Get a Lawyer!
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 22, 2010.
I, dear reader, watch an almost embarrassingly large amount of television. It is one of my vices. There are worse things.
One of the types of shows I enjoy the most involve the police in some way. If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you know the type. There are classics like the Law & Order franchise, Homicide: Life on the Street, and Hill Street Blues; there are variations on the theme like the CSI franchise; and newer shows like Medium, The Mentalist, and Blue Bloods.
If you've watched almost any television in the past twenty years, you've also heard the Miranda warning. The warning, which the Supreme Court has ruled must be given to suspects of crimes before they are questioned, goes like this:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."
The verbal warning is kept relatively short, so that police can recite it quickly (which is good, for TV), but there is a much longer version, almost three times longer, that is more comprehensive and is usually given in written form.
The key components of the Miranda warning, spoken or written, are these: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the fact that your own words can be used against you.
The point of all this is the dismay that I feel when watching some of these favorite police shows of mine. You might think, with my build-up above, that my problem is that police in these shows tend to forget the Miranda warning. Actually, to my memory, most television cops are very good about giving the Miranda warning, and many scenes end with a suspect being carted off in handcuffs for questioning as the arresting officer starts reciting, sometimes in a rote monotone, "You have the right to remain silent..."
No, it is not the TV cops' treatment of the Miranda warning that causes me dismay. It is that most suspects seem to forget all of their rights as soon as they step into a police station.
I certainly understand the need to move the story along, and watching a suspect sit and wait for a lawyer is hardly compelling TV. In fact, a lawyer-supervised interrogation is also hardly compelling - much more TV-friendly is the tearful or angry confession, caused by a detective asking just the right question or a suspect being caught in a lie. And I have to admit a certain degree of schadenfreude when a smug suspect, whom the audience is well-aware is guilty, slips up and realizes they've just confessed to the crime.
What I'm afraid of, what my dismay is all about, is that as people watch these shows, and see these suspects spill their guts with a lawyer no where in sight, they will begin to think nothing of it - that should they ever find themselves in that situation, the best or perhaps only option, the Miranda warning be damned, is to confess and take their punishment.
As a civil libertarian, I want everyone to know their rights and exercise them to their fullest extent. But don't get me wrong - in the end, with their rights intact, I want the guilty to be punished to the fullest extent. What I wish is that these shows could figure out a way for suspects to be represented by counsel and still get their just rewards.
Perhaps it is too much to ask - that a suspect exercising his right to counsel can still be compelling drama. But there has to be a way, and I issue a challenge to the writers of Hollywood to not only write such story lines, but to make them the majority rather than the minority. Unfortunately, I don't know any Hollywood writers.
What I have, dear reader, is you. God forbid you should ever find yourself as a suspect in a crime. But if you do, don't go down the route taken by too many TV characters. Exercise your rights and get yourself a lawyer; don't answer any questions without that lawyer present; and for goodness' sake, follow your lawyer's advice.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
The Wikileaks Cables: Worth the Ink?
The Wikileaks Cables: Worth the Ink?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 8, 2010.
In many of the roles I've played in the course of my life, including college student, journalist, history buff, and constitutional scholar, one mantra is common to them all: information wants to be free.
In each of these roles, only by having access to accurate information could I write a valid conclusion for a term paper; write a story that told my readers something important; or allowed me and others to analyze events and personalities to reach conclusions about the people who made and shaped our history.
Much of the information journalists and historians (and ultimately the public) need was secret at one point in its lifetime. One of the most famous examples is the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 by the New York Times. The Papers were a classified history of United States-Vietnam relations, and revealed previously unknown or unsubstantiated facts about the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.
The Times was prosecuted for publishing the Papers, in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, a case which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case, but only by finding technical issues with the prosecution, and not with the Espionage Act itself.
It is under this Espionage Act that some pundits and politicians are contemplating prosecution of the Wikileaks site or its founder Julian Assange. Wikileaks has been in the news before. The site's raison d'etre is to be a safe place for whistle-blowers to release classified or secret information to the public.
The types of information released via Wikileaks includes documentation about government corruption in Kenya, assassination plans in Somalia, Scientology documents, and Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account contents. More recently Wikileaks is also responsible for the release of thousands of pages of secret diplomatic documents, known as cables.
The question that the U.S. government must now grapple with is if the publication of the so-called Wikileaks Cables constitute a violation of the law - and if so, what can be done about it?
To prevent itself from being the target of corporate and governmental retaliation for what it publishes, Wikileaks exists almost wholly as an Internet-only organization. This has its own problems - as of the writing of this column, for example, the main Wikileaks site cannot be accessed because of denial of service attacks and disputes with its hosting companies.
Though there may be no real "Wikileaks company" to go after, there is Assange, the organization's public face. During last Sunday's broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for Assange to be prosecuted under U.S. law. With the release of the Cables, McConnell said, Assange has "done enormous damage to our country."
Though the Espionage Act can apply just as equally to those who publish classified information as to those who took it in the first place, those like McConnell who would prosecute Wikileaks or Assange could run into real trouble actually doing so.
Assange is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident. Originally from Australia, Assange seems to constantly shift his location within Europe; reports have him currently living in England. If Assange cannot be brought to an American court, he cannot be tried - trial in absentia is illegal. He would, instead, have to be deported to the U.S. by a government that not only has him in their jurisdiction, but also has the same concerns about American diplomatic security as the U.S. might have.
It seems to me that prosecution of Assange is unlikely. That still leaves a key question, though. Given what I've already written, that information wants to be free, is the leaking of the Cables something I oppose?
The observations made in the Wikileaks Cables, frank statements of opinion by U.S. diplomatic staff and international leaders, are sometimes of no more value than any random story in the National Enquirer. It's not so much that I have a problem with the Cables being leaked as I have a problem that anyone cares about the contents of the Cables.
On the basis of the newly freed information that I've seen from the Cables, one thing is obvious: The Cables are no Pentagon Papers.
There is no revelation of corrupt ruling families or assassination plots. All we see is that diplomats are human and can speak with some crassness about each other. All we see is that governments don't trust each other.
In other words, we have been reminded of facts that we already knew.
Note: After press time, Assange turned himself in to English authorities because of an outstanding warrant from Sweden.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on December 8, 2010.
In many of the roles I've played in the course of my life, including college student, journalist, history buff, and constitutional scholar, one mantra is common to them all: information wants to be free.
In each of these roles, only by having access to accurate information could I write a valid conclusion for a term paper; write a story that told my readers something important; or allowed me and others to analyze events and personalities to reach conclusions about the people who made and shaped our history.
Much of the information journalists and historians (and ultimately the public) need was secret at one point in its lifetime. One of the most famous examples is the Pentagon Papers, published in 1971 by the New York Times. The Papers were a classified history of United States-Vietnam relations, and revealed previously unknown or unsubstantiated facts about the expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos.
The Times was prosecuted for publishing the Papers, in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, a case which eventually found its way to the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the case, but only by finding technical issues with the prosecution, and not with the Espionage Act itself.
It is under this Espionage Act that some pundits and politicians are contemplating prosecution of the Wikileaks site or its founder Julian Assange. Wikileaks has been in the news before. The site's raison d'etre is to be a safe place for whistle-blowers to release classified or secret information to the public.
The types of information released via Wikileaks includes documentation about government corruption in Kenya, assassination plans in Somalia, Scientology documents, and Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account contents. More recently Wikileaks is also responsible for the release of thousands of pages of secret diplomatic documents, known as cables.
The question that the U.S. government must now grapple with is if the publication of the so-called Wikileaks Cables constitute a violation of the law - and if so, what can be done about it?
To prevent itself from being the target of corporate and governmental retaliation for what it publishes, Wikileaks exists almost wholly as an Internet-only organization. This has its own problems - as of the writing of this column, for example, the main Wikileaks site cannot be accessed because of denial of service attacks and disputes with its hosting companies.
Though there may be no real "Wikileaks company" to go after, there is Assange, the organization's public face. During last Sunday's broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called for Assange to be prosecuted under U.S. law. With the release of the Cables, McConnell said, Assange has "done enormous damage to our country."
Though the Espionage Act can apply just as equally to those who publish classified information as to those who took it in the first place, those like McConnell who would prosecute Wikileaks or Assange could run into real trouble actually doing so.
Assange is neither a U.S. citizen nor a U.S. resident. Originally from Australia, Assange seems to constantly shift his location within Europe; reports have him currently living in England. If Assange cannot be brought to an American court, he cannot be tried - trial in absentia is illegal. He would, instead, have to be deported to the U.S. by a government that not only has him in their jurisdiction, but also has the same concerns about American diplomatic security as the U.S. might have.
It seems to me that prosecution of Assange is unlikely. That still leaves a key question, though. Given what I've already written, that information wants to be free, is the leaking of the Cables something I oppose?
The observations made in the Wikileaks Cables, frank statements of opinion by U.S. diplomatic staff and international leaders, are sometimes of no more value than any random story in the National Enquirer. It's not so much that I have a problem with the Cables being leaked as I have a problem that anyone cares about the contents of the Cables.
On the basis of the newly freed information that I've seen from the Cables, one thing is obvious: The Cables are no Pentagon Papers.
There is no revelation of corrupt ruling families or assassination plots. All we see is that diplomats are human and can speak with some crassness about each other. All we see is that governments don't trust each other.
In other words, we have been reminded of facts that we already knew.
Note: After press time, Assange turned himself in to English authorities because of an outstanding warrant from Sweden.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Campaign Spending 2010
Campaign Spending 2010
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 24, 2010.
In January, the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling, forbade the government from restricting corporate spending on candidate elections. Some pundits mocked the ruling, as it continued the Court's practice of treating corporations as individuals, this time in terms of free political speech rights. Others worried that elections would now be flooded with money as corporate donors attempted to "buy votes."
Now that the election is over, a valid and important question is, did anyone try to buy votes? Or was this just a red herring? Before we can answer that question, we need to know how much money was spent in the 2010 election season. The number, actually, is astounding.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that almost $4 billion (with a "B") was spent on the various races in the 2010 election - the most ever.
In races for the House, $972 million was raised and $845 million was spent. Republicans out-raised Democrats $502 million to $465 million. The race that raised the most money was in Minnesota, where Republican incumbent, and eventual winner, Michele Bachmann raised over $11 million, more than doubling the $4.2 million raised by her Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark.
In races for the Senate, $668 million was raised and $609 million was spent. Republicans also out-raised Democrats, $356 million to $294 million. The top race was in Connecticut, where Democrat Richard Blumenthal raised $7.6 million to hold on to Democratic stalwart Chris Dodd's former seat. He was able to overcome Republican challenger Linda McMahon, who raised a whopping $47 million, almost all of it coming from her own personal accounts.
Does it really take over $15 million to run a race for a House seat and $55 million to run a race for a Senate seat? Fortunately not - at least not yet.
In Vermont, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy raised $4.6 million, and spent just over $3 million, to defeat Republican Len Britton. Britton's numbers pale in comparison to Leahy's, with just under $200,000 raised and $144,000 spent.
Democratic Representative Peter Welch raised $974,000 and spent $573,000 to retain his seat; Republican challenger Paul Baudry raised just over $30,000 and spent $23,000 of that.
But what about all that unrestricted corporate spending? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this outside spending amounted to $282 million in the 2010 election - $90 million in support of liberal candidates and $184 million in support of conservative candidates.
It is hard to say, however, how much of an effect on elections this money had in 2010. It seems clear that impatience with the pace of economic improvement played a big part in Republican gains in 2010. Even if spending on conservative candidates had not almost doubled that on liberal candidates, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been much different.
So why all the hullabaloo about Citizens United and all the unrestricted and unreported corporate spending if it is likely that the result in 2010 would have been the same anyway? The problem is that the next election may not be so stilted to one side, and any small weight could tip the scales. Plus, with the presidency on the line, the temptation to spend even more money in 2012 will be hard to resist.
The regulation of political spending is a mine field of conflicting principles and interests. Most would agree that it is getting our of hand, if it has not already. The big question is, though, what can be done about it? I don't think the issue is a threat to our democracy just yet, but it can become one.
It should be a priority to work out the issues surrounding campaign financing. It must be possible to come to agreement on what can be accomplished relative to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court (or to propose amendments to the Constitution if these limits are too restrictive). We must have and enforce reasonable reporting requirements. And we must expect the government and the press to make sure that the public knows all it has a right to, in a timely manner, so we can decide for ourselves if someone is trying to buy our vote.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 24, 2010.
In January, the Supreme Court, in its Citizens United ruling, forbade the government from restricting corporate spending on candidate elections. Some pundits mocked the ruling, as it continued the Court's practice of treating corporations as individuals, this time in terms of free political speech rights. Others worried that elections would now be flooded with money as corporate donors attempted to "buy votes."
Now that the election is over, a valid and important question is, did anyone try to buy votes? Or was this just a red herring? Before we can answer that question, we need to know how much money was spent in the 2010 election season. The number, actually, is astounding.
The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that almost $4 billion (with a "B") was spent on the various races in the 2010 election - the most ever.
In races for the House, $972 million was raised and $845 million was spent. Republicans out-raised Democrats $502 million to $465 million. The race that raised the most money was in Minnesota, where Republican incumbent, and eventual winner, Michele Bachmann raised over $11 million, more than doubling the $4.2 million raised by her Democratic challenger Tarryl Clark.
In races for the Senate, $668 million was raised and $609 million was spent. Republicans also out-raised Democrats, $356 million to $294 million. The top race was in Connecticut, where Democrat Richard Blumenthal raised $7.6 million to hold on to Democratic stalwart Chris Dodd's former seat. He was able to overcome Republican challenger Linda McMahon, who raised a whopping $47 million, almost all of it coming from her own personal accounts.
Does it really take over $15 million to run a race for a House seat and $55 million to run a race for a Senate seat? Fortunately not - at least not yet.
