This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 25, 2009.
A Historical Look at the Fourth of July
As a young boy, I remember quite well the trips that I, my siblings, and cousins would all take to the fireworks stands that sprouted up all around Los Angeles and Orange counties, California in late June. July 4 was not only a celebration of our nation's birth, but of my grandfather's, too. We would buy some fireworks to celebrate each. On the night of the Fourth, the entire block would close down as families set off all sorts of pyrotechnics to honor the nation and my grandfather.
As an early teen, my family celebrated a private July 4. We lived in Canada, and the big July celebration there, July 1, is for Canada Day. Since we lived in Quebec, the Canada Day celebrations were a bit ironic, since Quebec seemed poised to secede from Canada.
As a full-fledged grown-up, I gained distinct and fond memories of my first Fourth of July in Williston. We came here from Starksboro, a town too small for any extensive July 4 celebrations. Coming to Williston, with its magnificent parade, day-long family activities, cacophonous book sale, and glorious fireworks show, I suddenly had something to look forward to, like those youthful days in California.
It's worth taking a few moments to remember what the fuss is all about, and to realize that if not for the work of some very dedicated men, we might not be celebrating at all. In early 1776, the case for independence had not yet been forcefully made. Compromise with Britain, and seats in Parliament, were seen by many as the better way to go.
A relatively short pamphlet, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, finally made a convincing argument for independence, and the opinion of the populace and the Congress began to change.
On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee, delegate from Virginia, formally brought the arguments in Common Sense to the Second Continental Congress. He proposed both a declaration of independence and a union of the colonies. A committee was formed to craft a document. The committee included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Jefferson was assigned by the committee to write the declaration, which he completed in just a few days.
Jefferson's first draft was edited by Franklin, then forwarded on to the Congress, which toned down some of Jefferson's most inflammatory language. In the end, the Declaration of Independence listed almost thirty grievances against the King, called for independence and unification, and told the people of Britain that the quarrel of the United States was with the King, and not with them.
The document was accepted by the Congress on July 4, 1776, though not until August 2, 1776, was the Declaration was actually signed.
Though the new United States was still at war in 1777, history records several small-scale celebrations to celebrate the first anniversary, including several 13-gun salutes. In Philadelphia, official dinners and celebrations were held along with prayers, parades, and fireworks. In 1778, General George Washington ordered a double ration of run for the troops.
By the turn of the 19th century, fireworks were becoming more and more common, as were formal celebrations of the day at the White House. Parades, military revues, bands, songs, plays, poems, anthems, and ballet were all performed to celebrate the date.
In 1870, July 4 was designated a day off, without pay, for federal workers; in 1938, the law was changed to give the day off with pay. In 1998, Congress designated the days between Flag Day and Independence Day as "Honor America Days."
Many notable events have been scheduled to happen on July 4, including temperance and anti-slavery speeches, the laying of cornerstones (of the Washington Monument, for one), and the christening of ships. In recent memory, the July 4's of 1976, the nation's bicentennial year, and 2002, the first following the September 11 attacks, were notable for the proud displays of patriotism from the citizenry.
The Fourth of July is a uniquely American holiday, and we celebrate it in a uniquely American way. At some point before the holiday, to celebrate the two hundred and thirty-third year of the American Republic, take a few minutes and read the Declaration of Independence; refresh your memory about what the fireworks, barbecue, and camaraderie are all about.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The Importance of Self-Editing
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on June 11, 2009.
The Importance of Self-Editing
When you're writing for yourself, as in a diary, there's little need to be careful about how you write or even what you write. You can make up facts, twist reality, leave out inconvenient truths.
When you read your diary back to yourself, you do not edit it. In fact, if you edit your diary, correcting for misstatements, you might lose something valuable -- how you were feeling at the moment you put those thoughts down.
Similarly, fiction is, by definition, one big, long lie. I recently wrote a short story that is based on a trip I recently took to Hershey, Pennsylvania. Aside from the fact of the trip itself, however, none of the events in the story actually happened to me.
When you read back a piece of fiction, you will notice inconsistencies that need to be corrected, lest you jar your reader with them. But you generally don't correct misstatements, because the entire thing is a misstatement.
When you're writing "the news," though, you have an entirely different set of rules to live by. The writer is responsible for telling a compelling story, but more than that, the story must be true, it must be accurate.
If you write, you might find, as I do, that you fall in love with your words, that you come to see them as little children. You don't want to cut any of them -- you lose your objectivity.
