Words Matter

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 25, 2010.

Words Matter

If the news in the last few weeks proves nothing else, it is that words matter. How we say things, how we describe them, can make all the difference in the world.

When Joseph Allen Stack flew a plane into an office building in Austin, Texas, a building he knew housed IRS employees, the police and the press had a decision to make: was Stack a criminal, or was he a terrorist?

Police, trying to calm frazzled nerves, insisted Stack was nothing more than a common criminal. Muslim activists, however, began to wonder - was it only Muslims who flew planes into buildings who were considered terrorists? Within days, the debate was filling newspaper columns and blogs, with a Google search returning over 26,000 results in blogs alone.

The opinions varied, but the most compelling argument that I saw was that Stack was a lone wolf, without an organization behind him, and hence a criminal. It is a close call, though, considering the scope of his cowardly and deadly act and the overtly political nature of his manifesto.

In the world of politics, words are the stock in trade, and words can easily be mangled depending on the political point of view.

If you've paid close attention to the news, from time to time, you will hear Republicans refer to their political foes as members of the "Democrat Party." The first time I heard this, I just figured the speaker was ignorant, mispronouncing a relatively simple word. It turns out, though, this is part of a somewhat concerted effort to try to turn "Democratic Party" into an epithet.

Republicans who have taken to using this "epithet" are being silly. Deliberately mangling someone's name to aggravate them is an elementary school tactic. Democrats who take too much offense should remember that age-old mothers' mantra: "They only say it because it bothers you."

Most reasonable people, having heard waterboarding described or witnessed it in action, would call it torture. Many conservatives, notably and recently former Vice President Dick Cheney, prefer to call it "enhanced interrogation." The distinction is self-serving. Torture is illegal. Enhanced interrogation, presumably, is not.

The White House recently released a brightly colored chart, which attempts to put a positive spin on the nation's continued loss of jobs. On one half of the chart, colored Republican-red, the bars in the chart dip further and further below zero, indicating an increasing loss of jobs. On the other half, colored Democratic-blue, the bars are nearly all still below zero, but marching back up towards zero. The presumption is that soon, the numbers will be positive.

The White House line, and that of the Democratic National Committee's Organizing for America project, is that this is all part of the "recovery." There is the "Road to Recovery," the Recovery.gov website, and the Recovery Act (the short name of the act's actual title, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009).

Republicans, though, insist on calling the law "the stimulus bill." The point is to turn the positive word "recovery" into a negative. I'm not exactly sure what it is about "stimulus" that is negative, but both House Republican Majority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor have done this repeatedly in just the last week.

Finally, scheduled for today is a meeting of lawmakers from both sides of the political spectrum. The President touted the meeting in last weekend's radio address:

"I don't want to see this meeting turn into political theater, with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points. Instead, I ask members of both parties to seek common ground in an effort to solve a problem that's been with us for generations."

The response from Republicans? They plan to attend, but with their words, were sure to take pot shots at the summit before it even began. Speaking on Sunday's Meet the Press, Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) said this:

"Republicans are ready to work. But what we can't help but feel like here is the Democrats spell summit S-E-T-U-P."

That the Republicans could fear a summit, a televised chance to talk out differences with the approaches of each party to the issue, tells me that what they really fear is that when they express their plan, the entire country will see how devoid it is of real reform.

Words do matter. Listen to them carefully and you will be able to divine which have worth and which are worthless.

2010 Legislative Review

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on February 11, 2010.

2010 Legislative Review

The Vermont Legislature is moving full speed through this legislative session. The challenges our government is facing are daunting. The two biggest, settling a budget in a time of recession and concerns about Vermont Yankee, are enough to keep them busy until May, but there is more work to be done.

$150 million — that's the projected budget shortfall that the governor and the legislature have to fill this session. Running a deficit is not an option, so there are only two choices: cut costs or raise revenues.

The governor, in his budget address in January, called for a bit of both. He suggested raising the property tax on middle-income taxpayers, while also calling for major cuts in education and health care.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate were receptive to hearing the governor's ideas, but indicated that they had their own strategies for cutting the budget.