In Vermont, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy raised $4.6 million, and spent just over $3 million, to defeat Republican Len Britton. Britton's numbers pale in comparison to Leahy's, with just under $200,000 raised and $144,000 spent.
Democratic Representative Peter Welch raised $974,000 and spent $573,000 to retain his seat; Republican challenger Paul Baudry raised just over $30,000 and spent $23,000 of that.
But what about all that unrestricted corporate spending? The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that this outside spending amounted to $282 million in the 2010 election - $90 million in support of liberal candidates and $184 million in support of conservative candidates.
It is hard to say, however, how much of an effect on elections this money had in 2010. It seems clear that impatience with the pace of economic improvement played a big part in Republican gains in 2010. Even if spending on conservative candidates had not almost doubled that on liberal candidates, it's unlikely that the outcome would have been much different.
So why all the hullabaloo about Citizens United and all the unrestricted and unreported corporate spending if it is likely that the result in 2010 would have been the same anyway? The problem is that the next election may not be so stilted to one side, and any small weight could tip the scales. Plus, with the presidency on the line, the temptation to spend even more money in 2012 will be hard to resist.
The regulation of political spending is a mine field of conflicting principles and interests. Most would agree that it is getting our of hand, if it has not already. The big question is, though, what can be done about it? I don't think the issue is a threat to our democracy just yet, but it can become one.
It should be a priority to work out the issues surrounding campaign financing. It must be possible to come to agreement on what can be accomplished relative to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court (or to propose amendments to the Constitution if these limits are too restrictive). We must have and enforce reasonable reporting requirements. And we must expect the government and the press to make sure that the public knows all it has a right to, in a timely manner, so we can decide for ourselves if someone is trying to buy our vote.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Analyzing the 2010 Election
Analyzing the 2010 Election
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on November 11, 2010.
Interpreting election results can be as tricky as predicting them. Given that, I suggest you add my voice to all the others you've heard in the past week as you make up your own mind.
At the state level, I am proud of Vermonters as we did two things: we bucked the general trend toward the right, but at the same time, we were maverick-like in our choices at the state level.
With so many office-holders giving up their seats this year, many of the main offices were fresh for the taking: Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State.
Williston itself showed a conservative streak in its vote for governor, with Republican Brian Dubie winning the vote 53 percent to Democrat Peter Shumlin's 46 percent. Statewide, though Shumlin pulled in just under 50 percent of the vote (to Dubie's 47 percent), Dubie conceeded the race. The selection of governor will, technically, be left to the legislature, but Dubie's concession virtually guarantees Shumlin's eventual win.
In the Lieutenant Governor's race, the Republican Phil Scott beat Democrat Steve Howard 48 percent to 41 percent; in Williston, Scott pulled in 54 percent of the vote to Howard's 39 percent.
And finally in the Secretary of State's race, Democrat Jim Condos beat out Republican Jason Gibbs 54 percent to 44 percent; in Williston, the numbers were similar, 54 percent to 46 percent.
Based on Williston's vote in the top two races on the ticket, I still have a lot of work to do here, trying to convince the majority of my neighbors that the best choice for Vermont is left-leaning. I hope the governor's actions help me out in that regard!
My impression is that Vermonters in general were not particularly impressed with the tone the political advertisements took in Vermont this campaign season, particularly in the governor's race. At the same time, I was impressed with much of Peter Shumlin's advertising, especially his "whiteboard" series, which condensed complex issues down to their bare bones, and may have made a real difference in the campaign.
Shumlin's unerring support for closing Vermont Yankee also resonated with many Vermonters (though not with your humble columnist), and ads touting his business experience also raised confidence in many Vermonters.
The wide margins won by our current members of Congress show yet again the power of incumbency, especially when there is a general air of satisfaction with the incumbent's work. The best advice I would have for any newly elected member of Congress from Vermont is to represent the state vigorously and to keep your nose clean. With those two things under your belt, a long-term job seems easy to keep.
Nationally, of course, this is no time for liberals to celebrate. Though the polls told us it was coming, hope sprung eternal that the losses would not be so bad. Democrats did retain control of the Senate, but likely because only a third of the body was up for election.
In the House, the swing from Democratic to Republican control is one of the biggest on record. However, since Democrats still hold the Presidency and the Senate, the next two years are going to be the Republicans' chance to show not that they can flex their muscle, but that they can compromise.
The 2010 election made one thing clear: the American public is impatient. Given what they got in 2008, President Obama and the 111th Congress accomplished a lot, but in the face of continued unemployment near double digits, it seems that we as a people think that the Republicans can do better. I'm not sure they can, but I'm not going to wish that they fail. I hope that Republicans and Democrats both can set aside their differences and work to finding solutions to our national problems.
We'll also see if the gleam of the Tea Party continues to shine, or if it will tarnish as its new leaders, including Senators-elect Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, try to influence legislation in the 112th Congress. Fortunately for their states, and us all, the worst of the Tea Party, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, went down to defeat. Even Alaska's Joe Miller seems, at this writing, to have lost to write-in incumbent Lisa Murkowski.
I'm confident that Democrats are willing to work with Republicans to get the tough work of governing the nation done. The next two years will show the American people if the Republicans are just as willing, or if the obstructionism they've been known for in the last two years will continue to be a feature of their governing strategy for the next two years.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
On Amending the Constitution
On Amending the Constitution
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 28, 2010.
You'll notice an unusual item on your ballot on November 2 - a vote on an amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Its appearance gives me a chance to discuss the long road that an amendment to the Vermont Constitution has to travel, and how widely the procedure varies from amending the United States Constitution.
The process for amending any constitution should not be an easy one - a constitution is the basic law of a political unit, and provides a stable foundation that can be relied on for years, decades, even centuries.
The process of amending the U.S. Constitution has a few different paths, not all of which have been taken.
The most common path is for the Congress to vote, by two-thirds concurrence in both houses, to recommend an amendment. It has never been an easy thing to get a two-thirds vote in Congress, and this high bar reflects the framers' thoughts that changes should only come with broad consensus.
After those votes, however, there is a final stage that can be just as hard to overcome. The amendment is then sent to the states, where three-quarters of them must ratify the amendment.
The states can ratify in one of two ways - by majority votes of each state's legislature (which is most often another two-part hurdle) or, if directed by the amendment itself, by a special ratifying convention called in each state.
This second option may seem like a bit of an end-run around the legislatures, and to some degree it is. However, depending on state law, it is the executive or legislature that must convene the convention, and a determined governor or legislature could refuse to do so or at least drag its heels.
In the case of Vermont, heel-dragging is not an option. The responsibility to convene a convention is given to the governor, who has only 60 days following an amendment proposal to call the convention. The process then involves the voters, who choose 14 people from a list of 28 compiled by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house.
The election must take place between three and 12 months after the governor's call, and the convention itself must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention is free to conduct itself in any way it decides, and a majority vote on the proposed amendment, either way, decides the issue.
The convention route for a constitutional amendment has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and made liquor again legal in the United States.
The second, unused method for proposing amendments is by a convention of all the states. Many fear what amendments could come out of such a convention, and that fear has, in my opinion, been the main reason that many resist any call for an amendment convention.
Amending the Vermont Constitution is a longer process, by design.
First, amendments may only be proposed every four years, beginning in 1975. The Senate must initiate the process, and must approve the amendment by two-thirds vote. The House must then approve the amendment by a majority vote. The last year an amendment could be proposed was 2007 and the next is 2011.
Once this first hurdle is crossed, the amendment must lay dormant until the next two-year legislative session. The amendment is then taken up again and must be approved by a majority of both houses of the legislature. If those votes are successful, the amendment has one final hurdle - the people.
That is the stage the voting age amendment has reached this year. If a majority of Vermonters approve the amendment, it will become a part of our Constitution; if not, it will have to wait until 2011 for another go.
Both methods have pros and cons. The method used by Vermont would probably be unworkable for an electorate on the scale of the United States, so even though there is value in getting the direct voice of the people, the methods already in place work well enough. The nation needs a way to rapidly change its constitution in a time of crisis, so the built-in speed bumps in the Vermont amendment process could actually be dangerous for the federal constitution.
When you go to the polls next week, be sure not to miss the question on the constitutional amendment presented to you. It is a rare opportunity for you to voice how our constitution should be constructed.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 28, 2010.
You'll notice an unusual item on your ballot on November 2 - a vote on an amendment to the Vermont Constitution. Its appearance gives me a chance to discuss the long road that an amendment to the Vermont Constitution has to travel, and how widely the procedure varies from amending the United States Constitution.
The process for amending any constitution should not be an easy one - a constitution is the basic law of a political unit, and provides a stable foundation that can be relied on for years, decades, even centuries.
The process of amending the U.S. Constitution has a few different paths, not all of which have been taken.
The most common path is for the Congress to vote, by two-thirds concurrence in both houses, to recommend an amendment. It has never been an easy thing to get a two-thirds vote in Congress, and this high bar reflects the framers' thoughts that changes should only come with broad consensus.
After those votes, however, there is a final stage that can be just as hard to overcome. The amendment is then sent to the states, where three-quarters of them must ratify the amendment.
The states can ratify in one of two ways - by majority votes of each state's legislature (which is most often another two-part hurdle) or, if directed by the amendment itself, by a special ratifying convention called in each state.
This second option may seem like a bit of an end-run around the legislatures, and to some degree it is. However, depending on state law, it is the executive or legislature that must convene the convention, and a determined governor or legislature could refuse to do so or at least drag its heels.
In the case of Vermont, heel-dragging is not an option. The responsibility to convene a convention is given to the governor, who has only 60 days following an amendment proposal to call the convention. The process then involves the voters, who choose 14 people from a list of 28 compiled by the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house.
The election must take place between three and 12 months after the governor's call, and the convention itself must take place 20 to 30 days after the election. The convention is free to conduct itself in any way it decides, and a majority vote on the proposed amendment, either way, decides the issue.
The convention route for a constitutional amendment has only been used once - to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and made liquor again legal in the United States.
The second, unused method for proposing amendments is by a convention of all the states. Many fear what amendments could come out of such a convention, and that fear has, in my opinion, been the main reason that many resist any call for an amendment convention.
Amending the Vermont Constitution is a longer process, by design.
First, amendments may only be proposed every four years, beginning in 1975. The Senate must initiate the process, and must approve the amendment by two-thirds vote. The House must then approve the amendment by a majority vote. The last year an amendment could be proposed was 2007 and the next is 2011.
Once this first hurdle is crossed, the amendment must lay dormant until the next two-year legislative session. The amendment is then taken up again and must be approved by a majority of both houses of the legislature. If those votes are successful, the amendment has one final hurdle - the people.
That is the stage the voting age amendment has reached this year. If a majority of Vermonters approve the amendment, it will become a part of our Constitution; if not, it will have to wait until 2011 for another go.
Both methods have pros and cons. The method used by Vermont would probably be unworkable for an electorate on the scale of the United States, so even though there is value in getting the direct voice of the people, the methods already in place work well enough. The nation needs a way to rapidly change its constitution in a time of crisis, so the built-in speed bumps in the Vermont amendment process could actually be dangerous for the federal constitution.
When you go to the polls next week, be sure not to miss the question on the constitutional amendment presented to you. It is a rare opportunity for you to voice how our constitution should be constructed.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Elect Peter Shumlin
Elect Peter Shumlin
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on October 14, 2010.
It should come as no surprise to any regular reader that I'm endorsing Democrat Peter Shumlin for governor, and urge everyone else to vote for him, too. Williston did not come out strongly for Shumlin in the Democratic Party primary - he was third behind Doug Racine and Deb Markowitz - but now it is time for Vermonters in general and Democrats in particular to rally behind Shumlin.
What might be a little surprising is that my decision to endorse Shumlin was not as automatic as one might infer from my partisan label.
I believe that the legislative and executive branches should not be in collusion - they should, in fact, be at odds at how things should get done. There might be agreement about final outcomes, but what I want to see is disagreement about how to get there. Because when there is disagreement, there is a place for compromise; and it is in compromise that we find the best laws and policies.
If there is one truism in Vermont politics over the last several decades, it is this: incumbent governors keep their job as long as they want it. The only change in the governor's office we've seen since the election of Madeleine Kunin in 1984 has been when a sitting governor decided not to seek reelection, or a sitting governor died in office.
The governor we elect in November, then, will likely be the governor of Vermont, for better or worse, for the next six or eight years. The decision is not to be made lightly. With this knowledge, I looked thoughtfully and seriously at Republican Brian Dubie.
Dubie is an honorable man who has served his state and country with distinction. Politically, we have some agreements - our positions on Vermont Yankee, for example, are pretty close. He has a good and valid point when he notes that Vermont's regulatory procedures should be reviewed and streamlined.
Most of his other positions, however, sound like more of the same Republican parroting that we hear over and over again at the national level. The solution to our woes is lower taxes and cuts in spending.
Neither of these platitudes is a solution in itself. There are places taxes can and should be cut - I certainly don't advocate that we willy-nilly raise taxes, nor does any Democrat. But the opposite - cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes! - seems to be the default Republican war cry, and Dubie is not deviating from that position.
Similarly, I do not think that every program is necessarily worthy of its current funding level, so funding levels should be examined closely, but Dubie criticizes, first and foremost, the generosity of Vermont's social programs, which protect our most vulnerable citizens - an expense well worth paying.
What Shumlin brings to the table is all the best of Dubie's plans - to grow the green economy, for example - but with the touch of a Democrat who wants to look out for the little guy rather than the big guy.
Shumlin also has the advantage of knowing the Vermont business environment from the business-owner side of the equation. He knows the challenges that an overly onerous regulatory process can impose, and can offer suggestions to the legislature to ease the burden without losing the benefits of good regulation.
He also knows that to have a better society, we have to not only cater to business but we also have to protect and improve the lives of the people.
Shumlin's platform not only focuses on growing the jobs market and the green economy, but also sustaining and improving education, health care, equal rights for all Vermonters, caring for our older population, and maintaining Vermont's farm economy.