When I was a reporter back in college, I developed quite a love/hate relationship with my editors. They would take my stories and rearrange, reword, cut. I hated each revision, dreaded seeing the edited copy. But, invariably, my story was better because of the editing.
Later in my college career, I became the editor, and my hope was that when I rearranged, reworded, and cut, I was doing my writers a favor, making the stories tighter, more readable. But even then, when I wrote hard news, I insisted that someone, anyone, edit my stories. The story, the integrity of the words, was more important than the writer.
Had I not been in love with my words, I would have been able to self-edit. But with my objectivity gone, it took a disinterested third party to keep me, and my words, honest. It is this love of ones own words that seems to be dampening the self-editing skills of the famous right-of-center commentators.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, touted by both the left and right (and by himself) as the de facto leader of the Republican Party, has repeatedly, unabashedly, and unashamedly spread half-truths, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Senator-elect Al Franken went so far as to write a book, with Limbaugh as a prime example, called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly repeatedly called Dr. George Tiller a "baby killer" and equated him with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. After Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church, several right-wing websites repeated O'Reilly's rhetoric as they applauded and justified Tiller's death. O'Reilly half-heartedly decried the killing, but we are not fooled.
Most recently, the right's attack machine has been twisting a comment by Associate Justice-designate Sonia Sotomayor about the ability of a female Hispanic to render neutral judgement. They all came to the intellectually dishonest conclusion that she is a "racist." The futile attack was levelled by Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.
Some of these personalities, after taking a step back, decided the rhetoric was over the top. Gingrich, for example, apologized for using the term. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions called for an end to the name-calling.
I understand how hard it is to self-edit -- it's even harder when your words are spoken than when they are written. I also understand that for these commentators, it is a part of their job to be loud, brash, and controversial. But with their wide following, self-editing is a skill they would do well to hone.
The Importance of Self-Editing
When you're writing for yourself, as in a diary, there's little need to be careful about how you write or even what you write. You can make up facts, twist reality, leave out inconvenient truths.
When you read your diary back to yourself, you do not edit it. In fact, if you edit your diary, correcting for misstatements, you might lose something valuable -- how you were feeling at the moment you put those thoughts down.
Similarly, fiction is, by definition, one big, long lie. I recently wrote a short story that is based on a trip I recently took to Hershey, Pennsylvania. Aside from the fact of the trip itself, however, none of the events in the story actually happened to me.
When you read back a piece of fiction, you will notice inconsistencies that need to be corrected, lest you jar your reader with them. But you generally don't correct misstatements, because the entire thing is a misstatement.
When you're writing "the news," though, you have an entirely different set of rules to live by. The writer is responsible for telling a compelling story, but more than that, the story must be true, it must be accurate.
If you write, you might find, as I do, that you fall in love with your words, that you come to see them as little children. You don't want to cut any of them -- you lose your objectivity.
When I was a reporter back in college, I developed quite a love/hate relationship with my editors. They would take my stories and rearrange, reword, cut. I hated each revision, dreaded seeing the edited copy. But, invariably, my story was better because of the editing.
Later in my college career, I became the editor, and my hope was that when I rearranged, reworded, and cut, I was doing my writers a favor, making the stories tighter, more readable. But even then, when I wrote hard news, I insisted that someone, anyone, edit my stories. The story, the integrity of the words, was more important than the writer.
Had I not been in love with my words, I would have been able to self-edit. But with my objectivity gone, it took a disinterested third party to keep me, and my words, honest. It is this love of ones own words that seems to be dampening the self-editing skills of the famous right-of-center commentators.
Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, touted by both the left and right (and by himself) as the de facto leader of the Republican Party, has repeatedly, unabashedly, and unashamedly spread half-truths, innuendo, and outright falsehoods. Senator-elect Al Franken went so far as to write a book, with Limbaugh as a prime example, called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them".
Fox News Commentator Bill O'Reilly repeatedly called Dr. George Tiller a "baby killer" and equated him with Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. After Tiller was gunned down in his Kansas church, several right-wing websites repeated O'Reilly's rhetoric as they applauded and justified Tiller's death. O'Reilly half-heartedly decried the killing, but we are not fooled.
Most recently, the right's attack machine has been twisting a comment by Associate Justice-designate Sonia Sotomayor about the ability of a female Hispanic to render neutral judgement. They all came to the intellectually dishonest conclusion that she is a "racist." The futile attack was levelled by Newt Gingrich, Glenn Beck, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter, Tucker Carlson, and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.
Some of these personalities, after taking a step back, decided the rhetoric was over the top. Gingrich, for example, apologized for using the term. Republican Senator Jeff Sessions called for an end to the name-calling.
