considerations. Lastly, ironically, they make the process of confirmation particularly political.
As we saw last week with the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, nominees come under intense scrutiny; indeed, the scrutiny is mandated by the Constitution, as part of the separation of powers. A potential justice must not only satisfy the requirements of the President but of the Senate as well.
Senators look for disqualifying comments or rulings; they dig for prejudices and bigotry; they look for indications of bad character or conduct unbecoming of a judge. Since the 1950's, Senators have looked specifically for something called "judicial activism."
Judicial activism has no concrete meaning, but it is generally taken to mean a judge who would look at cases with some specific agenda in mind. They might find more weight in an argument that appeals to their political leanings than one that appeals to the letter of the law.
That's what much of the lengthy questioning of Sotomayor was all about — an attempt to pin the "activist judge" label on her. Conservatives were gleeful when two comments by Sotomayor, in particular, came to light. The first was her now infamous "wise Latina" comment; the other was a comment where Sotomayor acknowledged a truism: that it is in the courts "where policy is made."
To her first comment, Sotomayor's backers pointed out that the comment, in context, is far less onerous than it has been made out to be. Sotomayor herself said that she made a poor choice of words, and that the comment was not meant to say that her life experiences made her a better judge than someone with different experiences.
What does this have to do with judicial activism? The message Republicans were trying to convey is that Sotomayor would go into the job thinking that her background gave her a better perspective on some cases than the experiences of the men on the Court, a perspective that would allow her to see a different side to a case, a side that was not in line with the law. And it is the law, after all, that judges are sworn to uphold.
Sotomayor's response was basically this: she believes the law to be paramount, her comments and various interpretations of those comments notwithstanding. In my opinion, without a smoking gun to contradict her, she must be taken at her word on this point, as much as any person would be.
To her second comment, I noted that the "policy" statement is a truism. That may make some cringe, but it is reality. The legislative branch makes laws; the executive branch puts procedures in place to implement the laws; and the judiciary interprets the laws. Often, in the interpretation, policy is made.
Jeffrey Segal, of Stony Brook University, gave a perfect example: recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a school official could be sued for having a strip search conducted on a 13-year-old girl believed to be carrying contraband ibuprofen. This is now a policy of the United States, a policy that is not found in the US Code and not in the Federal Register, but a policy nonetheless. When the law and procedures are unclear, it is the courts that set policy.
This is not a liberal or conservative issue — it is simply a fact.
Looking for activist judges is a good thing. We do not want judges with an agenda sitting on the bench, especially the federal bench. The problem is in the widening definition of what it means to be activist. So long as only a few partisan Senators carry the banner ad nauseum, the process is safe. Congress must ensure that judges will not overstep their bounds. We, however, must ensure the in that quest, Congress does not overstep its own bounds.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Death throes of the GOP
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 9, 2009.
Death throes of the GOP
As Mark Twain is famous for saying, "The report of my death was an exaggeration." So it may be for the reports of the death of the Republican Party. There are plenty of signs of potentially terminal illness, however.
From the outset, let me make it clear that I am well aware of the Democratic Party's rogues gallery. Just to name a few, in chronological order: Gary Hart, Dan Rostenkowski, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, William Jefferson, Eliot Spitzer, and Rod Blagojevich.
This rogues gallery was populated over the course of two decades, and it is nothing to be proud of. From marital infidelities to outright graft and bribery, some of the violations were of trust and others of the law; prices were paid, political, personal, and legal.
The Republican Party, a party usually noted for its toeing of the "family values" line, is not the first place one would think to look to find infidelities, improprieties, political cowardice, and outright craziness. But in just the past couple of years, indeed the past couple of months, plenty of examples have sunk to the bottom of the swamp.
I mention older cases by name only — you can look each of them up on the Internet to get the sordid details: Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, Representative Mark Foley of Florida, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, and New York Representative Vito Fossella.
More recently, the fourth-ranked Republican in the Senate, John Ensign of Nevada, announced in June that from December 2007 to August 2008, he had been engaged in an extra-marital affair. Ensign, who is active in the ironically-named Promise Keepers, stepped down from his leadership post on the Republican Policy Committee. Ensign's wife Darlene said that she and Ensign were working on a reconciliation. Perhaps she should forego getting him to promise, and put him on a leash instead.
Just two weeks ago, a name mentioned frequently as a 2012 presidential hopeful, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, was mixed up in a bizarre adultery scandal. Sanford, who ran some of his last campaign on a family values platform, has been keeping a mistress in Argentina since 2008. The affair cost Sanford his job as head of the Republican Governor's Association and some cash (as he reimbursed the state for some expenses incurred during one of his trysts). Still unsure are his job as governor, his marriage, and any hope of a run in 2012.
Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has developed a penchant for her idiotic utterances, including her seditious call for Minnesotans to become "armed and dangerous" to fight President Barack Obama's plan to limit greenhouse gases. Her latest craziness involves the decennial census. She vows to only answer the question about how many people live in her home, because the Constitution does not authorize any other questions. What Bachmann fails to recognize is that the Congress has the power to ask any demographic question it needs to help set policy. Even the first census in 1790 collected more data than a straight count, and Congress has authorized a $100 fine for failing to complete the census forms.