In short, Shumlin has a better plan, a more humane plan, a more attractive plan.
Brian Dubie would not be a bad choice for Vermont. Peter Shumlin, however, is a much better choice. I hope that you agree with my assessment and vote for Peter Shumlin for governor on November 2.
----
This year will mark a first for me - since I'll be away on election day, I'll be voting early for the first time. If voting on election day is an issue for you, I encourage you to visit the Town Clerk's office at your earliest convenience and get an absentee ballot. There is no excuse for not having your voice heard.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
GOP Pledge is Nothing New
GOP Pledge is Nothing New
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 30, 2010.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again."
In 1994, with Bill Clinton two years into his first term as president, Republicans presented a Contract with America to the electorate. The Contract was a list of legislative priorities that the Republicans promised to turn into bills within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. It was a ploy that played to the angers and frustrations of the American people at the time.
The ploy worked. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. Though many of the bills based on the Contract failed to become law either because of presidential veto or because the Senate failed to pass them, the Republican majority in the House lasted from the 104th Congress through to the 109th. The Democrats were not able to wrest control until the 110th Congress, almost four years ago, in January, 2007.
The legacy of that Republican control includes government shutdowns, tax cuts for the richest Americans, authorization of an unnecessary war, and the worst recession in decades.
More recently, Republicans have released their Pledge to America. The GOP is pledging to right all the wrongs that they see in American government and society, a good and noble sentiment, but forgetting that it was they who were the root cause of many of these woes.
President Obama came to office promising change, change that many of us, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, were eager for. It is change that we have not seen in many cases, change that we still wait for. But even as we await more of the president's promises to come to fruition, we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded to the fact that change has, indeed, already happened.
To me, the Pledge to America is more about undoing the good that has already been done and thwarting any possibility for more good to be done in the next two years.
Just last week, some of the most important provisions of the health care bill came into effect:
These features and protections are all important and have real impact on people's lives today. And if Republicans had had their way six months ago, none of these provisions would have taken effect. Because of the staggered implementation of the health care bill, even more changes will be taking effect over the next few years.
Another major accomplishment of the President and his congressional allies is the end of combat operations in Iraq. This war, the wrong war to have spent blood and treasure on, was authorized by a Republican Congress. Ending it was one of Obama's top priorities, and though it took two years, he was able to accomplish the goal without putting undue risk on our troops or the Iraqi people.
Though Republicans use it as a selling point for their own agenda, calling it a "government take-over", the government's support for General Motors and Chrysler saved an American industry and all the jobs that go with it.
According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act, put in place by the Democratic Congress, has brought over $250 million to Vermont through June 30, and another $500 million has been awarded to Vermont. This money represents real jobs, held by your neighbors.
The Republican leadership would have you forget about all of these accomplishments. Is there more to be done? Of course there is, but the way to get things done is not to take a step backwards, back to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
As he introduced the latest Republican ploy, the Pledge to America, House Minority Leader John Boehner said that if they are placed in the majority, the American people can expect Republicans to "not be any different than we have been". I don't think that America can afford, nor stomach, "not different" from the Republicans, because they have been combative, obstructive, and contrary ever since the new Congress was sworn in.
What we need is a new Republican party that is willing to work with Democrats to come up with solutions, not create more problems. In lieu of that seeming pipe dream, our best bet is to maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress, and for all Democrats to work diligently toward that goal.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 30, 2010.
As Yogi Berra said, "It's deja vu all over again."
In 1994, with Bill Clinton two years into his first term as president, Republicans presented a Contract with America to the electorate. The Contract was a list of legislative priorities that the Republicans promised to turn into bills within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress. It was a ploy that played to the angers and frustrations of the American people at the time.
The ploy worked. The House of Representatives had a Republican majority for the first time in 40 years. Though many of the bills based on the Contract failed to become law either because of presidential veto or because the Senate failed to pass them, the Republican majority in the House lasted from the 104th Congress through to the 109th. The Democrats were not able to wrest control until the 110th Congress, almost four years ago, in January, 2007.
The legacy of that Republican control includes government shutdowns, tax cuts for the richest Americans, authorization of an unnecessary war, and the worst recession in decades.
More recently, Republicans have released their Pledge to America. The GOP is pledging to right all the wrongs that they see in American government and society, a good and noble sentiment, but forgetting that it was they who were the root cause of many of these woes.
President Obama came to office promising change, change that many of us, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, were eager for. It is change that we have not seen in many cases, change that we still wait for. But even as we await more of the president's promises to come to fruition, we cannot allow ourselves to be blinded to the fact that change has, indeed, already happened.
To me, the Pledge to America is more about undoing the good that has already been done and thwarting any possibility for more good to be done in the next two years.
Just last week, some of the most important provisions of the health care bill came into effect:
- Children can no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition
- Health care policies must cover children up to age 26
- Health care policies may no longer include lifetime limits on coverage
These features and protections are all important and have real impact on people's lives today. And if Republicans had had their way six months ago, none of these provisions would have taken effect. Because of the staggered implementation of the health care bill, even more changes will be taking effect over the next few years.
Another major accomplishment of the President and his congressional allies is the end of combat operations in Iraq. This war, the wrong war to have spent blood and treasure on, was authorized by a Republican Congress. Ending it was one of Obama's top priorities, and though it took two years, he was able to accomplish the goal without putting undue risk on our troops or the Iraqi people.
Though Republicans use it as a selling point for their own agenda, calling it a "government take-over", the government's support for General Motors and Chrysler saved an American industry and all the jobs that go with it.
According to Recovery.gov, the Recovery Act, put in place by the Democratic Congress, has brought over $250 million to Vermont through June 30, and another $500 million has been awarded to Vermont. This money represents real jobs, held by your neighbors.
The Republican leadership would have you forget about all of these accomplishments. Is there more to be done? Of course there is, but the way to get things done is not to take a step backwards, back to Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
As he introduced the latest Republican ploy, the Pledge to America, House Minority Leader John Boehner said that if they are placed in the majority, the American people can expect Republicans to "not be any different than we have been". I don't think that America can afford, nor stomach, "not different" from the Republicans, because they have been combative, obstructive, and contrary ever since the new Congress was sworn in.
What we need is a new Republican party that is willing to work with Democrats to come up with solutions, not create more problems. In lieu of that seeming pipe dream, our best bet is to maintain the Democratic majorities in Congress, and for all Democrats to work diligently toward that goal.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The End of Don't Ask Don't Tell
The End of Don't Ask Don't Tell
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 16, 2010.
Of all the divisions of the U.S. government, the military is likely the most conservative, in this context meaning cautious and resistant to change. But the military must reflect society, and eventually, it does change. First, the military integrated on racial lines. Then it allowed women to serve alongside men in non-combat roles.
Aside from women serving in combat, there is only one major barrier to military service for an entire class of people: homosexuality.
Despite the fact that the same moot canard has been used against other classes of people, such as persons of color and women, the most common reason for forbidding service to openly gay persons is "unit cohesion". The theory is that if a unit was aware that a gay person was serving with them, that unit would not function as a unit. It would, in fact, be at risk of tearing itself apart.
I always found this theory to be a bit insulting. I was asked to serve alongside farm boys and inner city kids, with whom I had very little in common personally. Face it - we all have prejudices, and I am no exception to this truism. But in becoming a platoon, we each had to overcome our prejudices to bond as a unit.
Just as there are dyed-in-the-wool racists who will never change, and have no place in our military, there will be those who will never accept homosexuals as equals. The solution is to weed those people out, not to prevent homosexuals from serving their country.
The anti-homosexual policy in the military went through a shift in 1993. A policy commonly known as Don't Ask Don't Tell was put into place. The practical effect of DADT was that the military would not ask its personnel to say if they were homosexual or not. In exchange, service members would not say or acknowledge if they were gay or not.
At the time, it seemed a reasonable compromise and it probably was. The effect, however, is that the policy required homosexual people to lie to the service, to themselves, to their friends, and to their families about who they were. Upon reflection, these restrictions seem unfair.
In a time of war, the policy also proved problematic. Any soldier who was revealed to be homosexual was subject to discharge - even if that soldier filled a critical role, such as Arabic translator. As of 2007, 58 Arabic linguists had been ousted from service because of DADT.
Beginning in 2001, the DADT policy was modified so that it would not be enforced against service members serving in combat zones. The rationale was the these personnel were too critical to the mission to lose any of them to the policy. This fact played a pivotal role in a recent federal district court ruling in California, which struck down the entire DADT policy as unconstitutional.
As Judge Virgina Phillips ruled, if unit cohesion is important in times of peace, it would seem to be doubly so in times of war, in a combat zone. Yet the military did not increase or tighten enforcement of the policy, it relaxed it. Having a valued member of a team pulled out of that team has more of a negative effect on the unit than the unit discovering a member is gay - something most of the members of the team might have known or suspected anyway.
If my experience in the military taught me nothing, it is that people of disparate backgrounds can, and will, come together as a team. It should be no surprise that members of our military can accept a gay service member as easily as anyone else.
Our military exists to protect our liberty from those who would take it from us. It is an arm of a political system that is based on personal freedom. The DADT policy violates the First Amendment rights of gay service members. It puts our nation and other members of the service at risk. And it is an affront to our national pride in a quality that we say we admire: that a young man or woman would risk his or her life to serve their country.
We should all celebrate and support Judge Phillips's ruling, then drink a toast to the end of DADT. Next up, the last vestiges of discrimination: allowing women to serve in combat and to register for the draft.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 16, 2010.
Of all the divisions of the U.S. government, the military is likely the most conservative, in this context meaning cautious and resistant to change. But the military must reflect society, and eventually, it does change. First, the military integrated on racial lines. Then it allowed women to serve alongside men in non-combat roles.
Aside from women serving in combat, there is only one major barrier to military service for an entire class of people: homosexuality.
Despite the fact that the same moot canard has been used against other classes of people, such as persons of color and women, the most common reason for forbidding service to openly gay persons is "unit cohesion". The theory is that if a unit was aware that a gay person was serving with them, that unit would not function as a unit. It would, in fact, be at risk of tearing itself apart.
I always found this theory to be a bit insulting. I was asked to serve alongside farm boys and inner city kids, with whom I had very little in common personally. Face it - we all have prejudices, and I am no exception to this truism. But in becoming a platoon, we each had to overcome our prejudices to bond as a unit.
Just as there are dyed-in-the-wool racists who will never change, and have no place in our military, there will be those who will never accept homosexuals as equals. The solution is to weed those people out, not to prevent homosexuals from serving their country.
The anti-homosexual policy in the military went through a shift in 1993. A policy commonly known as Don't Ask Don't Tell was put into place. The practical effect of DADT was that the military would not ask its personnel to say if they were homosexual or not. In exchange, service members would not say or acknowledge if they were gay or not.
At the time, it seemed a reasonable compromise and it probably was. The effect, however, is that the policy required homosexual people to lie to the service, to themselves, to their friends, and to their families about who they were. Upon reflection, these restrictions seem unfair.
In a time of war, the policy also proved problematic. Any soldier who was revealed to be homosexual was subject to discharge - even if that soldier filled a critical role, such as Arabic translator. As of 2007, 58 Arabic linguists had been ousted from service because of DADT.
Beginning in 2001, the DADT policy was modified so that it would not be enforced against service members serving in combat zones. The rationale was the these personnel were too critical to the mission to lose any of them to the policy. This fact played a pivotal role in a recent federal district court ruling in California, which struck down the entire DADT policy as unconstitutional.
As Judge Virgina Phillips ruled, if unit cohesion is important in times of peace, it would seem to be doubly so in times of war, in a combat zone. Yet the military did not increase or tighten enforcement of the policy, it relaxed it. Having a valued member of a team pulled out of that team has more of a negative effect on the unit than the unit discovering a member is gay - something most of the members of the team might have known or suspected anyway.
If my experience in the military taught me nothing, it is that people of disparate backgrounds can, and will, come together as a team. It should be no surprise that members of our military can accept a gay service member as easily as anyone else.
Our military exists to protect our liberty from those who would take it from us. It is an arm of a political system that is based on personal freedom. The DADT policy violates the First Amendment rights of gay service members. It puts our nation and other members of the service at risk. And it is an affront to our national pride in a quality that we say we admire: that a young man or woman would risk his or her life to serve their country.
We should all celebrate and support Judge Phillips's ruling, then drink a toast to the end of DADT. Next up, the last vestiges of discrimination: allowing women to serve in combat and to register for the draft.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Beck's Dream
Beck's Dream
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 2, 2010.
Last week, on August 28, Fox News personality Glenn Beck held a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Beck is simultaneously put upon a pedestal by the extreme right wing and denigrated by the majority of the left wing for his utterances, conspiracy theories, near-lunatic rants, and unsubstantiated claims.
Many liberal personalities and organizations were especially critical of Beck because of his choice not only of date for his rally but for its venue. The famous "I Have a Dream" speech was given by Martin Luther King, Jr., on August 28, 1963 on those very steps. Considering the vitriol that Beck has launched against President Barack Obama, including unsubstantiated claims that Obama has hate for "white people and white culture," many have taken personal offense at the event and its organizer.
I can't say that I take the same offense. I'm a great admirer of King's, and admire his I Have a Dream speech so much that I include it in a short list on my web site, a list of documents that I consider of uncommon importance to the nation. And, to be sure, I have no love for Beck. I shake my head in disbelief at his antics, guffaw at his misstatements, and cringe if I ever mistune to his radio or TV programs.
But in the great tradition of the 1st Amendment, Beck has every right to speak his mind in a public venue, and to gather supporters and detractors alike to witness his speech and those of his invited guests. As for the date, there are, after all, only 365 days in a year, and only about half of those in Washington's warm days. As for venues, there are only a few as iconic as the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. If we start to restrict dates and places because something of import happened there once, we will eventually run out of dates and venues.