I understand how hard it is to self-edit -- it's even harder when your words are spoken than when they are written. I also understand that for these commentators, it is a part of their job to be loud, brash, and controversial. But with their wide following, self-editing is a skill they would do well to hone.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 28, 2009.
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
"It ain't over till it's over," said baseball sage Yogi Berra. So it is with this year's legislative session. Though they have adjourned, they will be back.
At least one act of the legislature will have a lasting and profound effect on Vermont and, perhaps, the nation.
That act, S.115, has a deceptively meek title: "An act relating to civil marriage." Known colloquially as the Same-Sex Marriage Act, it will give same-sex couples marriage equity as of September 1, 2009. Plan on extensive news coverage of wedding ceremonies that day.
The act also protects religious institutions, specifically allowing almost any such institution in the state to refuse to perform any marriage that violates its beliefs.
The act, in just ten printed pages, made Vermont a vanguard in the effort to bring marriage equity to the entire nation. Vermont is the first state to have its legislature open up marriage to same sex couples, rather than have it imposed by the state's judiciary. After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the act, there was uncertainty whether the legislature could garner the votes to override. On April 7, however, the legislature was able to override the veto, by the absolute narrowest of margins.
S.115 was the most high-profile bill the legislature worked on, but not the only one.
For young hunters, H.64 eliminates Youth Hunting Day for Vermonters sixteen and under, and expands Youth Hunting Weekend to anyone fifteen and under who has taken a hunter safety course.
An important act for wine producers, S.27 allows "manufacturers or rectifiers of vinous beverages" to hold wine-tastings on their property, as long as they provide 14-day notice of the event to the department of liquor control. The act also allows producers to sell products they did not produce, which could increase networking opportunities for this burgeoning industry.
Notably for Williston, H.31 approves our charter changes, including one that allows the town manager to appoint and discharge the zoning administrator. Also important for the Williston community, teacher Al Myers was honored with House Concurrent Resolution 160, the passage of which was witnessed by many Williston students.
Despite all this good work, though, it ain't quite over yet. The Governor is recalling the legislature into a special session to deal with the budget. The budget approved by the legislature, in bill H.441, has come under fire from the Governor as being irresponsible and unsustainable.
This is the governor's job -- to use his judgement to determine if bills passed by the legislature are appropriate for the state and to veto them if they are not. Since the budget passed the Democrat-controlled house by a comfortable margin, but not by enough to override a veto, the threat of a veto is being taken seriously. The governor's proposal is being looked at closely by legislative leaders as they prepare for the special session.
According to news reports, though, those leaders are not happy with what they've seen. The governor's budget has cuts that the legislature does not want to see, but worse, it envisions savings that have no definite source.
Democrats want to tax higher-income Vermonters, placing a $5000 cap on itemized deductions and replacing the 40% exemption on capital gains tax with the $5000 cap. The additional funds raised allowed the legislative budget to cut across-the-board taxes and to avoid additional budget cuts. The governor argues against the adjustment because he opposes new revenue in general and wants to see more cuts to the budget.
The budget is an essential part of the running of the government, which is why this dodge and parry is even taking place at all. The governor's veto pen is his leverage, but the legislature is not without some leverage of its own. Without a budget, the wheels of government will grind to a halt, and as the executive, the governor will shoulder much of the blame if a compromise cannot be reached.
State Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon has volunteered to help mediate the differences between the two proposed budgets. This would certainly be a positive step. The best scenario for the state would be for the two sides to come to a compromise before the special session, and then have the session simply rubber-stamp that compromise.
Then, it would be over.
The legislative session: triumph and compromise
"It ain't over till it's over," said baseball sage Yogi Berra. So it is with this year's legislative session. Though they have adjourned, they will be back.
At least one act of the legislature will have a lasting and profound effect on Vermont and, perhaps, the nation.
That act, S.115, has a deceptively meek title: "An act relating to civil marriage." Known colloquially as the Same-Sex Marriage Act, it will give same-sex couples marriage equity as of September 1, 2009. Plan on extensive news coverage of wedding ceremonies that day.
The act also protects religious institutions, specifically allowing almost any such institution in the state to refuse to perform any marriage that violates its beliefs.
The act, in just ten printed pages, made Vermont a vanguard in the effort to bring marriage equity to the entire nation. Vermont is the first state to have its legislature open up marriage to same sex couples, rather than have it imposed by the state's judiciary. After Governor Jim Douglas vetoed the act, there was uncertainty whether the legislature could garner the votes to override. On April 7, however, the legislature was able to override the veto, by the absolute narrowest of margins.