Bachmann also has said she fears the census data will be used when the government decides to begin to intern citizens in concentration camps. The foundation of concentration camps is a favorite lark of the extreme right, one that any person of sound mind dismisses out of hand.
Finally, just last week we heard of a fine example of political cowardice. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, formerly John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, announced that she is not going to finish out her term as governor; she will resign at the end of July. Palin's ambition to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 is widely reported, and some say that she is quitting to concentrate on that run. Palin herself said that with her decision not to run for governor again in 2010, she did not want to be a lame duck for eighteen months. Imagine the precedent she could be setting — aside from cowardly, this could even be considered Bachmann-crazy.
The Republican Party is not dead yet, but it seems to be ill. As a liberal, I watch it all with a healthy dose of schadenfreude, hoping for the time being that their weakness can add to our strength, helping the Congress and the President actually get some good things done.
Note: the original printing of this column noted a $5000 fine for failing to answer questions on the census. This is incorrect. The fine for failing to answer is $100; the fine for providing false answers is $500.
Death throes of the GOP
As Mark Twain is famous for saying, "The report of my death was an exaggeration." So it may be for the reports of the death of the Republican Party. There are plenty of signs of potentially terminal illness, however.
From the outset, let me make it clear that I am well aware of the Democratic Party's rogues gallery. Just to name a few, in chronological order: Gary Hart, Dan Rostenkowski, Bill Clinton, Gary Condit, William Jefferson, Eliot Spitzer, and Rod Blagojevich.
This rogues gallery was populated over the course of two decades, and it is nothing to be proud of. From marital infidelities to outright graft and bribery, some of the violations were of trust and others of the law; prices were paid, political, personal, and legal.
The Republican Party, a party usually noted for its toeing of the "family values" line, is not the first place one would think to look to find infidelities, improprieties, political cowardice, and outright craziness. But in just the past couple of years, indeed the past couple of months, plenty of examples have sunk to the bottom of the swamp.
I mention older cases by name only — you can look each of them up on the Internet to get the sordid details: Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, Representative Mark Foley of Florida, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, and New York Representative Vito Fossella.
More recently, the fourth-ranked Republican in the Senate, John Ensign of Nevada, announced in June that from December 2007 to August 2008, he had been engaged in an extra-marital affair. Ensign, who is active in the ironically-named Promise Keepers, stepped down from his leadership post on the Republican Policy Committee. Ensign's wife Darlene said that she and Ensign were working on a reconciliation. Perhaps she should forego getting him to promise, and put him on a leash instead.
Just two weeks ago, a name mentioned frequently as a 2012 presidential hopeful, Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina, was mixed up in a bizarre adultery scandal. Sanford, who ran some of his last campaign on a family values platform, has been keeping a mistress in Argentina since 2008. The affair cost Sanford his job as head of the Republican Governor's Association and some cash (as he reimbursed the state for some expenses incurred during one of his trysts). Still unsure are his job as governor, his marriage, and any hope of a run in 2012.
Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann has developed a penchant for her idiotic utterances, including her seditious call for Minnesotans to become "armed and dangerous" to fight President Barack Obama's plan to limit greenhouse gases. Her latest craziness involves the decennial census. She vows to only answer the question about how many people live in her home, because the Constitution does not authorize any other questions. What Bachmann fails to recognize is that the Congress has the power to ask any demographic question it needs to help set policy. Even the first census in 1790 collected more data than a straight count, and Congress has authorized a $100 fine for failing to complete the census forms.
Bachmann also has said she fears the census data will be used when the government decides to begin to intern citizens in concentration camps. The foundation of concentration camps is a favorite lark of the extreme right, one that any person of sound mind dismisses out of hand.
Finally, just last week we heard of a fine example of political cowardice. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, formerly John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate, announced that she is not going to finish out her term as governor; she will resign at the end of July. Palin's ambition to be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 is widely reported, and some say that she is quitting to concentrate on that run. Palin herself said that with her decision not to run for governor again in 2010, she did not want to be a lame duck for eighteen months. Imagine the precedent she could be setting — aside from cowardly, this could even be considered Bachmann-crazy.
The Republican Party is not dead yet, but it seems to be ill. As a liberal, I watch it all with a healthy dose of schadenfreude, hoping for the time being that their weakness can add to our strength, helping the Congress and the President actually get some good things done.
Note: the original printing of this column noted a $5000 fine for failing to answer questions on the census. This is incorrect. The fine for failing to answer is $100; the fine for providing false answers is $500.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Historical Look at the Fourth of July
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 25, 2009.
A Historical Look at the Fourth of July
As a young boy, I remember quite well the trips that I, my siblings, and cousins would all take to the fireworks stands that sprouted up all around Los Angeles and Orange counties, California in late June. July 4 was not only a celebration of our nation's birth, but of my grandfather's, too. We would buy some fireworks to celebrate each. On the night of the Fourth, the entire block would close down as families set off all sorts of pyrotechnics to honor the nation and my grandfather.
As an early teen, my family celebrated a private July 4. We lived in Canada, and the big July celebration there, July 1, is for Canada Day. Since we lived in Quebec, the Canada Day celebrations were a bit ironic, since Quebec seemed poised to secede from Canada.