I honestly don't know if Beck's choice of the date and place is a deliberate affront to the memory of King, but to me it almost doesn't matter. Even a deliberate affront is an exercise of free speech. If a man is being a fool, his actions will show him to be a fool. If a man speaks like a fool, his words will show him to be a fool. Let the man speak unmolested, that we might all hear.
And hear we did - from continuous coverage on Fox to lengthy articles on national news sites, Beck certainly got his chance to air his views. More than anything else, it turned out to be an old-fashioned revival.
In the weeks before the rally, Beck started to say that his event, which was entitled "Restoring Honor" and which was ostensibly held to honor members of the U.S. military, could actually be witness to the word of God emanating from his very mouth. Beck said all he was going to write down for his speech were bullet points, in case "the Spirit wants to talk."
Then, at the rally itself, Beck said that beginning with his rally, America was "turning back to God - for too long, this country has wandered in darkness." Stay tuned to find out when the Church of Beck is slated to open. Beck has said that his inspiration to organize the event came from God himself, that God dropped a "giant sandbag" on his head.
The crowd was substantial, though estimates varied from between 78,000 to a half million. Fortunately for Beck, and unfortunately for those of us who are amused by the sometimes silly, sometimes badly spelled, sometimes ironic, and sometimes hateful placards carried by the Tea Party faithful, most attendees heeded Beck's request that such placards remain out of the rally. The reason for the request, Beck said, was that the event was not political in nature. This in itself is laughable - it was, of course, all about politics.
Last time I wrote about the importance of upholding our freedom of religion, even if the religion is one we do not understand or agree with. I've written before in defense of speech I disagree with, have done so again today, and will continue to do so.
Only by supporting and defending the free speech rights of our foes can we reasonably claim them and defend them for ourselves.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on September 2, 2010.
Last week, on August 28, Fox News personality Glenn Beck held a rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Beck is simultaneously put upon a pedestal by the extreme right wing and denigrated by the majority of the left wing for his utterances, conspiracy theories, near-lunatic rants, and unsubstantiated claims.
Many liberal personalities and organizations were especially critical of Beck because of his choice not only of date for his rally but for its venue. The famous "I Have a Dream" speech was given by Martin Luther King, Jr., on August 28, 1963 on those very steps. Considering the vitriol that Beck has launched against President Barack Obama, including unsubstantiated claims that Obama has hate for "white people and white culture," many have taken personal offense at the event and its organizer.
I can't say that I take the same offense. I'm a great admirer of King's, and admire his I Have a Dream speech so much that I include it in a short list on my web site, a list of documents that I consider of uncommon importance to the nation. And, to be sure, I have no love for Beck. I shake my head in disbelief at his antics, guffaw at his misstatements, and cringe if I ever mistune to his radio or TV programs.
But in the great tradition of the 1st Amendment, Beck has every right to speak his mind in a public venue, and to gather supporters and detractors alike to witness his speech and those of his invited guests. As for the date, there are, after all, only 365 days in a year, and only about half of those in Washington's warm days. As for venues, there are only a few as iconic as the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. If we start to restrict dates and places because something of import happened there once, we will eventually run out of dates and venues.
I honestly don't know if Beck's choice of the date and place is a deliberate affront to the memory of King, but to me it almost doesn't matter. Even a deliberate affront is an exercise of free speech. If a man is being a fool, his actions will show him to be a fool. If a man speaks like a fool, his words will show him to be a fool. Let the man speak unmolested, that we might all hear.
And hear we did - from continuous coverage on Fox to lengthy articles on national news sites, Beck certainly got his chance to air his views. More than anything else, it turned out to be an old-fashioned revival.
In the weeks before the rally, Beck started to say that his event, which was entitled "Restoring Honor" and which was ostensibly held to honor members of the U.S. military, could actually be witness to the word of God emanating from his very mouth. Beck said all he was going to write down for his speech were bullet points, in case "the Spirit wants to talk."
Then, at the rally itself, Beck said that beginning with his rally, America was "turning back to God - for too long, this country has wandered in darkness." Stay tuned to find out when the Church of Beck is slated to open. Beck has said that his inspiration to organize the event came from God himself, that God dropped a "giant sandbag" on his head.
The crowd was substantial, though estimates varied from between 78,000 to a half million. Fortunately for Beck, and unfortunately for those of us who are amused by the sometimes silly, sometimes badly spelled, sometimes ironic, and sometimes hateful placards carried by the Tea Party faithful, most attendees heeded Beck's request that such placards remain out of the rally. The reason for the request, Beck said, was that the event was not political in nature. This in itself is laughable - it was, of course, all about politics.
Last time I wrote about the importance of upholding our freedom of religion, even if the religion is one we do not understand or agree with. I've written before in defense of speech I disagree with, have done so again today, and will continue to do so.
Only by supporting and defending the free speech rights of our foes can we reasonably claim them and defend them for ourselves.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Denounce right-wing attacks on mosque
Denounce right-wing attacks on mosque
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 19, 2010.
"Thou shalt allow religious freedom" - this is as close to a secular commandment that the United States has. Along with the freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition, freedom of religion is an important First Amendment right.
We have often let ourselves be blinded to our freedoms (adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance, for example, as a counter to communist godlessness, and in doing so violating the spirit of religious freedom). Some of the figureheads of the Republican Party and conservative movement, however, have latched on to a new issue to garner support while not only turning a blind eye to the principle, but actively disrespecting it.
In case you have not heard, there is a brouhaha brewing about a new building being proposed for 51 Park Place in lower Manhattan. The building, aptly named Park51 and financed by Islamic community groups, will contain a gym, an auditorium, a restaurant, a library, childcare facilities, a September 11 memorial, and, controversially, a mosque.
Over the past month, the shrill right has begun to keen about this issue. Such Republican luminaries as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have publicly denounced the project. One person, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, is advocating not just a halt to the building of the Park51 mosque, but a halt to the construction of all mosques across the United States.
Driven by the talking heads, some less thoughtful right wing sheep have begun to flock to the city to hold up placards and protest signs. I'm almost too embarrassed for them to reprint what they say, but the only way to illustrate the lunacy is to do so:
All of this lunacy over nothing.
The truth is that the proposed mosque is not at Ground Zero. Imagine, for a moment, that Burlington's Town Center Mall is Ground Zero. The location of the mosque in New York City is equivalent to where Burlington's Fletcher Free Library is. No one would say that the library is "in" the Burlington Town Center Mall. It is a mistake at best, and a deception at worst, to say that the proposed site is "at" Ground Zero.
All of this lunacy in contrary to a cherished American principle.
I think it is safe to say that if Park51 was going to hold a chapel, church, or synagogue, then there would be not so much as a single breath wasted on it. The fact that it is a mosque should not be relevant.
An argument is that Islam is a religion of violence, and allowing the mosque at Park51 is akin to allowing a terrorist training ground in the middle of Lower Manhattan. This guilt by association only works because many people buy into the notion that Islam is a religion of violence. What Islam has is an unfortunate number of fanatics who twist the religion to their own agenda, and that's no reason to stop construction at Park51, let alone, of course, a nationwide moratorium.
Based on that sort of logic, the actions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh would have stopped construction of Catholic churches; Scott Roeder's killing of abortion doctor George Tiller and Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph should have closed down other Christian churches. Religious terrorism is not unique to Islam. We cannot paint an entire religion with the brush given to us by these zealots.
Fortunately, at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail. Though some called it a political risk, President Obama came out firmly in support of the Park51 project, as has New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Americans, regardless of creed or political leaning, should lend their support to the groups responsible for the Park51 project. If you cannot, perhaps you should rethink your feelings about religious freedom in general.
As a reminder, the primary elections are taking place next Tuesday. There are choices to be made on both the Democratic and Republican ballots. Primaries are much less well attended than the general election, but I hope that if you were not sure about voting on Tuesday, a few words of encouragement will sway you.
Voting is another of our cherished rights, and we should not waste it. Please, vote on Tuesday.
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on August 19, 2010.
"Thou shalt allow religious freedom" - this is as close to a secular commandment that the United States has. Along with the freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition, freedom of religion is an important First Amendment right.
We have often let ourselves be blinded to our freedoms (adding "under God" to our Pledge of Allegiance, for example, as a counter to communist godlessness, and in doing so violating the spirit of religious freedom). Some of the figureheads of the Republican Party and conservative movement, however, have latched on to a new issue to garner support while not only turning a blind eye to the principle, but actively disrespecting it.
In case you have not heard, there is a brouhaha brewing about a new building being proposed for 51 Park Place in lower Manhattan. The building, aptly named Park51 and financed by Islamic community groups, will contain a gym, an auditorium, a restaurant, a library, childcare facilities, a September 11 memorial, and, controversially, a mosque.
Over the past month, the shrill right has begun to keen about this issue. Such Republican luminaries as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich have publicly denounced the project. One person, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, is advocating not just a halt to the building of the Park51 mosque, but a halt to the construction of all mosques across the United States.
Driven by the talking heads, some less thoughtful right wing sheep have begun to flock to the city to hold up placards and protest signs. I'm almost too embarrassed for them to reprint what they say, but the only way to illustrate the lunacy is to do so:
- "Don't glorify murders of 3000 - no 9/11 Victory Mosque"
- "Islam builds mosques at the sites of their conquests and victories"
- "A mosque at Ground Zero spits on the graves of 9/11 victims"
All of this lunacy over nothing.
The truth is that the proposed mosque is not at Ground Zero. Imagine, for a moment, that Burlington's Town Center Mall is Ground Zero. The location of the mosque in New York City is equivalent to where Burlington's Fletcher Free Library is. No one would say that the library is "in" the Burlington Town Center Mall. It is a mistake at best, and a deception at worst, to say that the proposed site is "at" Ground Zero.
All of this lunacy in contrary to a cherished American principle.
I think it is safe to say that if Park51 was going to hold a chapel, church, or synagogue, then there would be not so much as a single breath wasted on it. The fact that it is a mosque should not be relevant.
An argument is that Islam is a religion of violence, and allowing the mosque at Park51 is akin to allowing a terrorist training ground in the middle of Lower Manhattan. This guilt by association only works because many people buy into the notion that Islam is a religion of violence. What Islam has is an unfortunate number of fanatics who twist the religion to their own agenda, and that's no reason to stop construction at Park51, let alone, of course, a nationwide moratorium.
Based on that sort of logic, the actions of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh would have stopped construction of Catholic churches; Scott Roeder's killing of abortion doctor George Tiller and Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric Rudolph should have closed down other Christian churches. Religious terrorism is not unique to Islam. We cannot paint an entire religion with the brush given to us by these zealots.
Fortunately, at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail. Though some called it a political risk, President Obama came out firmly in support of the Park51 project, as has New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Americans, regardless of creed or political leaning, should lend their support to the groups responsible for the Park51 project. If you cannot, perhaps you should rethink your feelings about religious freedom in general.
As a reminder, the primary elections are taking place next Tuesday. There are choices to be made on both the Democratic and Republican ballots. Primaries are much less well attended than the general election, but I hope that if you were not sure about voting on Tuesday, a few words of encouragement will sway you.
Voting is another of our cherished rights, and we should not waste it. Please, vote on Tuesday.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Arizona law is unconstitutional
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 29, 2010.
Note: this entry was written before certain provisions of the Arizona law were stayed by a federal judge.
Arizona law is unconstitutional
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the history of immigration in America, focusing on discrimination that various ethnic groups have suffered. In particular, I focused on the most recent groups to suffer, Hispanics and Latinos.
What I did not get into was the most recent issue, the state-level immigration policies that are scheduled to go into effect today in Arizona. The state law requires immigrants in Arizona to carry their immigration papers with them at all times. If a state or local law enforcement officer has a suspicion that any particular individual is an illegal immigrant, they are required to question that person about their immigration status.
The law has been excoriated by many other state and local governments, many going so far as to put official boycotts of Arizona in place, forbidding, for example, attendance at conferences held in Arizona. This is not to say that there is no support for the law. Nine states, including those as diverse as Michigan and Alabama, have officially endorsed the law in legal briefs.
According to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws." Here, Cox is simply incorrect. Cox went on to lament that the Obama Administration was spending tax payer dollars fighting the Arizona law.
There are two major problems with this law, and they both run smack into the supreme law, the U.S. Constitution. The first is found in two parts of the original text of the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; and at Article 6.
Article 1, Section 8 is all about the powers of the federal government. The powers listed therein are not shared by the federal government and state governments. They are exclusively federal. These include the power to coin money, to establish post offices, to establish patents and copyrights, and the power to maintain an army and navy. In that list is Clause 4, which grants the power to establish a "uniform rule of Naturalization." In this context, "naturalization" is an umbrella term that includes immigration policy.
States can argue that this clause does not, actually, include immigration, but they would then have to argue against almost 200 years of established legal precedent on the matter. The ability of states to convince the Supreme Court that its precedent on this issue is incorrect seems unlikely.
Article 6 simply buttresses this argument by noting that the Constitution, and laws made under it, are the supreme law of the United States. A law passed by a state that impinges upon federal powers is no law at all.
Finally, the law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons due process under the law. Laws cannot be applied arbitrarily and capriciously. We rely on the judgement of our police officers for many things, and I applaud and support them in the application of that judgement. But here, Arizona police officers will have to make decisions about people based on their perception of an individual. What distinguishes a legal Latino immigrant from an illegal Latino immigrant? Is there something you can see in their eyes? A change in their skin tone? A certain scent a police officer can pick up? Anything, at all, that an officer can use as an objective measuring stick?
No, there is not. Either they will have to ignore the law or they will have to consider all persons who do not have their proper papers as illegals. The casting of this wide net will undoubtedly catch illegal immigrants. But it will just as undoubtedly catch legal immigrants and even native-born citizens of the United States.
Even if immigration was not the exclusive bailiwick of the federal government, these terms of the law are enough to render it null and void. It is my sincere hope that the courts that hear the case smack this law down with the full force of Constitution and send a message to all states that such a usurpation of federal authority will not be tolerated.