One idea that has been batted around is dipping into the state's various rainy day funds, money squirreled away when the economy was seeing better times. The governor, however, feels these funds should be held back in case revenues fall short. By using a portion of these funds now, however, fewer drastic changes might be necessary.

Just one example: the monthly premium for the state's Catamount Health Plan for a person earning twice the federal poverty level (about $10.41 per hour) is $60 for 2010 and is expected to be higher in 2011. The plan's out-of-pocket limit, now at $800 for an individual, would jump to $2500 under the governor's budget proposal. This is a tough sell for someone living at one or two times the poverty level. Already low-wage earners are choosing to forego Catamount. This increase could make many more decide to drop the plan. Pricing the plan out of the hands of those who need it would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Anyone who has read this column knows that I am an unrepentant booster of nuclear power. My resolve on the issue is unchanged, but I am troubled by all of the news out of Vernon recently. Confidence has been shaken by the flawed testimony of Yankee executives, by the detection of tritium in test wells that surround the plant, and by the plan to sell the plant to a spin-off company that seems like smarmy corporate buck-passing.

According to Williston Representative Jim McCullough, the closing of Yankee need not be the economic disaster some portray it as. With some state incentives, a shut-down could stimulate investment in alternative energy projects, which could bring even more jobs to Vermont. I'm not completely convinced, but I'm willing to listen.

Another of McCullough's priorities is the protection of shorelines and riparian lands. This is an issue near and dear to many in Williston, especially those kids in our schools who have studied the Allen Brook for years, watching for signs of deterioration and environmental damage.

Our other Representative, Terry Macaig, is looking to help reign in budget shortfalls in the corrections department. Part of the plan would reduce the imprisonment of non-violent offenders and increase services in prison to help reduce recidivism.

Macaig is a cosponsor of a bill that seeks to implement universal health care in Vermont. The stated goal of the bill is to reduce the cost of health care by implementing efficiencies which would follow after the elimination of multiple insurance payers.

Macaig also told me of a plan that could directly effect Williston's town budget: a look into the fees towns pay the state to administer the local option tax. It turns out the fees are out of line with expenses, and representatives from local option towns want this changed.

Chittenden County Senator Ginny Lyons, a Williston resident, has several priorities, including action on Yankee; but she sees health care as a top priority. Some of the ideas she relayed to me include public-private partnerships to improve the quality of care for chronic illnesses and for the elderly, with the goal of not only improved care but also reduced cost.

Lyons is also working on reducing costs in education by looking at school district consolidation, a hot topic for some of the smaller towns and districts in the state, but one which effects the Common Level of Appraisal and could result in a lower state-wide property tax.

There are many ideas for how the state should proceed in these lean times. I'll be watching as the governor and our legislature work out the details. This is not a time to score political points. It is a time to work together to find solutions to these tough problems.

My Facebook Status: Revisit Health Care

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 28, 2010.

My Facebook Status: Revisit Health Care

Facebook, in case you've been living under a rock the past year or two, is a great Internet service for keeping in touch with friends and family.

According to Facebook, I have 173 friends. Most of the time, our interactions are simple. I post a status to say what's new in my life and my Facebook friends do the same. Every so often, I or they are moved to comment on those status updates in one way or another.

Status updates are generally of the "Wow, that movie was awful!" or "The recipe we cooked tonight was wonderful!" type. The kind of stuff that comedians like to poke fun at.

Last week, though, I was moved to post this (in the ubiquitous Facebook third-person):

"Steve is lamenting the loss in Massachusetts, but is thinking it needn't be the end of health care reform. It could just be the end to all the unseemly deals needed to get this far."

The update was, of course, about the loss in Massachusetts of Democrat Martha Coakley to Republican Scott Brown for a permanent replacement for Ted Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate. The win was a surprise not only because Massachusetts only has only 13 percent registered Republicans, but because just three weeks ago, Coakley was still leading in the polls. Brown's win was primarily due to his ability to sway the Massachusetts independent bloc, blowing pundit predictions out of the water.

The win means an end to the supposedly filibuster-proof 60-40 majority the Democrats gained once Minnesota's Al Franken finally took office back in July.