As a full-fledged grown-up, I gained distinct and fond memories of my first Fourth of July in Williston. We came here from Starksboro, a town too small for any extensive July 4 celebrations. Coming to Williston, with its magnificent parade, day-long family activities, cacophonous book sale, and glorious fireworks show, I suddenly had something to look forward to, like those youthful days in California.
It's worth taking a few moments to remember what the fuss is all about, and to realize that if not for the work of some very dedicated men, we might not be celebrating at all. In early 1776, the case for independence had not yet been forcefully made. Compromise with Britain, and seats in Parliament, were seen by many as the better way to go.
A relatively short pamphlet, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, finally made a convincing argument for independence, and the opinion of the populace and the Congress began to change.
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, delegate from Virginia, formally brought the arguments in Common Sense to the Second Continental Congress. He proposed both a declaration of independence and a union of the colonies. A committee was formed to craft a document. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson was assigned by the committee to write the declaration, which he completed in just a few days.
Jefferson's first draft was edited by Franklin, then forwarded on to the Congress, which toned down some of Jefferson's most inflammatory language. In the end, the Declaration of Independence listed almost thirty grievances against the King, called for independence and unification, and told the people of Britain that the quarrel of the United States was with the King, and not with them.
The document was accepted by the Congress on July 4, 1776, though not until August 2, 1776, was the Declaration was actually signed.
Though the new United States was still at war in 1777, history records several small-scale celebrations to celebrate the first anniversary, including several 13-gun salutes. In Philadelphia, official dinners and celebrations were held along with prayers, parades, and fireworks. In 1778, General George Washington ordered a double ration of run for the troops.
By the turn of the 19th century, fireworks were becoming more and more common, as were formal celebrations of the day at the White House. Parades, military revues, bands, songs, plays, poems, anthems, and ballet were all performed to celebrate the date.
In 1870, July 4 was designated a day off, without pay, for federal workers; in 1938, the law was changed to give the day off with pay. In 1998, Congress designated the days between Flag Day and Independence Day as "Honor America Days."
Many notable events have been scheduled to happen on July 4, including temperance and anti-slavery speeches, the laying of cornerstones (of the Washington Monument, for one), and the christening of ships. In recent memory, the July 4's of 1976, the nation's bicentennial year, and 2002, the first following the September 11 attacks, were notable for the proud displays of patriotism from the citizenry.
The Fourth of July is a uniquely American holiday, and we celebrate it in a uniquely American way. At some point before the holiday, to celebrate the two hundred and thirty-third year of the American Republic, take a few minutes and read the Declaration of Independence; refresh your memory about what the fireworks, barbecue, and camaraderie are all about.
A Historical Look at the Fourth of July
As a young boy, I remember quite well the trips that I, my siblings, and cousins would all take to the fireworks stands that sprouted up all around Los Angeles and Orange counties, California in late June. July 4 was not only a celebration of our nation's birth, but of my grandfather's, too. We would buy some fireworks to celebrate each. On the night of the Fourth, the entire block would close down as families set off all sorts of pyrotechnics to honor the nation and my grandfather.
As an early teen, my family celebrated a private July 4. We lived in Canada, and the big July celebration there, July 1, is for Canada Day. Since we lived in Quebec, the Canada Day celebrations were a bit ironic, since Quebec seemed poised to secede from Canada.
As a full-fledged grown-up, I gained distinct and fond memories of my first Fourth of July in Williston. We came here from Starksboro, a town too small for any extensive July 4 celebrations. Coming to Williston, with its magnificent parade, day-long family activities, cacophonous book sale, and glorious fireworks show, I suddenly had something to look forward to, like those youthful days in California.
It's worth taking a few moments to remember what the fuss is all about, and to realize that if not for the work of some very dedicated men, we might not be celebrating at all. In early 1776, the case for independence had not yet been forcefully made. Compromise with Britain, and seats in Parliament, were seen by many as the better way to go.
A relatively short pamphlet, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, finally made a convincing argument for independence, and the opinion of the populace and the Congress began to change.
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, delegate from Virginia, formally brought the arguments in Common Sense to the Second Continental Congress. He proposed both a declaration of independence and a union of the colonies. A committee was formed to craft a document. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson was assigned by the committee to write the declaration, which he completed in just a few days.
Jefferson's first draft was edited by Franklin, then forwarded on to the Congress, which toned down some of Jefferson's most inflammatory language. In the end, the Declaration of Independence listed almost thirty grievances against the King, called for independence and unification, and told the people of Britain that the quarrel of the United States was with the King, and not with them.
The document was accepted by the Congress on July 4, 1776, though not until August 2, 1776, was the Declaration was actually signed.
Though the new United States was still at war in 1777, history records several small-scale celebrations to celebrate the first anniversary, including several 13-gun salutes. In Philadelphia, official dinners and celebrations were held along with prayers, parades, and fireworks. In 1778, General George Washington ordered a double ration of run for the troops.
By the turn of the 19th century, fireworks were becoming more and more common, as were formal celebrations of the day at the White House. Parades, military revues, bands, songs, plays, poems, anthems, and ballet were all performed to celebrate the date.
In 1870, July 4 was designated a day off, without pay, for federal workers; in 1938, the law was changed to give the day off with pay. In 1998, Congress designated the days between Flag Day and Independence Day as "Honor America Days."