S.115 was the most high-profile bill the legislature worked on, but not the only one.
For young hunters, H.64 eliminates Youth Hunting Day for Vermonters sixteen and under, and expands Youth Hunting Weekend to anyone fifteen and under who has taken a hunter safety course.
An important act for wine producers, S.27 allows "manufacturers or rectifiers of vinous beverages" to hold wine-tastings on their property, as long as they provide 14-day notice of the event to the department of liquor control. The act also allows producers to sell products they did not produce, which could increase networking opportunities for this burgeoning industry.
Notably for Williston, H.31 approves our charter changes, including one that allows the town manager to appoint and discharge the zoning administrator. Also important for the Williston community, teacher Al Myers was honored with House Concurrent Resolution 160, the passage of which was witnessed by many Williston students.
Despite all this good work, though, it ain't quite over yet. The Governor is recalling the legislature into a special session to deal with the budget. The budget approved by the legislature, in bill H.441, has come under fire from the Governor as being irresponsible and unsustainable.
This is the governor's job -- to use his judgement to determine if bills passed by the legislature are appropriate for the state and to veto them if they are not. Since the budget passed the Democrat-controlled house by a comfortable margin, but not by enough to override a veto, the threat of a veto is being taken seriously. The governor's proposal is being looked at closely by legislative leaders as they prepare for the special session.
According to news reports, though, those leaders are not happy with what they've seen. The governor's budget has cuts that the legislature does not want to see, but worse, it envisions savings that have no definite source.
Democrats want to tax higher-income Vermonters, placing a $5000 cap on itemized deductions and replacing the 40% exemption on capital gains tax with the $5000 cap. The additional funds raised allowed the legislative budget to cut across-the-board taxes and to avoid additional budget cuts. The governor argues against the adjustment because he opposes new revenue in general and wants to see more cuts to the budget.
The budget is an essential part of the running of the government, which is why this dodge and parry is even taking place at all. The governor's veto pen is his leverage, but the legislature is not without some leverage of its own. Without a budget, the wheels of government will grind to a halt, and as the executive, the governor will shoulder much of the blame if a compromise cannot be reached.
State Auditor of Accounts Tom Salmon has volunteered to help mediate the differences between the two proposed budgets. This would certainly be a positive step. The best scenario for the state would be for the two sides to come to a compromise before the special session, and then have the session simply rubber-stamp that compromise.
Then, it would be over.
Friday, May 15, 2009
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 14, 2009.
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
For the past couple of years, I've been working on a novel for middle school students. Right now, the novel is in the hands of an agent, whom I hope will agree to represent my work to publishers.
The novel, which follows a group of four girls, takes place in Williston. The Williston of my characters, however, is not our Williston, not exactly.
When deciding where to set the novel, the oft-used phrase "write what you know" came to mind. However, our town has many quirks that could take a lot of explanation to get across to a visitor, especially a visitor by literary means. For just one example, in the literary Williston, we have a Williston Elementary School and a Williston Middle School.
To have taken Williston's schools as a model, and have to explain why there are elementary schoolers in the middle school, would take more words than I could afford to spend pages on — so I idealized our school system.
Is there a lesson to be learned in such idealizations?
After working on the Williston Conceptual Frameworks Committee since last summer, I am keenly aware that there are divisions in our town about how our schools are structured. If our schools were structured like my idealized Williston schools, could the controversies have been avoided? As I wrote, as I edited, as I attended Committee meetings, I gave this question a lot of thought.
The reason that I idealized our schools, though, was not to teach us Willistonians a lesson of any kind. The reason is actually quite pedestrian: simple literary license.
As I thought about all this, I realized that there are actually very few novels that I've read in my lifetime that idealize society. More common, by far, are the novels that exaggerate problems with society, magnify them. These novels are typically categorized as "dystopian," a genre I've written about before.
Almost anyone could name a dystopian novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Giver, A Clockwork Orange. Some of the characters in these novels might consider that they live in utopias; but they are written for us, and we can recognize that the cost of the utopia is something we hold dear — liberty, security, democracy, or even individuality.
I'm a big fan of science fiction, and I've often heard Star Trek described as a look at a utopian future. That may be true for the people of Earth, done with war and poverty, even with greed and money, with our attention focused on the stars. But I dispute this characterization. Any Trekker knows that war, poverty, greed, and money play a big role in the Star Trek universe.
Closer to home, a good example of a true utopian novel (one that describes a society that its author wishes us to aspire to, rather than one the author wishes us to avoid), is called "Looking Backward", by Edward Bellamy.