If the Obama Administration should be spending tax payer dollars anywhere, it is in fighting state violations of the Constitution. We have, after all, already fought a civil war over the issue of states trying to override federal authority over powers granted to it in the Constitution. What would be a waste, morally, legally, and constitutionally, is to not fight Arizona's law.
Note: this entry was written before certain provisions of the Arizona law were stayed by a federal judge.
Arizona law is unconstitutional
Two weeks ago, I wrote about the history of immigration in America, focusing on discrimination that various ethnic groups have suffered. In particular, I focused on the most recent groups to suffer, Hispanics and Latinos.
What I did not get into was the most recent issue, the state-level immigration policies that are scheduled to go into effect today in Arizona. The state law requires immigrants in Arizona to carry their immigration papers with them at all times. If a state or local law enforcement officer has a suspicion that any particular individual is an illegal immigrant, they are required to question that person about their immigration status.
The law has been excoriated by many other state and local governments, many going so far as to put official boycotts of Arizona in place, forbidding, for example, attendance at conferences held in Arizona. This is not to say that there is no support for the law. Nine states, including those as diverse as Michigan and Alabama, have officially endorsed the law in legal briefs.
According to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, "Arizona, Michigan and every other state have the authority to enforce immigration laws." Here, Cox is simply incorrect. Cox went on to lament that the Obama Administration was spending tax payer dollars fighting the Arizona law.
There are two major problems with this law, and they both run smack into the supreme law, the U.S. Constitution. The first is found in two parts of the original text of the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4; and at Article 6.
Article 1, Section 8 is all about the powers of the federal government. The powers listed therein are not shared by the federal government and state governments. They are exclusively federal. These include the power to coin money, to establish post offices, to establish patents and copyrights, and the power to maintain an army and navy. In that list is Clause 4, which grants the power to establish a "uniform rule of Naturalization." In this context, "naturalization" is an umbrella term that includes immigration policy.
States can argue that this clause does not, actually, include immigration, but they would then have to argue against almost 200 years of established legal precedent on the matter. The ability of states to convince the Supreme Court that its precedent on this issue is incorrect seems unlikely.
Article 6 simply buttresses this argument by noting that the Constitution, and laws made under it, are the supreme law of the United States. A law passed by a state that impinges upon federal powers is no law at all.
Finally, the law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons due process under the law. Laws cannot be applied arbitrarily and capriciously. We rely on the judgement of our police officers for many things, and I applaud and support them in the application of that judgement. But here, Arizona police officers will have to make decisions about people based on their perception of an individual. What distinguishes a legal Latino immigrant from an illegal Latino immigrant? Is there something you can see in their eyes? A change in their skin tone? A certain scent a police officer can pick up? Anything, at all, that an officer can use as an objective measuring stick?
No, there is not. Either they will have to ignore the law or they will have to consider all persons who do not have their proper papers as illegals. The casting of this wide net will undoubtedly catch illegal immigrants. But it will just as undoubtedly catch legal immigrants and even native-born citizens of the United States.
Even if immigration was not the exclusive bailiwick of the federal government, these terms of the law are enough to render it null and void. It is my sincere hope that the courts that hear the case smack this law down with the full force of Constitution and send a message to all states that such a usurpation of federal authority will not be tolerated.
If the Obama Administration should be spending tax payer dollars anywhere, it is in fighting state violations of the Constitution. We have, after all, already fought a civil war over the issue of states trying to override federal authority over powers granted to it in the Constitution. What would be a waste, morally, legally, and constitutionally, is to not fight Arizona's law.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Solving the immigration problem
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 15, 2010.
Solving the immigration problem
The cliche is that the United States is a nation of immigrants. Often cliches are simply untrue, but in this case nothing could be closer to the truth. With the exception of 1.5 percent of us who, in the 2000 census, reported aboriginal heritage, the vast majority of Americans are the products of immigrant heritage.
The waves of immigration the United States has had include the English, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Russian Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and Armenians. Throughout the 19th century, the United States was a beacon to Europeans escaping famine, economic collapse, and war.
At almost any point in history, we can find anti-immigration sentiment, often worked up to a fever pitch. The Italians; the Irish; the Chinese; the latest immigrant demon is Hispanics.
Liberals are often painted with a broad brush, and on immigration there is no exception. We're soft on illegal immigrants, willing to open our borders to anyone who comes knocking, happy to offer up tax-financed social services to anyone.
These are not the positions that we take, however, and anyone who is willing to do more than sixty seconds of research on the Internet or to talk to a liberal friend will confirm it.
What, then, can we say about how liberals think about immigration?
Liberals are, if nothing else, realistic pragmatists. We recognize that the United States is still a great beacon to people of the world. Department of Homeland Security statistics show that we accept legal immigrants from every corner of the globe: 660 thousand in 2007, just over 1 million in 2008, and 744 thousand in 2009. The top countries of birth in 2009 were Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and South Korea. In that small list, we can see a wide variety of languages, religions, and ethnic groups. Just the sort of melting pot that our children still learn about in civics classes.
People want to come here for all the right reasons, and we, as a nation, are willing to let immigrants come. Thankfully, the current debate is less about legal immigration, but what to do about illegal immigrants. These are people we all know are here, whom we all rely on to some degree directly or indirectly, but who we often prefer to pretend don't exist.
Perhaps it is time to create a new immigration status. Many illegal immigrants don't want to become citizens - they just want to work to support their families. We are more than happy to allow skilled workers into the United States. We encourage it even, with special visas. The H1-B visa allows people to come to the United States to work, where the intent of the worker is not to be an immigrant. The visa is only good for specific positions and only as long as the person is in the specific job.
There is no equivalent for unskilled workers, however. Perhaps there should be.
Let's face it — illegal workers are willing to do things that most Americans are not. Whether it is to clean hotel rooms, pick fruit, milk cows, do simple construction, sew garments, or take care of children, the jobs are there because there are illegal immigrants willing to take them. With a special non-immigrant status, allowing certain persons to come to the United States to live and work, we could control the flow better, keep better track of people, even increase tax revenues. Not quite an H1-B visa, with all of its paperwork and sponsorships, but something much more than the illegal status most such workers now have.
Closing off the border is not the answer. Border walls and fences can help stanch the flow of illegal immigrants in some specific places, but we cannot enclose the United States in a protective wall. It is impractical and would give us all a bunker mentality we have been lucky to avoid so far.
Above all, the United States is a place that should be a beacon to the world. To live up to that ideal, we must be compassionate even as we enforce our laws. In creating a new class of visa, we might eventually prevent most illegal immigration — with the added benefit of preventing these poor souls from falling victim to desert heat or, often worse, the villainy of organized crime.
I'm not sure what the answer to the question of illegal immigration is, but I am sure that demonizing illegal immigrants is not it.
Solving the immigration problem
The cliche is that the United States is a nation of immigrants. Often cliches are simply untrue, but in this case nothing could be closer to the truth. With the exception of 1.5 percent of us who, in the 2000 census, reported aboriginal heritage, the vast majority of Americans are the products of immigrant heritage.
The waves of immigration the United States has had include the English, Norwegians, Germans, Irish, Russian Jews, Mexicans, Asians, and Armenians. Throughout the 19th century, the United States was a beacon to Europeans escaping famine, economic collapse, and war.
At almost any point in history, we can find anti-immigration sentiment, often worked up to a fever pitch. The Italians; the Irish; the Chinese; the latest immigrant demon is Hispanics.
Liberals are often painted with a broad brush, and on immigration there is no exception. We're soft on illegal immigrants, willing to open our borders to anyone who comes knocking, happy to offer up tax-financed social services to anyone.
These are not the positions that we take, however, and anyone who is willing to do more than sixty seconds of research on the Internet or to talk to a liberal friend will confirm it.
What, then, can we say about how liberals think about immigration?
Liberals are, if nothing else, realistic pragmatists. We recognize that the United States is still a great beacon to people of the world. Department of Homeland Security statistics show that we accept legal immigrants from every corner of the globe: 660 thousand in 2007, just over 1 million in 2008, and 744 thousand in 2009. The top countries of birth in 2009 were Mexico, India, the Philippines, China, Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and South Korea. In that small list, we can see a wide variety of languages, religions, and ethnic groups. Just the sort of melting pot that our children still learn about in civics classes.
People want to come here for all the right reasons, and we, as a nation, are willing to let immigrants come. Thankfully, the current debate is less about legal immigration, but what to do about illegal immigrants. These are people we all know are here, whom we all rely on to some degree directly or indirectly, but who we often prefer to pretend don't exist.
Perhaps it is time to create a new immigration status. Many illegal immigrants don't want to become citizens - they just want to work to support their families. We are more than happy to allow skilled workers into the United States. We encourage it even, with special visas. The H1-B visa allows people to come to the United States to work, where the intent of the worker is not to be an immigrant. The visa is only good for specific positions and only as long as the person is in the specific job.
There is no equivalent for unskilled workers, however. Perhaps there should be.
Let's face it — illegal workers are willing to do things that most Americans are not. Whether it is to clean hotel rooms, pick fruit, milk cows, do simple construction, sew garments, or take care of children, the jobs are there because there are illegal immigrants willing to take them. With a special non-immigrant status, allowing certain persons to come to the United States to live and work, we could control the flow better, keep better track of people, even increase tax revenues. Not quite an H1-B visa, with all of its paperwork and sponsorships, but something much more than the illegal status most such workers now have.
Closing off the border is not the answer. Border walls and fences can help stanch the flow of illegal immigrants in some specific places, but we cannot enclose the United States in a protective wall. It is impractical and would give us all a bunker mentality we have been lucky to avoid so far.
Above all, the United States is a place that should be a beacon to the world. To live up to that ideal, we must be compassionate even as we enforce our laws. In creating a new class of visa, we might eventually prevent most illegal immigration — with the added benefit of preventing these poor souls from falling victim to desert heat or, often worse, the villainy of organized crime.
I'm not sure what the answer to the question of illegal immigration is, but I am sure that demonizing illegal immigrants is not it.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on July 1, 2010.
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
The latest liberal-leaning Internet meme is a new take on the Republican Party's venerable elephant logo. You know the one — the red-bodied elephant with the blue upper body emblazoned with three big white stars.
The new meme converts the elephant to BP greens, with a dark green body and a light green upper body. The stars are replaced by the BP rosette, and the elephant's truck has a oil gusher squirting out of it. The meme also renames the "Grand Old Party" to the "Grand Oil Party," inserting the "B" from BP to make the point painfully clear: GObP.
The new icon comes from the creative staff of left-leaning news show host Keith Olbermann, and is intended to poke fun at (and speak truth to) the Republican members of Congress who have taken to defending BP from criticism.
The most blatant example was that of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who went on record in a House committee hearing on June 17 and apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward. The day before, the Obama White House and BP had announced that BP would set up a $20 billion trust fund to help fund clean-up efforts and to compensate victims of the economic damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barton called the agreement a "shake-down," said that the agreement violated due process, and that it was illegal. Barton was "ashamed" of the agreement, and apologized to BP and Hayward for it.
What the rest of us might call "the right thing," or, "the least BP could do," Barton was calling an illegal shakedown for which he was ashamed. The only shame should have been Barton's. What he exposed himself as, as though we couldn't already tell considering his accumulated campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry generally and from BP specifically, was a shill for the industry.
One member of Congress bending over backwards for the industry does not deserve a whole new logo, though. Fortunately for the logo makers, there were plenty of other Republicans who were more than willing to bend for BP.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) also put his foot in his mouth. After rightfully praising BP for paying out what claims it has already, he also lambasted the President for meeting with BP and coming to an agreement with them. What Barton and Price seem to forget is that it is the President's job, the government's job, to protect our nation and its people from all threats, including the threat of irresponsible companies and the threat of on-going economic damage.
Frequently shrill Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) worried aloud that BP was going to get "fleeced" by claims and that the victims' fund would end up being just a "redistribution of wealth." Yes, from the cash-soaked BP to the broke and possibly bankrupt people of the Gulf region whose jobs and even careers were ruined by BP's spill. If there is to be any redistribution of wealth, this is the place for it.
Finally, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" fame, has been using Twitter and Facebook to come to the defense of BP. Citing an article that equates the trust fund to Nazism, Palin called the agreement "an unconstitutional power grab."
Who are all these people kidding?
Every day, at nearly any hour, we can still turn on the television and watch as barrel after barrel of oil leaks out of the Deepwater Horizon well. I'm certainly troubled that our federal regulations did not require companies to have better plans for this sort of thing, but that is no excuse for this disaster.
In my last column, I wrote that the time to assess blame for the long-term effects of this disaster was not yet here. But there has been more than enough time to assess blame in the short-term. Any reasonable person would place that blame firmly on BP — heck, BP itself is taking the blame in interview after interview and hearing after hearing.
The attempts by these members of the GObP to deflect this short-term blame by raising the flag of unfairness, illegality, or unconstitutionality, are so transparent as to be laughable.
So don't blame yourself for having a small chuckle over the BP-green elephant logo and the new moniker. A little dark humor helps us cope with disasters of this scale. It's just unfortunate that we seem to need so much dark humor these days.
The oil spill's biggest victim: BP?
The latest liberal-leaning Internet meme is a new take on the Republican Party's venerable elephant logo. You know the one — the red-bodied elephant with the blue upper body emblazoned with three big white stars.
The new meme converts the elephant to BP greens, with a dark green body and a light green upper body. The stars are replaced by the BP rosette, and the elephant's truck has a oil gusher squirting out of it. The meme also renames the "Grand Old Party" to the "Grand Oil Party," inserting the "B" from BP to make the point painfully clear: GObP.
The new icon comes from the creative staff of left-leaning news show host Keith Olbermann, and is intended to poke fun at (and speak truth to) the Republican members of Congress who have taken to defending BP from criticism.