Many notable events have been scheduled to happen on July 4, including temperance and anti-slavery speeches, the laying of cornerstones (of the Washington Monument, for one), and the christening of ships. In recent memory, the July 4's of 1976, the nation's bicentennial year, and 2002, the first following the September 11 attacks, were notable for the proud displays of patriotism from the citizenry.
The Fourth of July is a uniquely American holiday, and we celebrate it in a uniquely American way. At some point before the holiday, to celebrate the two hundred and thirty-third year of the American Republic, take a few minutes and read the Declaration of Independence; refresh your memory about what the fireworks, barbecue, and camaraderie are all about.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Importance of Self-Editing
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 11, 2009.
The Importance of Self-Editing
When you're writing for yourself, as in a diary, there's little need to be careful about how you write or even what you write. You can make up facts, twist reality, leave out inconvenient truths.
When you read your diary back to yourself, you do not edit it. In fact, if you edit your diary, correcting for misstatements, you might lose something valuable -- how you were feeling at the moment you put those thoughts down.
Similarly, fiction is, by definition, one big, long lie. I recently wrote a short story that is based on a trip I recently took to Hershey, Pennsylvania. Aside from the fact of the trip itself, however, none of the events in the story actually happened to me.
When you read back a piece of fiction, you will notice inconsistencies that need to be corrected, lest you jar your reader with them. But you generally don't correct misstatements, because the entire thing is a misstatement.
When you're writing "the news," though, you have an entirely different set of rules to live by. The writer is responsible for telling a compelling story, but more than that, the story must be true, it must be accurate.
If you write, you might find, as I do, that you fall in love with your words, that you come to see them as little children. You don't want to cut any of them -- you lose your objectivity.
When I was a reporter back in college, I developed quite a love/hate relationship with my editors. They would take my stories and rearrange, reword, cut. I hated each revision, dreaded seeing the edited copy. But, invariably, my story was better because of the editing.
Later in my college career, I became the editor, and my hope was that when I rearranged, reworded, and cut, I was doing my writers a favor, making the stories tighter, more readable. But even then, when I wrote hard news, I insisted that someone, anyone, edit my stories. The story, the integrity of the words, was more important than the writer.
Had I not been in love with my words, I would have been able to self-edit. But with my objectivity gone, it took a disinterested third party to keep me, and my words, honest. It is this love of ones own words that seems to be dampening the self-editing skills of the famous right-of-center commentators.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, touted by both the left and right (and by himself) as the de facto leader of the Republican Party, has repeatedly, unabashedly, and unashamedly spread half-truths, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Senator-elect Al Franken went so far as to write a book, with Limbaugh as a prime example, called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly repeatedly called Dr. George Tiller a "baby killer" and equated him with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. After Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church, several right-wing websites repeated O'Reilly's rhetoric as they applauded and justified Tiller's death. O'Reilly half-heartedly decried the killing, but we are not fooled.
Most recently, the right's attack machine has been twisting a comment by Associate Justice-designate Sonia Sotomayor about the ability of a female Hispanic to render neutral judgement. They all came to the intellectually dishonest conclusion that she is a "racist." The futile attack was levelled by Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.
Some of these personalities, after taking a step back, decided the rhetoric was over the top. Gingrich, for example, apologized for using the term. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions called for an end to the name-calling.
I understand how hard it is to self-edit -- it's even harder when your words are spoken than when they are written. I also understand that for these commentators, it is a part of their job to be loud, brash, and controversial. But with their wide following, self-editing is a skill they would do well to hone.
The Importance of Self-Editing
When you're writing for yourself, as in a diary, there's little need to be careful about how you write or even what you write. You can make up facts, twist reality, leave out inconvenient truths.
When you read your diary back to yourself, you do not edit it. In fact, if you edit your diary, correcting for misstatements, you might lose something valuable -- how you were feeling at the moment you put those thoughts down.
Similarly, fiction is, by definition, one big, long lie. I recently wrote a short story that is based on a trip I recently took to Hershey, Pennsylvania. Aside from the fact of the trip itself, however, none of the events in the story actually happened to me.
When you read back a piece of fiction, you will notice inconsistencies that need to be corrected, lest you jar your reader with them. But you generally don't correct misstatements, because the entire thing is a misstatement.
When you're writing "the news," though, you have an entirely different set of rules to live by. The writer is responsible for telling a compelling story, but more than that, the story must be true, it must be accurate.
If you write, you might find, as I do, that you fall in love with your words, that you come to see them as little children. You don't want to cut any of them -- you lose your objectivity.
When I was a reporter back in college, I developed quite a love/hate relationship with my editors. They would take my stories and rearrange, reword, cut. I hated each revision, dreaded seeing the edited copy. But, invariably, my story was better because of the editing.
Later in my college career, I became the editor, and my hope was that when I rearranged, reworded, and cut, I was doing my writers a favor, making the stories tighter, more readable. But even then, when I wrote hard news, I insisted that someone, anyone, edit my stories. The story, the integrity of the words, was more important than the writer.