(You can read "Looking Backward" online by going to Project Gutenberg, where Bellamy's book is available for free. Go to gutenberg.org to find out more.)
In Bellamy's work, a citizen of Boston from 1887 is put into a hypnotic trance from which he does not awake until the year 2000. Some of the advances of Boston in Bellamy's year 2000 might seem laughable to us today, but some were strangely prescient.
Bellamy did not foresee television, but he did foresee a "music room" into which music could be piped in from any one of a number of live performances, via the telephone wires. Bellamy foresaw a store with only one sample of each item on the shelves; shoppers put in their orders for goods, which were made on demand and delivered to their doorstep. All workers started out at the bottom, in the "industrial army", and worked their way up according to desire and ability; but in any case, retirement was at the ripe old age of 45.
In my case, I idealized Williston to avoid having to explain too much, to make my job easier, to make the reader's job easier.
Bellamy idealized all of the United States, and, indeed, the world, to illustrate a place we could land, something to aspire to. As I read "Looking Backward," there was much fault I found in his year 2000, a little I recognized, and also a few things to look forward to.
Do you have a favorite utopian novel? Let me know, I'd love to read it.
A Novel Idea: Idealizing Society
For the past couple of years, I've been working on a novel for middle school students. Right now, the novel is in the hands of an agent, whom I hope will agree to represent my work to publishers.
The novel, which follows a group of four girls, takes place in Williston. The Williston of my characters, however, is not our Williston, not exactly.
When deciding where to set the novel, the oft-used phrase "write what you know" came to mind. However, our town has many quirks that could take a lot of explanation to get across to a visitor, especially a visitor by literary means. For just one example, in the literary Williston, we have a Williston Elementary School and a Williston Middle School.
To have taken Williston's schools as a model, and have to explain why there are elementary schoolers in the middle school, would take more words than I could afford to spend pages on — so I idealized our school system.
Is there a lesson to be learned in such idealizations?
After working on the Williston Conceptual Frameworks Committee since last summer, I am keenly aware that there are divisions in our town about how our schools are structured. If our schools were structured like my idealized Williston schools, could the controversies have been avoided? As I wrote, as I edited, as I attended Committee meetings, I gave this question a lot of thought.
The reason that I idealized our schools, though, was not to teach us Willistonians a lesson of any kind. The reason is actually quite pedestrian: simple literary license.
As I thought about all this, I realized that there are actually very few novels that I've read in my lifetime that idealize society. More common, by far, are the novels that exaggerate problems with society, magnify them. These novels are typically categorized as "dystopian," a genre I've written about before.
Almost anyone could name a dystopian novel: Nineteen Eighty-Four, Brave New World, The Giver, A Clockwork Orange. Some of the characters in these novels might consider that they live in utopias; but they are written for us, and we can recognize that the cost of the utopia is something we hold dear — liberty, security, democracy, or even individuality.
I'm a big fan of science fiction, and I've often heard Star Trek described as a look at a utopian future. That may be true for the people of Earth, done with war and poverty, even with greed and money, with our attention focused on the stars. But I dispute this characterization. Any Trekker knows that war, poverty, greed, and money play a big role in the Star Trek universe.
Closer to home, a good example of a true utopian novel (one that describes a society that its author wishes us to aspire to, rather than one the author wishes us to avoid), is called "Looking Backward", by Edward Bellamy.
(You can read "Looking Backward" online by going to Project Gutenberg, where Bellamy's book is available for free. Go to gutenberg.org to find out more.)
In Bellamy's work, a citizen of Boston from 1887 is put into a hypnotic trance from which he does not awake until the year 2000. Some of the advances of Boston in Bellamy's year 2000 might seem laughable to us today, but some were strangely prescient.
Bellamy did not foresee television, but he did foresee a "music room" into which music could be piped in from any one of a number of live performances, via the telephone wires. Bellamy foresaw a store with only one sample of each item on the shelves; shoppers put in their orders for goods, which were made on demand and delivered to their doorstep. All workers started out at the bottom, in the "industrial army", and worked their way up according to desire and ability; but in any case, retirement was at the ripe old age of 45.
In my case, I idealized Williston to avoid having to explain too much, to make my job easier, to make the reader's job easier.
Bellamy idealized all of the United States, and, indeed, the world, to illustrate a place we could land, something to aspire to. As I read "Looking Backward," there was much fault I found in his year 2000, a little I recognized, and also a few things to look forward to.
Do you have a favorite utopian novel? Let me know, I'd love to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)