The most blatant example was that of Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who went on record in a House committee hearing on June 17 and apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward. The day before, the Obama White House and BP had announced that BP would set up a $20 billion trust fund to help fund clean-up efforts and to compensate victims of the economic damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Barton called the agreement a "shake-down," said that the agreement violated due process, and that it was illegal. Barton was "ashamed" of the agreement, and apologized to BP and Hayward for it.
What the rest of us might call "the right thing," or, "the least BP could do," Barton was calling an illegal shakedown for which he was ashamed. The only shame should have been Barton's. What he exposed himself as, as though we couldn't already tell considering his accumulated campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry generally and from BP specifically, was a shill for the industry.
One member of Congress bending over backwards for the industry does not deserve a whole new logo, though. Fortunately for the logo makers, there were plenty of other Republicans who were more than willing to bend for BP.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) also put his foot in his mouth. After rightfully praising BP for paying out what claims it has already, he also lambasted the President for meeting with BP and coming to an agreement with them. What Barton and Price seem to forget is that it is the President's job, the government's job, to protect our nation and its people from all threats, including the threat of irresponsible companies and the threat of on-going economic damage.
Frequently shrill Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) worried aloud that BP was going to get "fleeced" by claims and that the victims' fund would end up being just a "redistribution of wealth." Yes, from the cash-soaked BP to the broke and possibly bankrupt people of the Gulf region whose jobs and even careers were ruined by BP's spill. If there is to be any redistribution of wealth, this is the place for it.
Finally, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, of "Drill, Baby, Drill!" fame, has been using Twitter and Facebook to come to the defense of BP. Citing an article that equates the trust fund to Nazism, Palin called the agreement "an unconstitutional power grab."
Who are all these people kidding?
Every day, at nearly any hour, we can still turn on the television and watch as barrel after barrel of oil leaks out of the Deepwater Horizon well. I'm certainly troubled that our federal regulations did not require companies to have better plans for this sort of thing, but that is no excuse for this disaster.
In my last column, I wrote that the time to assess blame for the long-term effects of this disaster was not yet here. But there has been more than enough time to assess blame in the short-term. Any reasonable person would place that blame firmly on BP — heck, BP itself is taking the blame in interview after interview and hearing after hearing.
The attempts by these members of the GObP to deflect this short-term blame by raising the flag of unfairness, illegality, or unconstitutionality, are so transparent as to be laughable.
So don't blame yourself for having a small chuckle over the BP-green elephant logo and the new moniker. A little dark humor helps us cope with disasters of this scale. It's just unfortunate that we seem to need so much dark humor these days.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Too early to assess blame
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 17, 2010.
Too early to assess blame
The overriding question in the Gulf of Mexico right now is how can the daily spewing of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels of crude oil be stopped and, eventually, cleaned up. Inevitably, however, the question will be who is to blame for the disaster.
Parenthetically, given past history, it is likely that it will be decades before all the cases are heard and decided. The 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled a total of 200,000 barrels of oil (which the Deepwater Horizon can leak in just 10 days), is still being litigated. In 2008, the Supreme Court sent a punitive damages award case back to the lower courts for further hearings.
On my website, in the month of June, I've been taking a poll asking my visitors exactly who they blame for the on-going disaster. The choices include BP, Halliburton, the majority and minority owners of the oil rig, and the government in any of three forms: the Minerals Management Service (in charge of off-shore oil rig regulation), the Obama Administration generally, or just The Government generally.
My site tends to attract a conservative audience (in 2009, 34 percent of my visitors self-reported as Republicans, only 13 percent as Democrats; 55 percent reported voting for John McCain, only 35 percent for Obama), so the results two weeks into the month are not shocking. Still, given the situation, I do find the numbers a little surprising.
Only 44 percent of respondents blame BP or one of the affiliated companies. 47 percent blame the government for the on-going disaster. 21 percent blame the Obama Administration specifically, even though the administration has, thus far, taken a very conservative approach and been relatively hands-off in terms of forcing the companies involved to do much of anything.
The approach makes some sense. An oil company should know best how to handle a spill at an oil rig — the oil company or at least the companies responsible for the component parts of the oil rig. Halliburton, for example, was contracted to do the final cementing of the oil well, and Cameron International is the supplier of the failed blow-out preventer. That these companies have failed to perform their basic duties is a condemnation of the industry in general.
When it comes to fixing a problem with one of these component parts, it should be the job of the company to fix them. This is not a liberal or conservative position — it is a common sense position. The fact the oil is important to the nation from a defense standpoint or from an economic standpoint is no excuse for not being able to control an oil spill, and not a reason to assume the spill is the government's fault.
I know my poll is hardly scientific. One visitor recently told me that because my poll does not allow for a write-in response, it is essentially "useless." I countered that Internet polls, mine included, are generally useless, because they are not controlled and they are self-selected.
But the sense I get from reading a few other polls is that the feeling is not isolated. In a USA Today/Yahoo poll released May 26, 75 percent thought BP was doing a poor job with the spill, but 53 percent thought the Obama administration was also doing a poor job.
As I've noted before, the President often gets blamed, or gets credit, for things that are not his doing. Regardless, the office of the presidency is a powerful and important one. What a president says matters. Obama is pushing BP and the industry from his bully pulpit, and that must continue.
The administration, in recent weeks, has gone on the offensive. This past weekend, the administration said they planned to order BP to establish a fund of an undetermined amount to help compensate victims of the spill. Earlier this week, the president visited affected states for the fourth time since the oil rig sank. The Energy Department has established a web site to consolidate all the data it can about the spill.
Is the administration doing all it can in the face of this disaster? Perhaps, perhaps not — that's a tough call at this point. It may only be in the calm of the post-disaster analysis that we can tell that for sure. For now, the priorities must be finally capping the leak, containing the already-lost oil, and protecting the fragile ecosystems of the Gulf coast.
There will be plenty of time, decades in fact, for blame.
Too early to assess blame
The overriding question in the Gulf of Mexico right now is how can the daily spewing of 20,000 to 40,000 barrels of crude oil be stopped and, eventually, cleaned up. Inevitably, however, the question will be who is to blame for the disaster.
Parenthetically, given past history, it is likely that it will be decades before all the cases are heard and decided. The 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled a total of 200,000 barrels of oil (which the Deepwater Horizon can leak in just 10 days), is still being litigated. In 2008, the Supreme Court sent a punitive damages award case back to the lower courts for further hearings.
On my website, in the month of June, I've been taking a poll asking my visitors exactly who they blame for the on-going disaster. The choices include BP, Halliburton, the majority and minority owners of the oil rig, and the government in any of three forms: the Minerals Management Service (in charge of off-shore oil rig regulation), the Obama Administration generally, or just The Government generally.
My site tends to attract a conservative audience (in 2009, 34 percent of my visitors self-reported as Republicans, only 13 percent as Democrats; 55 percent reported voting for John McCain, only 35 percent for Obama), so the results two weeks into the month are not shocking. Still, given the situation, I do find the numbers a little surprising.
Only 44 percent of respondents blame BP or one of the affiliated companies. 47 percent blame the government for the on-going disaster. 21 percent blame the Obama Administration specifically, even though the administration has, thus far, taken a very conservative approach and been relatively hands-off in terms of forcing the companies involved to do much of anything.
The approach makes some sense. An oil company should know best how to handle a spill at an oil rig — the oil company or at least the companies responsible for the component parts of the oil rig. Halliburton, for example, was contracted to do the final cementing of the oil well, and Cameron International is the supplier of the failed blow-out preventer. That these companies have failed to perform their basic duties is a condemnation of the industry in general.
When it comes to fixing a problem with one of these component parts, it should be the job of the company to fix them. This is not a liberal or conservative position — it is a common sense position. The fact the oil is important to the nation from a defense standpoint or from an economic standpoint is no excuse for not being able to control an oil spill, and not a reason to assume the spill is the government's fault.
I know my poll is hardly scientific. One visitor recently told me that because my poll does not allow for a write-in response, it is essentially "useless." I countered that Internet polls, mine included, are generally useless, because they are not controlled and they are self-selected.
But the sense I get from reading a few other polls is that the feeling is not isolated. In a USA Today/Yahoo poll released May 26, 75 percent thought BP was doing a poor job with the spill, but 53 percent thought the Obama administration was also doing a poor job.
As I've noted before, the President often gets blamed, or gets credit, for things that are not his doing. Regardless, the office of the presidency is a powerful and important one. What a president says matters. Obama is pushing BP and the industry from his bully pulpit, and that must continue.
The administration, in recent weeks, has gone on the offensive. This past weekend, the administration said they planned to order BP to establish a fund of an undetermined amount to help compensate victims of the spill. Earlier this week, the president visited affected states for the fourth time since the oil rig sank. The Energy Department has established a web site to consolidate all the data it can about the spill.
Is the administration doing all it can in the face of this disaster? Perhaps, perhaps not — that's a tough call at this point. It may only be in the calm of the post-disaster analysis that we can tell that for sure. For now, the priorities must be finally capping the leak, containing the already-lost oil, and protecting the fragile ecosystems of the Gulf coast.
There will be plenty of time, decades in fact, for blame.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The Sinking of the Cheonan
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 3, 2010. This version is slightly different from the published version.
The Sinking of the Cheonan
Just after 9:00 p.m. local time, on March 26, 2010, the sailors on the South Korean Navy corvette Cmheonan were thown into a mariner's nightmare. An explosion rocked the ship, and split it in two. The stern sank within minutes, according to the ship's captain. Of the 104 members aboard, only 58 were pulled from the sea. 46 are unaccounted for and are assumed drowned.
After weeks of rescue operations, the focus shifted to salvage and investigation. Portions of the hull of the Cheonan were visible above water, as the seas were only 130 feet deep at the site of the incident. By the end of April, both halves of the Cheonan had been recovered from the sea floor and were taken to a South Korean naval base for examination.
Speculation at the time of the tragedy was rampant, but experts said that only two causes were probable. Either an internal explosion, the result of an accident, fire, or some other incident on board; or an external explosion, the result of some kind of attack.
The Cheonan was operating within its territorial waters as declared by the United Nations. North Korea, however, considers the waters to belong to them. If the explosion was external, the North was the obvious suspect in an attack.
Within a day of the raising of both halves of the boat, the South Korean defense minister said that the cause of the splitting of the Cheonan was a "bubble jet," an extraordinary change in pressure that was strong enough to split the boat in half. Such a bubble jet can be caused by a proximate but non-contact explosion, as from a torpedo.
On May 20, an international commission consisting of Koreans, Americans, British, Swedes, and Australians, released a report on the sinking of the Cheonan. The report's conclusion was unequivocal:
"The [commission] assesses that a strong underwater explosion generated by the detonation of a homing torpedo below and to the left of the gas turbine room caused Cheonan to split apart and sink."
The evidence is highly technical in nature, and I don't purport to understand it all, but it convinced the experts. Some parts of the evidence I understand quite well: torpedo parts mixed in with the wreckage of the Cheonan. Though the Cheonan herself carried torpedoes, the parts included marks that were consistent with other North Korean-made torpedoes previously obtained by the allies.
North Korea, however, is not quite so convinced.
According to North Korea's official English-language news site, the commission's report is "foolish and fabricated." It called the Cheonan sailors traitors, and condemned the entire South Korean Navy as a "puppet navy." North Korea warned against any punishment for the sinking of the Cheonan, threatening "all-out war" if such measures are taken.
The bellicose blustering of the North is to be expected. Whether the attack on the South Korean ship was deliberate (the result of an order from on-high or an act of aggression by a lone captain) or an accident, it seems par for the course that North Korea would deny any involvement. The phrase "Thou dost protest too much" comes to mind.
American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attack by the North as "provocative" and said that the actions will have consequences. Though she failed to elaborate much further, she noted that "business as usual" could not continue.
Liberals are generally regarded as doves, but if this past Memorial Day is a reminder of nothing else, it must be that Americans of all kinds serve and have served — men, women, all races, colors, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, and political leanings. I think it is fair to say that no one of these groupings loves peace or is willing to fight to defend freedom more than any other.
Given that, it should be no surprise that President Obama's administration is willing to meet North Korea's tough talk with tough talk of its own. Our commitment to the freedom of the South Korean people should not be questioned, because through every administration since the armistice treaty was signed, our military has had a strong presence in South Korea.
By remaining firm in our resolve, and by using diplomacy (both public and secret), I hope that the North will own up to its responsibility. If it does not, and it provokes a fight, the South Koreans can rest assured that the United States will stand by them, up to and including war. It isn't what we want, but it is what we will do.
The Sinking of the Cheonan
Just after 9:00 p.m. local time, on March 26, 2010, the sailors on the South Korean Navy corvette Cmheonan were thown into a mariner's nightmare. An explosion rocked the ship, and split it in two. The stern sank within minutes, according to the ship's captain. Of the 104 members aboard, only 58 were pulled from the sea. 46 are unaccounted for and are assumed drowned.
After weeks of rescue operations, the focus shifted to salvage and investigation. Portions of the hull of the Cheonan were visible above water, as the seas were only 130 feet deep at the site of the incident. By the end of April, both halves of the Cheonan had been recovered from the sea floor and were taken to a South Korean naval base for examination.
Speculation at the time of the tragedy was rampant, but experts said that only two causes were probable. Either an internal explosion, the result of an accident, fire, or some other incident on board; or an external explosion, the result of some kind of attack.
The Cheonan was operating within its territorial waters as declared by the United Nations. North Korea, however, considers the waters to belong to them. If the explosion was external, the North was the obvious suspect in an attack.
Within a day of the raising of both halves of the boat, the South Korean defense minister said that the cause of the splitting of the Cheonan was a "bubble jet," an extraordinary change in pressure that was strong enough to split the boat in half. Such a bubble jet can be caused by a proximate but non-contact explosion, as from a torpedo.