Had I not been in love with my words, I would have been able to self-edit. But with my objectivity gone, it took a disinterested third party to keep me, and my words, honest. It is this love of ones own words that seems to be dampening the self-editing skills of the famous right-of-center commentators.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, touted by both the left and right (and by himself) as the de facto leader of the Republican Party, has repeatedly, unabashedly, and unashamedly spread half-truths, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Senator-elect Al Franken went so far as to write a book, with Limbaugh as a prime example, called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly repeatedly called Dr. George Tiller a "baby killer" and equated him with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. After Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church, several right-wing websites repeated O'Reilly's rhetoric as they applauded and justified Tiller's death. O'Reilly half-heartedly decried the killing, but we are not fooled.
Most recently, the right's attack machine has been twisting a comment by Associate Justice-designate Sonia Sotomayor about the ability of a female Hispanic to render neutral judgement. They all came to the intellectually dishonest conclusion that she is a "racist." The futile attack was levelled by Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.
Some of these personalities, after taking a step back, decided the rhetoric was over the top. Gingrich, for example, apologized for using the term. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions called for an end to the name-calling.
I understand how hard it is to self-edit -- it's even harder when your words are spoken than when they are written. I also understand that for these commentators, it is a part of their job to be loud, brash, and controversial. But with their wide following, self-editing is a skill they would do well to hone.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 28, 2009.
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
"It ain't over till it's over," said baseball sage Yogi Berra. So it is with this year's legislative session. Though they have adjourned, they will be back.
At least one act of the legislature will have a lasting and profound effect on Vermont and, perhaps, the nation.
That act, S.115, has a deceptively meek title: "An act relating to civil marriage." Known colloquially as the Same-Sex Marriage Act, it will give same-sex couples marriage equity as of September 1, 2009. Plan on extensive news coverage of wedding ceremonies that day.
The act also protects religious institutions, specifically allowing almost any such institution in the state to refuse to perform any marriage that violates its beliefs.
The act, in just ten printed pages, made Vermont a vanguard in the effort to bring marriage equity to the entire nation. Vermont is the first state to have its legislature open up marriage to same sex couples, rather than have it imposed by the state's judiciary. After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the act, there was uncertainty whether the legislature could garner the votes to override. On April 7, however, the legislature was able to override the veto, by the absolute narrowest of margins.
S.115 was the most high-profile bill the legislature worked on, but not the only one.
For young hunters, H.64 eliminates Youth Hunting Day for Vermonters sixteen and under, and expands Youth Hunting Weekend to anyone fifteen and under who has taken a hunter safety course.
An important act for wine producers, S.27 allows "manufacturers or rectifiers of vinous beverages" to hold wine-tastings on their property, as long as they provide 14-day notice of the event to the department of liquor control. The act also allows producers to sell products they did not produce, which could increase networking opportunities for this burgeoning industry.
Notably for Williston, H.31 approves our charter changes, including one that allows the town manager to appoint and discharge the zoning administrator. Also important for the Williston community, teacher Al Myers was honored with House Concurrent Resolution 160, the passage of which was witnessed by many Williston students.
Despite all this good work, though, it ain't quite over yet. The Governor is recalling the legislature into a special session to deal with the budget. The budget approved by the legislature, in bill H.441, has come under fire from the Governor as being irresponsible and unsustainable.
This is the governor's job -- to use his judgement to determine if bills passed by the legislature are appropriate for the state and to veto them if they are not. Since the budget passed the Democrat-controlled house by a comfortable margin, but not by enough to override a veto, the threat of a veto is being taken seriously. The governor's proposal is being looked at closely by legislative leaders as they prepare for the special session.
According to news reports, though, those leaders are not happy with what they've seen. The governor's budget has cuts that the legislature does not want to see, but worse, it envisions savings that have no definite source.
Democrats want to tax higher-income Vermonters, placing a $5000 cap on itemized deductions and replacing the 40% exemption on capital gains tax with the $5000 cap. The additional funds raised allowed the legislative budget to cut across-the-board taxes and to avoid additional budget cuts. The governor argues against the adjustment because he opposes new revenue in general and wants to see more cuts to the budget.
The budget is an essential part of the running of the government, which is why this dodge and parry is even taking place at all. The governor's veto pen is his leverage, but the legislature is not without some leverage of its own. Without a budget, the wheels of government will grind to a halt, and as the executive, the governor will shoulder much of the blame if a compromise cannot be reached.
State Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon has volunteered to help mediate the differences between the two proposed budgets. This would certainly be a positive step. The best scenario for the state would be for the two sides to come to a compromise before the special session, and then have the session simply rubber-stamp that compromise.
Then, it would be over.
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
"It ain't over till it's over," said baseball sage Yogi Berra. So it is with this year's legislative session. Though they have adjourned, they will be back.
At least one act of the legislature will have a lasting and profound effect on Vermont and, perhaps, the nation.
That act, S.115, has a deceptively meek title: "An act relating to civil marriage." Known colloquially as the Same-Sex Marriage Act, it will give same-sex couples marriage equity as of September 1, 2009. Plan on extensive news coverage of wedding ceremonies that day.
The act also protects religious institutions, specifically allowing almost any such institution in the state to refuse to perform any marriage that violates its beliefs.
The act, in just ten printed pages, made Vermont a vanguard in the effort to bring marriage equity to the entire nation. Vermont is the first state to have its legislature open up marriage to same sex couples, rather than have it imposed by the state's judiciary. After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the act, there was uncertainty whether the legislature could garner the votes to override. On April 7, however, the legislature was able to override the veto, by the absolute narrowest of margins.