On May 20, an international commission consisting of Koreans, Americans, British, Swedes, and Australians, released a report on the sinking of the Cheonan. The report's conclusion was unequivocal:
"The [commission] assesses that a strong underwater explosion generated by the detonation of a homing torpedo below and to the left of the gas turbine room caused Cheonan to split apart and sink."
The evidence is highly technical in nature, and I don't purport to understand it all, but it convinced the experts. Some parts of the evidence I understand quite well: torpedo parts mixed in with the wreckage of the Cheonan. Though the Cheonan herself carried torpedoes, the parts included marks that were consistent with other North Korean-made torpedoes previously obtained by the allies.
North Korea, however, is not quite so convinced.
According to North Korea's official English-language news site, the commission's report is "foolish and fabricated." It called the Cheonan sailors traitors, and condemned the entire South Korean Navy as a "puppet navy." North Korea warned against any punishment for the sinking of the Cheonan, threatening "all-out war" if such measures are taken.
The bellicose blustering of the North is to be expected. Whether the attack on the South Korean ship was deliberate (the result of an order from on-high or an act of aggression by a lone captain) or an accident, it seems par for the course that North Korea would deny any involvement. The phrase "Thou dost protest too much" comes to mind.
American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attack by the North as "provocative" and said that the actions will have consequences. Though she failed to elaborate much further, she noted that "business as usual" could not continue.
Liberals are generally regarded as doves, but if this past Memorial Day is a reminder of nothing else, it must be that Americans of all kinds serve and have served — men, women, all races, colors, religious beliefs, sexual orientations, and political leanings. I think it is fair to say that no one of these groupings loves peace or is willing to fight to defend freedom more than any other.
Given that, it should be no surprise that President Obama's administration is willing to meet North Korea's tough talk with tough talk of its own. Our commitment to the freedom of the South Korean people should not be questioned, because through every administration since the armistice treaty was signed, our military has had a strong presence in South Korea.
By remaining firm in our resolve, and by using diplomacy (both public and secret), I hope that the North will own up to its responsibility. If it does not, and it provokes a fight, the South Koreans can rest assured that the United States will stand by them, up to and including war. It isn't what we want, but it is what we will do.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 20, 2010.
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
You may or may not have ever heard of Adam Carolla — he's a radio personality who also hosted The Man Show on cable's Comedy Central and co-hosted Loveline, a sex and relationship advice show, with Dr. Drew Pinsky. Recently, tech website Gizmodo.com asked Carolla his opinions on a topic I've written about here before: nuclear power.
Normally, I would not use someone like Carolla as entree into a column topic, but what he had to say, in just a few minutes, was spot-on (though crude — if you look for Carolla's video at Gizmodo, be sure to watch once the kids are in bed).
The interview was posted days after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and a month after the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Regarding nuclear power, Carolla asks this pointed question: after 11 people died drilling for oil and nearly 30 died digging for coal in just the last month, exactly how many people have died producing nuclear power in the United States in the past month, or year, or decade?
His answer is zero. If we were to choose a way to produce power solely on the safety of the workers behind that power, nuclear is the clear choice.
Now, Carolla was riffing, and didn't stop to think that uranium is also mined (albeit by non-Americans). There are dangers to uranium mining, not the least of which is exposure to radioactive dust and radon gas. But these are risks that can (and should) be mitigated. Coal miners, though, are never quite sure if they will emerge from the mine when the make their way in.
Environmentally, the threat posed by offshore oil drilling is no longer just a threat — it is about as real as it can get. So real, in fact, that President Obama is having second thoughts about his plans to allow more such drilling, as is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Coal mining is no friend of the environment either, especially when the mountaintop removal method is used. Just think about that — removal of a mountaintop so we can burn the coal that the mountain is made of.
There are dangers, to be sure, in nuclear power. The last two years of news out of Vermont Yankee show that mistakes can and will be made; this is not to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These lessons cannot be fogotten.
These are, however, extreme examples. Given what we have learned since the last nuclear power plant in the United States came on line in 1996, and what other countries have learned, we know we can build safe, effective plants that can not only produce massive amounts of power in a relatively small space, but which can also reuse their own fuel, recycling it instead of sending if off for permanent storage.
Our power needs are growing and will continue to grow. Just imagine if electricity was clean, bountiful, and cheap. Just imagine quantum-leap discoveries in battery technology that would make the electric car ubiquitous. Just imagine if we no longer need fossil fuels to produce electricity nor run our cars.
If we redouble our efforts to bolster our reliance on renewables, continuing to improve solar cell efficiency and continuing to build wind farms in the right places, that will help. But what will also help is for we, as a nation, to decide that nuclear power must be a part of that future, too.
------------
I want to take this opportunity to bid farewell, on these pages, to Mike Benevento. I have had the pleasure of writing opposite him for a year. Our point and counterpoint columns have reaffirmed to me that it not only possible to have civil discussions about matters we disagree on, it is absolutely essential.
In the end, we share a love for this country and its democracy. We both know that there are a few things that are essential to our freedoms: a free press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a system of government that allows for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. Most likely, you reading this also share these values.
I look forward to debating the finer points of politics and the world with someone new. But be warned - you do have some large shoes to fill.
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
You may or may not have ever heard of Adam Carolla — he's a radio personality who also hosted The Man Show on cable's Comedy Central and co-hosted Loveline, a sex and relationship advice show, with Dr. Drew Pinsky. Recently, tech website Gizmodo.com asked Carolla his opinions on a topic I've written about here before: nuclear power.
Normally, I would not use someone like Carolla as entree into a column topic, but what he had to say, in just a few minutes, was spot-on (though crude — if you look for Carolla's video at Gizmodo, be sure to watch once the kids are in bed).
The interview was posted days after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and a month after the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Regarding nuclear power, Carolla asks this pointed question: after 11 people died drilling for oil and nearly 30 died digging for coal in just the last month, exactly how many people have died producing nuclear power in the United States in the past month, or year, or decade?
His answer is zero. If we were to choose a way to produce power solely on the safety of the workers behind that power, nuclear is the clear choice.
Now, Carolla was riffing, and didn't stop to think that uranium is also mined (albeit by non-Americans). There are dangers to uranium mining, not the least of which is exposure to radioactive dust and radon gas. But these are risks that can (and should) be mitigated. Coal miners, though, are never quite sure if they will emerge from the mine when the make their way in.
Environmentally, the threat posed by offshore oil drilling is no longer just a threat — it is about as real as it can get. So real, in fact, that President Obama is having second thoughts about his plans to allow more such drilling, as is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Coal mining is no friend of the environment either, especially when the mountaintop removal method is used. Just think about that — removal of a mountaintop so we can burn the coal that the mountain is made of.
There are dangers, to be sure, in nuclear power. The last two years of news out of Vermont Yankee show that mistakes can and will be made; this is not to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These lessons cannot be fogotten.
These are, however, extreme examples. Given what we have learned since the last nuclear power plant in the United States came on line in 1996, and what other countries have learned, we know we can build safe, effective plants that can not only produce massive amounts of power in a relatively small space, but which can also reuse their own fuel, recycling it instead of sending if off for permanent storage.
Our power needs are growing and will continue to grow. Just imagine if electricity was clean, bountiful, and cheap. Just imagine quantum-leap discoveries in battery technology that would make the electric car ubiquitous. Just imagine if we no longer need fossil fuels to produce electricity nor run our cars.
If we redouble our efforts to bolster our reliance on renewables, continuing to improve solar cell efficiency and continuing to build wind farms in the right places, that will help. But what will also help is for we, as a nation, to decide that nuclear power must be a part of that future, too.
------------
I want to take this opportunity to bid farewell, on these pages, to Mike Benevento. I have had the pleasure of writing opposite him for a year. Our point and counterpoint columns have reaffirmed to me that it not only possible to have civil discussions about matters we disagree on, it is absolutely essential.
In the end, we share a love for this country and its democracy. We both know that there are a few things that are essential to our freedoms: a free press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a system of government that allows for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. Most likely, you reading this also share these values.
I look forward to debating the finer points of politics and the world with someone new. But be warned - you do have some large shoes to fill.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The F-35 and the Cost of Safety
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 6, 2010.
The F-35 and the Cost of Safety
Back in October of 1988, I wrote a story for the Vermont Cynic about the Atlas nuclear missile sites in northern Vermont, including one in Alburgh. This story was close to my heart, because for years I'd driven by the Alburgh site, as it was at the end of a back road between my family's camp in Alburgh Springs and Alburgh Town.
When I went to interview a neighboring property owner in 1988, a time of relative fear of nuclear holocaust, I asked how he felt when the government put the missile in place. Surely they were scared to death about having such a powerful weapon buried just a few feet under the ground.
The owner's response was, "Well, I guess it's scary if you think about it now, but back then, all we knew was that missile was there to keep us safe."
When I was in the National Guard, my home armory was in the middle of a neighborhood in Swanton. We kept our jeeps, trucks, and M60A3 tank in the motor pool, separated from the neighbors by just a chain link fence. The armory, like Williston's today, was used for community purposes as well as for the military - a preschool used our classrooms during the school year.
But come training days, when we had to start up those vehicles, we did so knowing that we were disturbing the peace. The engine of an M60A3 is anything but quiet, and after a few months sitting idle, it could throw off thick, black exhaust that would blanket the neighborhood. Once, so I'm told, someone hit the switch on the tank's smoke generator. Having experienced the thick, white smoke on training battlefields, I could only imagine what the neighborhood looked like.
I'm certain that on training days, our neighbors watched us warily, so they could be prepared for the billowing exhaust, the roar of the engine, and the loud squeak of the tracks as we maneuvered the nearly 50-ton monster around our grounds. Perhaps those neighbors also had the feeling that despite the inconvenience, we were there to help keep them safe.
When my family and I moved to Williston, we lived on North Brownell Road. We quickly found that our home, like the Lamplight Acres neighborhood across the street from us, was on the landing path of some flights flown by the Vermont Air National Guard. The first few fly-overs were a surprise to us, as we had quickly learned that civilian planes rarely ever flew overhead.
By the next summer, the loud whine of the jets' engines were just background noise, and it was actually exciting to see the jets fly so low over our house that you could see the pilots and hear the hydraulics whine as the pilot worked the controls.
When the kids asked what the loud noise was, the sentiment expressed by that Alburgh property owner always came to mind. That plane, that noise, was telling us that someone was up there to keep us safe.
Having experienced living on the landing path of F-16s hardly compares to those who live closer to the airport and will have to deal with increased noise from the proposed F-35. I can only imagine the noise when one of these advanced fighters engages its engines and afterburners to move 15 tons of metal from a standstill to take-off speed.
However, just as we cannot reasonably pull the F-16s out of the airport and maintain the same security in our skies, we cannot fail to innovate. The F-35 is the latest innovation, and the Vermont Air Guard is right to feel honored to be one of only a handful of bases where the F-35 is being considered for deployment over the next half-decade.
That honor is probably little consolation to the airport's neighbors, just as it is little consolation that some tests done so far show the F-35 is only slightly louder than the F-16. Tell that to a child woken by afterburners roaring for night missions.
However, our service men and women need to be using the latest equipment possible, in order to help secure our freedom and safety. This is less a liberal or conservative issue than it is a community one.
My suggestion is that we, as a community, work with the Guard to be sure that when Vermont is chosen as a site, we can make the situation the best possible, rather than work against even bringing the new planes here.
The F-35 and the Cost of Safety
Back in October of 1988, I wrote a story for the Vermont Cynic about the Atlas nuclear missile sites in northern Vermont, including one in Alburgh. This story was close to my heart, because for years I'd driven by the Alburgh site, as it was at the end of a back road between my family's camp in Alburgh Springs and Alburgh Town.
When I went to interview a neighboring property owner in 1988, a time of relative fear of nuclear holocaust, I asked how he felt when the government put the missile in place. Surely they were scared to death about having such a powerful weapon buried just a few feet under the ground.
The owner's response was, "Well, I guess it's scary if you think about it now, but back then, all we knew was that missile was there to keep us safe."
When I was in the National Guard, my home armory was in the middle of a neighborhood in Swanton. We kept our jeeps, trucks, and M60A3 tank in the motor pool, separated from the neighbors by just a chain link fence. The armory, like Williston's today, was used for community purposes as well as for the military - a preschool used our classrooms during the school year.
But come training days, when we had to start up those vehicles, we did so knowing that we were disturbing the peace. The engine of an M60A3 is anything but quiet, and after a few months sitting idle, it could throw off thick, black exhaust that would blanket the neighborhood. Once, so I'm told, someone hit the switch on the tank's smoke generator. Having experienced the thick, white smoke on training battlefields, I could only imagine what the neighborhood looked like.
I'm certain that on training days, our neighbors watched us warily, so they could be prepared for the billowing exhaust, the roar of the engine, and the loud squeak of the tracks as we maneuvered the nearly 50-ton monster around our grounds. Perhaps those neighbors also had the feeling that despite the inconvenience, we were there to help keep them safe.
When my family and I moved to Williston, we lived on North Brownell Road. We quickly found that our home, like the Lamplight Acres neighborhood across the street from us, was on the landing path of some flights flown by the Vermont Air National Guard. The first few fly-overs were a surprise to us, as we had quickly learned that civilian planes rarely ever flew overhead.
By the next summer, the loud whine of the jets' engines were just background noise, and it was actually exciting to see the jets fly so low over our house that you could see the pilots and hear the hydraulics whine as the pilot worked the controls.
When the kids asked what the loud noise was, the sentiment expressed by that Alburgh property owner always came to mind. That plane, that noise, was telling us that someone was up there to keep us safe.
Having experienced living on the landing path of F-16s hardly compares to those who live closer to the airport and will have to deal with increased noise from the proposed F-35. I can only imagine the noise when one of these advanced fighters engages its engines and afterburners to move 15 tons of metal from a standstill to take-off speed.
However, just as we cannot reasonably pull the F-16s out of the airport and maintain the same security in our skies, we cannot fail to innovate. The F-35 is the latest innovation, and the Vermont Air Guard is right to feel honored to be one of only a handful of bases where the F-35 is being considered for deployment over the next half-decade.
That honor is probably little consolation to the airport's neighbors, just as it is little consolation that some tests done so far show the F-35 is only slightly louder than the F-16. Tell that to a child woken by afterburners roaring for night missions.
However, our service men and women need to be using the latest equipment possible, in order to help secure our freedom and safety. This is less a liberal or conservative issue than it is a community one.
My suggestion is that we, as a community, work with the Guard to be sure that when Vermont is chosen as a site, we can make the situation the best possible, rather than work against even bringing the new planes here.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Advice for the Tea Party
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 22, 2010.
Advice for the Tea Party
The Tea Party movement has been active for about a year now, and with the movement's rise comes a lot of questions. Despite the fact that I don't agree with most of the Tea Party's message, they are a continuation of the great American spirit of dissent and protest.
The common use of the Gadsden Flag by Partiers, with its yellow field, coiled rattlesnake, and "Don't Tread on Me" message, is the group's own attempt to link back to our revolutionary heritage.
The Doonesbury cartoon series has noticed, too: When perpetual hippie Zonker attended a Tea Party rally, he heard Partiers chanting "Down with the Tyrants!" Zonker noted they had the same "outasight" message his generation had. Zonker also found common cause with a Partier who was out to "stick it to the man."
The Tea Party, though, has image problems it needs to deal with. I'm sure you've heard these stories:
At a January rally in New Mexico, news reports said that "many" of the Partiers showed up with loaded semi-automatic weapons and holstered pistols. All perfectly legal, but the image this sort of thing projects to the average American, who supports gun rights but is wary of guns, is one of aggression and conflict.
Charges of racism in the Tea Party have also come up again and again. Many examples I cannot repeat here, but this is one: Calling the health care act "white slavery" senselessly and callously belittles the actual slavery the ancestors of some of our black citizens had to endure.
Finally, a common scene depicted at some rallies has the face of President Barack Obama placed over the image of Adolph Hitler. Aside from the fact that nothing Obama's administration has done approaches Nazism, there is Godwin's Law, which states that if you start comparing people to Hitler, the discussion has, by default, gone on too long.
Has the discussion gone on too long?
Last month, my colleague on the right-hand page, Mike Benevento, noted that the Tea Party movement was fragile. The movement, he wrote, "risks fizzling out." Mike noted that the movement had to not only grow from the grass-roots, but it also had to unify nationally. Otherwise, it risked being just a local phenomenon, with no national influence.
I agree with Mike, but his advice must be only part of the movement's long-term survival plan. If it continues to appeal to the fringes of the right wing, the ones who insist on screaming "baby killers!" and "socialists!" and even "Nazis!" at every turn, they will lose any hope of wide appeal.
I've seen this sort of thing happen before, up-close, and on the left. When I was a student at UVM, because of my work on the Vermont Cynic, I was asked by a far-left campus group to help produce their own alternative newspaper. It was called ?The Gadfly, and it contained a fair number of good stories about students working with organizations in Burlington to help the city's poor and down-trodden.
These stories had a real shot of getting more students involved in social action. However, the stories were buried between reprints from Granma International (an English-language newspaper from Cuba, which extolled the virtues of Castro and his Revolution) and the People's World (a communist weekly from New York City). The Gadfly was largely ignored.
The lesson is that a good, positive message of change can easily be derailed by being connected too closely to extreme messages that the common man has no interest in hearing.
The Tea Party's raison d'etre now is to be against the health care law. If that's all it has to hang its hat on, then I don't think the Party has much life left in it. They may help Republicans pick up a few seats in November, but I also think that for every negative message about the law the Republicans and the Tea Party have to offer, there are (at least) two positive stories about how the law will make the average American's health better and more secure.
The movement's other major issue, the raging deficit, is a big concern; but the only way to stop that now would be to leave our troops in a lurch or to allow the bottom to drop out of the economy. Obama has plans to bring our troops home and hopes with the rest of us that the economy is rebounding, bringing us back to the surpluses of the Clinton years.
The Tea Party might be a force for change over the next few years; they just need to be sure what they want to change is worth changing, and that they do it with rational arguments and tempered words.
Advice for the Tea Party
The Tea Party movement has been active for about a year now, and with the movement's rise comes a lot of questions. Despite the fact that I don't agree with most of the Tea Party's message, they are a continuation of the great American spirit of dissent and protest.
The common use of the Gadsden Flag by Partiers, with its yellow field, coiled rattlesnake, and "Don't Tread on Me" message, is the group's own attempt to link back to our revolutionary heritage.
The Doonesbury cartoon series has noticed, too: When perpetual hippie Zonker attended a Tea Party rally, he heard Partiers chanting "Down with the Tyrants!" Zonker noted they had the same "outasight" message his generation had. Zonker also found common cause with a Partier who was out to "stick it to the man."
The Tea Party, though, has image problems it needs to deal with. I'm sure you've heard these stories:
At a January rally in New Mexico, news reports said that "many" of the Partiers showed up with loaded semi-automatic weapons and holstered pistols. All perfectly legal, but the image this sort of thing projects to the average American, who supports gun rights but is wary of guns, is one of aggression and conflict.
Charges of racism in the Tea Party have also come up again and again. Many examples I cannot repeat here, but this is one: Calling the health care act "white slavery" senselessly and callously belittles the actual slavery the ancestors of some of our black citizens had to endure.
Finally, a common scene depicted at some rallies has the face of President Barack Obama placed over the image of Adolph Hitler. Aside from the fact that nothing Obama's administration has done approaches Nazism, there is Godwin's Law, which states that if you start comparing people to Hitler, the discussion has, by default, gone on too long.
Has the discussion gone on too long?
Last month, my colleague on the right-hand page, Mike Benevento, noted that the Tea Party movement was fragile. The movement, he wrote, "risks fizzling out." Mike noted that the movement had to not only grow from the grass-roots, but it also had to unify nationally. Otherwise, it risked being just a local phenomenon, with no national influence.
I agree with Mike, but his advice must be only part of the movement's long-term survival plan. If it continues to appeal to the fringes of the right wing, the ones who insist on screaming "baby killers!" and "socialists!" and even "Nazis!" at every turn, they will lose any hope of wide appeal.
I've seen this sort of thing happen before, up-close, and on the left. When I was a student at UVM, because of my work on the Vermont Cynic, I was asked by a far-left campus group to help produce their own alternative newspaper. It was called ?The Gadfly, and it contained a fair number of good stories about students working with organizations in Burlington to help the city's poor and down-trodden.
These stories had a real shot of getting more students involved in social action. However, the stories were buried between reprints from Granma International (an English-language newspaper from Cuba, which extolled the virtues of Castro and his Revolution) and the People's World (a communist weekly from New York City). The Gadfly was largely ignored.
The lesson is that a good, positive message of change can easily be derailed by being connected too closely to extreme messages that the common man has no interest in hearing.
The Tea Party's raison d'etre now is to be against the health care law. If that's all it has to hang its hat on, then I don't think the Party has much life left in it. They may help Republicans pick up a few seats in November, but I also think that for every negative message about the law the Republicans and the Tea Party have to offer, there are (at least) two positive stories about how the law will make the average American's health better and more secure.
The movement's other major issue, the raging deficit, is a big concern; but the only way to stop that now would be to leave our troops in a lurch or to allow the bottom to drop out of the economy. Obama has plans to bring our troops home and hopes with the rest of us that the economy is rebounding, bringing us back to the surpluses of the Clinton years.
The Tea Party might be a force for change over the next few years; they just need to be sure what they want to change is worth changing, and that they do it with rational arguments and tempered words.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Correcting health care misinformation
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 8, 2010.
Correcting health care misinformation
My task this week is to write about the new health care law, and you might think that I would be full of praise for the new law and its provisions. But I have something more important to write about — don't get me wrong, I am excited the bill made it through the congressional gauntlet and the President was able to sign it, but I've heard a lot of misinformation about the law that I think has to be addressed, lest that misinformation become "common knowledge".
First, the response of many Republicans to the new law was to launch a campaign to "repeal and replace" the law. Obviously, the minority party does not have the votes to do either yet, but the plan was to get enough votes in Congress in the next election.
I'm not going to say it is outside the realm of possibility, but I think the voter anger that the Republicans will have to tap into to get sufficient numbers, a whopping two-thirds of both houses of Congress, simply won't be there in November — at least not at the level needed to put this plan in motion. I think as people hear more about the law, they will come to agree with its provisions and look forward to them coming into effect.
Republican leaders, initially so keen on "repeal and replace" that it was reported as a new campaign mantra, seem to have already begun to back away from the notion. That's a bit of good news.
Another common misperception, willingly hoisted upon the public by conservative pundits and politicians, is that the law creates "socialized medicine." Socialism is a big dirty word in Washington, and is bandied about with abandon. What the law provides, however, has no resemblance to socialism.
Socialists believe in government take-over of industry. The health care law is no government take-over. Health insurance, for most, is still provided by insurance companies. Doctors are not government employees. Drugs are not produced by government factories. Under the law, the private sector is still a vital part of the health care system.
Anyone who is decrying the law as a socialist take-over is either not aware of what the word means or is deliberately using inflammatory language to scare the public.
Another tidbit playing on peoples' fear is that the law creates a new IRS army, and that one of 16,500 armed agents will be knocking on your doors to see proof that you are properly insured. There will be penalties, eventually, if individuals remain uninsured, and these will likely be assessed at tax time. The personal mandate is necessary for the system to work, to spread the liability. But the law is also quite specific — the IRS may not confiscate assets or property, nor impose jail time, for failure to have insurance.
Simply put, armed agents will not be knocking on your door for failure to comply with the law.
Also in the news of late is word that over a dozen Attorneys General have filed or plan to file suit against the federal government, alleging that the new law is an unconstitutional power grab. Other Attorneys General, with a bit more common sense and legal precedent on their side, have refused to sign on to the effort.
The Supreme Court, in its prior rulings, has said that insurance regulation is an interstate commerce issue that Congress can regulate. Even conservative stalwarts like Justice Antonin Scalia have agreed, if reluctantly, that such regulation is constitutional.
I won't say that all of these cases are political posturing, but some of them surely are; and they won't come cheap. Attorneys General in Kentucky and Arizona said they would be a waste of taxpayer money. Vermont's Attorney General has not even wasted space on his website to announce that he won't join in any such frivolous lawsuits.
The fact is that we now have a health care law in effect. It is not perfect — far from it — but it is a starting point. As its features are phased in over the next few months and the next few years, we will be able to see what's working and what's not and make changes to ensure that the economy can adapt to it. The public, in the meantime, can set its collective mind at ease by checking on what the politicians and pundits are saying, discarding the misinformation, and learning more about what the law actually does.
Correcting health care misinformation
My task this week is to write about the new health care law, and you might think that I would be full of praise for the new law and its provisions. But I have something more important to write about — don't get me wrong, I am excited the bill made it through the congressional gauntlet and the President was able to sign it, but I've heard a lot of misinformation about the law that I think has to be addressed, lest that misinformation become "common knowledge".
First, the response of many Republicans to the new law was to launch a campaign to "repeal and replace" the law. Obviously, the minority party does not have the votes to do either yet, but the plan was to get enough votes in Congress in the next election.
I'm not going to say it is outside the realm of possibility, but I think the voter anger that the Republicans will have to tap into to get sufficient numbers, a whopping two-thirds of both houses of Congress, simply won't be there in November — at least not at the level needed to put this plan in motion. I think as people hear more about the law, they will come to agree with its provisions and look forward to them coming into effect.
Republican leaders, initially so keen on "repeal and replace" that it was reported as a new campaign mantra, seem to have already begun to back away from the notion. That's a bit of good news.
Another common misperception, willingly hoisted upon the public by conservative pundits and politicians, is that the law creates "socialized medicine." Socialism is a big dirty word in Washington, and is bandied about with abandon. What the law provides, however, has no resemblance to socialism.
Socialists believe in government take-over of industry. The health care law is no government take-over. Health insurance, for most, is still provided by insurance companies. Doctors are not government employees. Drugs are not produced by government factories. Under the law, the private sector is still a vital part of the health care system.
Anyone who is decrying the law as a socialist take-over is either not aware of what the word means or is deliberately using inflammatory language to scare the public.
Another tidbit playing on peoples' fear is that the law creates a new IRS army, and that one of 16,500 armed agents will be knocking on your doors to see proof that you are properly insured. There will be penalties, eventually, if individuals remain uninsured, and these will likely be assessed at tax time. The personal mandate is necessary for the system to work, to spread the liability. But the law is also quite specific — the IRS may not confiscate assets or property, nor impose jail time, for failure to have insurance.
Simply put, armed agents will not be knocking on your door for failure to comply with the law.
Also in the news of late is word that over a dozen Attorneys General have filed or plan to file suit against the federal government, alleging that the new law is an unconstitutional power grab. Other Attorneys General, with a bit more common sense and legal precedent on their side, have refused to sign on to the effort.
The Supreme Court, in its prior rulings, has said that insurance regulation is an interstate commerce issue that Congress can regulate. Even conservative stalwarts like Justice Antonin Scalia have agreed, if reluctantly, that such regulation is constitutional.
I won't say that all of these cases are political posturing, but some of them surely are; and they won't come cheap. Attorneys General in Kentucky and Arizona said they would be a waste of taxpayer money. Vermont's Attorney General has not even wasted space on his website to announce that he won't join in any such frivolous lawsuits.
The fact is that we now have a health care law in effect. It is not perfect — far from it — but it is a starting point. As its features are phased in over the next few months and the next few years, we will be able to see what's working and what's not and make changes to ensure that the economy can adapt to it. The public, in the meantime, can set its collective mind at ease by checking on what the politicians and pundits are saying, discarding the misinformation, and learning more about what the law actually does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)