S.115 was the most high-profile bill the legislature worked on, but not the only one.
For young hunters, H.64 eliminates Youth Hunting Day for Vermonters sixteen and under, and expands Youth Hunting Weekend to anyone fifteen and under who has taken a hunter safety course.
An important act for wine producers, S.27 allows "manufacturers or rectifiers of vinous beverages" to hold wine-tastings on their property, as long as they provide 14-day notice of the event to the department of liquor control. The act also allows producers to sell products they did not produce, which could increase networking opportunities for this burgeoning industry.
Notably for Williston, H.31 approves our charter changes, including one that allows the town manager to appoint and discharge the zoning administrator. Also important for the Williston community, teacher Al Myers was honored with House Concurrent Resolution 160, the passage of which was witnessed by many Williston students.
Despite all this good work, though, it ain't quite over yet. The Governor is recalling the legislature into a special session to deal with the budget. The budget approved by the legislature, in bill H.441, has come under fire from the Governor as being irresponsible and unsustainable.
This is the governor's job -- to use his judgement to determine if bills passed by the legislature are appropriate for the state and to veto them if they are not. Since the budget passed the Democrat-controlled house by a comfortable margin, but not by enough to override a veto, the threat of a veto is being taken seriously. The governor's proposal is being looked at closely by legislative leaders as they prepare for the special session.
According to news reports, though, those leaders are not happy with what they've seen. The governor's budget has cuts that the legislature does not want to see, but worse, it envisions savings that have no definite source.
Democrats want to tax higher-income Vermonters, placing a $5000 cap on itemized deductions and replacing the 40% exemption on capital gains tax with the $5000 cap. The additional funds raised allowed the legislative budget to cut across-the-board taxes and to avoid additional budget cuts. The governor argues against the adjustment because he opposes new revenue in general and wants to see more cuts to the budget.
The budget is an essential part of the running of the government, which is why this dodge and parry is even taking place at all. The governor's veto pen is his leverage, but the legislature is not without some leverage of its own. Without a budget, the wheels of government will grind to a halt, and as the executive, the governor will shoulder much of the blame if a compromise cannot be reached.
State Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon has volunteered to help mediate the differences between the two proposed budgets. This would certainly be a positive step. The best scenario for the state would be for the two sides to come to a compromise before the special session, and then have the session simply rubber-stamp that compromise.
Then, it would be over.
Friday, May 15, 2009
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 14, 2009.
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
For the past couple of years, I've been working on a novel for middle school students. Right now, the novel is in the hands of an agent, whom I hope will agree to represent my work to publishers.
The novel, which follows a group of four girls, takes place in Williston. The Williston of my characters, however, is not our Williston, not exactly.
When deciding where to set the novel, the oft-used phrase "write what you know" came to mind. However, our town has many quirks that could take a lot of explanation to get across to a visitor, especially a visitor by literary means. For just one example, in the literary Williston, we have a Williston Elementary School and a Williston Middle School.
To have taken Williston's schools as a model, and have to explain why there are elementary schoolers in the middle school, would take more words than I could afford to spend pages on — so I idealized our school system.
Is there a lesson to be learned in such idealizations?
After working on the Williston Conceptual Frameworks Committee since last summer, I am keenly aware that there are divisions in our town about how our schools are structured. If our schools were structured like my idealized Williston schools, could the controversies have been avoided? As I wrote, as I edited, as I attended Committee meetings, I gave this question a lot of thought.
The reason that I idealized our schools, though, was not to teach us Willistonians a lesson of any kind. The reason is actually quite pedestrian: simple literary license.
As I thought about all this, I realized that there are actually very few novels that I've read in my lifetime that idealize society. More common, by far, are the novels that exaggerate problems with society, magnify them. These novels are typically categorized as "dystopian," a genre I've written about before.
Almost anyone could name a dystopian novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Giver, A Clockwork Orange. Some of the characters in these novels might consider that they live in utopias; but they are written for us, and we can recognize that the cost of the utopia is something we hold dear — liberty, security, democracy, or even individuality.
I'm a big fan of science fiction, and I've often heard Star Trek described as a look at a utopian future. That may be true for the people of Earth, done with war and poverty, even with greed and money, with our attention focused on the stars. But I dispute this characterization. Any Trekker knows that war, poverty, greed, and money play a big role in the Star Trek universe.
Closer to home, a good example of a true utopian novel (one that describes a society that its author wishes us to aspire to, rather than one the author wishes us to avoid), is called "Looking Backward", by Edward Bellamy.
(You can read "Looking Backward" online by going to Project Gutenberg, where Bellamy's book is available for free. Go to gutenberg.org to find out more.)
In Bellamy's work, a citizen of Boston from 1887 is put into a hypnotic trance from which he does not awake until the year 2000. Some of the advances of Boston in Bellamy's year 2000 might seem laughable to us today, but some were strangely prescient.
Bellamy did not foresee television, but he did foresee a "music room" into which music could be piped in from any one of a number of live performances, via the telephone wires. Bellamy foresaw a store with only one sample of each item on the shelves; shoppers put in their orders for goods, which were made on demand and delivered to their doorstep. All workers started out at the bottom, in the "industrial army", and worked their way up according to desire and ability; but in any case, retirement was at the ripe old age of 45.
In my case, I idealized Williston to avoid having to explain too much, to make my job easier, to make the reader's job easier.
Bellamy idealized all of the United States, and, indeed, the world, to illustrate a place we could land, something to aspire to. As I read "Looking Backward," there was much fault I found in his year 2000, a little I recognized, and also a few things to look forward to.
Do you have a favorite utopian novel? Let me know, I'd love to read it.
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
For the past couple of years, I've been working on a novel for middle school students. Right now, the novel is in the hands of an agent, whom I hope will agree to represent my work to publishers.
The novel, which follows a group of four girls, takes place in Williston. The Williston of my characters, however, is not our Williston, not exactly.
When deciding where to set the novel, the oft-used phrase "write what you know" came to mind. However, our town has many quirks that could take a lot of explanation to get across to a visitor, especially a visitor by literary means. For just one example, in the literary Williston, we have a Williston Elementary School and a Williston Middle School.
To have taken Williston's schools as a model, and have to explain why there are elementary schoolers in the middle school, would take more words than I could afford to spend pages on — so I idealized our school system.
Is there a lesson to be learned in such idealizations?
After working on the Williston Conceptual Frameworks Committee since last summer, I am keenly aware that there are divisions in our town about how our schools are structured. If our schools were structured like my idealized Williston schools, could the controversies have been avoided? As I wrote, as I edited, as I attended Committee meetings, I gave this question a lot of thought.
The reason that I idealized our schools, though, was not to teach us Willistonians a lesson of any kind. The reason is actually quite pedestrian: simple literary license.
As I thought about all this, I realized that there are actually very few novels that I've read in my lifetime that idealize society. More common, by far, are the novels that exaggerate problems with society, magnify them. These novels are typically categorized as "dystopian," a genre I've written about before.
Almost anyone could name a dystopian novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Giver, A Clockwork Orange. Some of the characters in these novels might consider that they live in utopias; but they are written for us, and we can recognize that the cost of the utopia is something we hold dear — liberty, security, democracy, or even individuality.
I'm a big fan of science fiction, and I've often heard Star Trek described as a look at a utopian future. That may be true for the people of Earth, done with war and poverty, even with greed and money, with our attention focused on the stars. But I dispute this characterization. Any Trekker knows that war, poverty, greed, and money play a big role in the Star Trek universe.
Closer to home, a good example of a true utopian novel (one that describes a society that its author wishes us to aspire to, rather than one the author wishes us to avoid), is called "Looking Backward", by Edward Bellamy.
(You can read "Looking Backward" online by going to Project Gutenberg, where Bellamy's book is available for free. Go to gutenberg.org to find out more.)
In Bellamy's work, a citizen of Boston from 1887 is put into a hypnotic trance from which he does not awake until the year 2000. Some of the advances of Boston in Bellamy's year 2000 might seem laughable to us today, but some were strangely prescient.
Bellamy did not foresee television, but he did foresee a "music room" into which music could be piped in from any one of a number of live performances, via the telephone wires. Bellamy foresaw a store with only one sample of each item on the shelves; shoppers put in their orders for goods, which were made on demand and delivered to their doorstep. All workers started out at the bottom, in the "industrial army", and worked their way up according to desire and ability; but in any case, retirement was at the ripe old age of 45.
In my case, I idealized Williston to avoid having to explain too much, to make my job easier, to make the reader's job easier.
Bellamy idealized all of the United States, and, indeed, the world, to illustrate a place we could land, something to aspire to. As I read "Looking Backward," there was much fault I found in his year 2000, a little I recognized, and also a few things to look forward to.
Do you have a favorite utopian novel? Let me know, I'd love to read it.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Fighting Poverty, Preventing Piracy
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 30, 2009.
Fighting Poverty, Preventing Piracy
Any time revenues decline, whether in a business, family, or government, there is an inevitable search for a place to cut costs.
One place that financial advisers will not advise a family to cut, though, is in investing for the future. The "magic" of compound interest means that a dollar not invested now could cost you four dollars in thirty years.
Similarly, there are investments in the future that we, as a nation, must think carefully about when we are looking to cut. If we are to invest in our nation's future, one way to do that is to provide non-military foreign aid. If we do not invest in foreign aid, we risk putting our future in jeopardy.
One need only look to the piracy crisis that has recently grabbed the nation's attention to see the results of poverty and chaos. Though the attention is recent, the problem has been festering for quite some time. In 1991, for example, the World Food Programme was having trouble finding shipping companies willing to take food aid to Somalia because of piracy off the Somali coast.
Because of overwhelming poverty, some of the people of Somalia have chosen piracy as their best choice for survival, even with all the inherent risks.
Is there anything we could do to reverse the piracy problem? It seems we may be doing all we can at this point - the solution is a military one.
According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), another hot spot for piracy is the Strait of Malacca. In all of 2000, over 75 attacks were recorded in the strait. By 2004, that number had decreased to 38, and in the first quarter of 2009, to only one. According to the IMB, the difference is in the patrols, which have dramatically increased over the past ten years, especially by the navies and coast guards of Malaysia, Indonesia, and other littoral nations.
While the key to stopping piracy seems to be military diligence, preventing piracy from even starting is where our money could be well-spent.
The budget for USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, which distributes American foreign aid, was almost $19.5 billion in 2007, $17.6 billion in 2008, and budgeted to be $18.8 billion in 2009. These number are nothing to sneeze at, but they are a pittance compared to our military budget.
Our foreign aid budget covers a lot of important things, according the USAID's Citizen's Report. Counter-terrorism, peace support, conflict mitigation, good governance, promotion of human rights, and combating AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The budget also pays for programs to improve infrastructure, agriculture, water supply safety, economic opportunity, and financial transparency.
This last group of programs, under the category heading "Promoting Economic Growth and Prosperity", is where our money can help end the conditions that lead to problems like piracy. If a nation has a sound government, a reliable food and water supply, and provides opportunity for its people, the lure of easy money from piracy or other crime is suddenly that less strong.
The change in administration has brought change to the philosophy behind foreign aid. The 2009 budget was built by George W. Bush's State Department. The 2010 budget, built by Barack Obama's State Department, increases the department's budget by 40%, and the budget for USAID would go up a similar percentage.
With this increase, our efforts to fight poverty, both with direct aid and developmental aid, could make a big difference in peoples' lives. Could this increase also be a piracy prevention measure? We can only hope - as with any investment, the return is not guaranteed.
---
On a personal note, with many of you, I mourn the death of Williston Central School teacher Al Myers. Over the years, I'd seen Al show off his musical skills at the FAP Variety Show, show off his Civil War knowledge in presentations to the Cub Scouts, and show off his encyclopedic knowledge of the history of Williston schools and FAP as he recounted the evolution of our current system.
Al's fellow teachers in Swift House and throughout the school system are coping bravely with the loss as they simultaneously help all the kids cope with the loss.
While I salute his memory and his legacy, I also salute the continued professionalism of our entire teaching staff. Al's death will leave a hole, but I know it will be quickly filled.
Fighting Poverty, Preventing Piracy
Any time revenues decline, whether in a business, family, or government, there is an inevitable search for a place to cut costs.
One place that financial advisers will not advise a family to cut, though, is in investing for the future. The "magic" of compound interest means that a dollar not invested now could cost you four dollars in thirty years.
Similarly, there are investments in the future that we, as a nation, must think carefully about when we are looking to cut. If we are to invest in our nation's future, one way to do that is to provide non-military foreign aid. If we do not invest in foreign aid, we risk putting our future in jeopardy.
One need only look to the piracy crisis that has recently grabbed the nation's attention to see the results of poverty and chaos. Though the attention is recent, the problem has been festering for quite some time. In 1991, for example, the World Food Programme was having trouble finding shipping companies willing to take food aid to Somalia because of piracy off the Somali coast.
Because of overwhelming poverty, some of the people of Somalia have chosen piracy as their best choice for survival, even with all the inherent risks.
Is there anything we could do to reverse the piracy problem? It seems we may be doing all we can at this point - the solution is a military one.
According to the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), another hot spot for piracy is the Strait of Malacca. In all of 2000, over 75 attacks were recorded in the strait. By 2004, that number had decreased to 38, and in the first quarter of 2009, to only one. According to the IMB, the difference is in the patrols, which have dramatically increased over the past ten years, especially by the navies and coast guards of Malaysia, Indonesia, and other littoral nations.
While the key to stopping piracy seems to be military diligence, preventing piracy from even starting is where our money could be well-spent.
The budget for USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, which distributes American foreign aid, was almost $19.5 billion in 2007, $17.6 billion in 2008, and budgeted to be $18.8 billion in 2009. These number are nothing to sneeze at, but they are a pittance compared to our military budget.
Our foreign aid budget covers a lot of important things, according the USAID's Citizen's Report. Counter-terrorism, peace support, conflict mitigation, good governance, promotion of human rights, and combating AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The budget also pays for programs to improve infrastructure, agriculture, water supply safety, economic opportunity, and financial transparency.
This last group of programs, under the category heading "Promoting Economic Growth and Prosperity", is where our money can help end the conditions that lead to problems like piracy. If a nation has a sound government, a reliable food and water supply, and provides opportunity for its people, the lure of easy money from piracy or other crime is suddenly that less strong.
The change in administration has brought change to the philosophy behind foreign aid. The 2009 budget was built by George W. Bush's State Department. The 2010 budget, built by Barack Obama's State Department, increases the department's budget by 40%, and the budget for USAID would go up a similar percentage.
With this increase, our efforts to fight poverty, both with direct aid and developmental aid, could make a big difference in peoples' lives. Could this increase also be a piracy prevention measure? We can only hope - as with any investment, the return is not guaranteed.
---
On a personal note, with many of you, I mourn the death of Williston Central School teacher Al Myers. Over the years, I'd seen Al show off his musical skills at the FAP Variety Show, show off his Civil War knowledge in presentations to the Cub Scouts, and show off his encyclopedic knowledge of the history of Williston schools and FAP as he recounted the evolution of our current system.
Al's fellow teachers in Swift House and throughout the school system are coping bravely with the loss as they simultaneously help all the kids cope with the loss.
While I salute his memory and his legacy, I also salute the continued professionalism of our entire teaching staff. Al's death will leave a hole, but I know it will be quickly filled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)