My Facebook status post brought comments from one of my liberal friends and several of my conservative friends, stirring a mini-debate.

Political debates on the Internet are nothing new, but often the debates take place behind the veil of some degree of anonymity. This debate, though, was not with anonymous avatars, with people I'd never met and never would. This debate was with friends, family, and co-workers. That meant that vitriol was at a minimum, and thoughtfulness and reflection were at a maximum.

Most of the posts agreed in particular with my final point — that the Senate bill is a perfect example of what's wrong with the legislative process. My conservative friends said that the abomination was because Republicans had been left out of the process. I replied that they seemed to forget all the committee hearings where the Republicans had more than ample time to give their input.

What was really responsible for the ugliness of the Senate bill, I noted, was how the Democratic leadership allowed the bill to be held hostage by other Democrats. Mindful of the razor-thin majority, a few Democrats were able to demand some pretty sweet deals for their states, deals the rest of us would be paying for. The most egregious example: Nebraska's Ben Nelson was able to guarantee that his state's Medicaid bill would be paid for by the federal government in perpetuity.

Thus far, I've supported passage of either the House or Senate version of the bill, despite these types of deals, so that we can get something out there, something that will stop insurance company abuses and save lives.

But given this change in the Senate, perhaps it is time to take a step back and have a fresh look at the problem. The debates have already been held, the discussion has already been had. We know those parts of the bills that have some Republican support. Let's pass those parts now. These include the complete elimination of pre-existing conditions and of retroactive policy denial, and a cap on insurance company profit-taking.

Then, using the momentum of change from these reforms and the goodwill they will create between the Congress and the people, we can continue to pound away at the health care problem, working toward a public option with teeth, rather than the limp impersonation that the current bills contain.

This sort of strategy should help both parties. The Republicans can tout their support for some reforms and hope the public forgets all the stalling tactics and the spreading of misinformation that started last summer. The Democrats can show some movement on an issue that the majority of the public wants fixed, giving them something to hang their hats on as election season nears.

Win-win for the parties; but more importantly, a win for the people. Something worth posting a Facebook status update about.

Humans versus Nature: The Challenge of Global Warming

This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 14, 2010.

Humans versus Nature: The Challenge of Global Warming

Let's start with an assumption: global climate change is real and is happening now. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's data for 2009 confirms that the last decade was the warmest on record and that 2009 temperatures in the U.S. and the world were both above the long-term average.

Naturalist and author Richard Ellis's latest book, On Thin Ice, laments the loss of the polar bear because of the loss of its habitat. The polar ice cap, upon which the familiar white bear relies for hunting, is disappearing and the bear along with it. Within 50 years, Ellis writes, the polar bear will be gone -- no matter what we do, it will happen.

The images in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth are striking and disturbing: the melting of the polar ice caps leads to coastal flooding of a massive scale. In some projections, the entire state of Florida is submerged. We cringe when we think of the loss of a species like the polar bear, but what of the loss of an entire state?

Only a few pig-headed stalwarts completely deny global warming. For the rest of us, the question is not so much if it is happening, but why.

The first theory is that global warming is the result of natural processes, cycles that have repeated over and over again through history. For proponents of this Natural Theory, the Earth is too big, too complex, for the activities of our species to affect these cycles.

The second theory is that global warming is the direct result of the activities of we humans, especially since the dawning of the industrial age. This Human Theory recognizes long-term climate change cycles, as they are undeniable in the fossil record; but it alleges that we have either disrupted the natural cycle or we have accelerated it.

As a rule, liberals find themselves on the side of the Human Theory. The basic solution is that we need to cut back on our use of those things that make our society run, namely fossil fuels.

Conservatives mostly find themselves upholding the Natural Theory, and say that disrupting our economy by reducing the use of fossil fuels would be an economic disaster as bad as any natural one.

I can see the Natural Theory's side of the argument. One of the problems that Natural Theorists accuse Human Theorists of is a logical fallacy known as post hoc, ergo propter hoc — that is, that since A occurred after B, A must have caused B. Are Human Theorists guilty of this fallacy?

Al Gore's charts show what appear to be some clear and stark correlations. As global emissions rose, so did global temperatures. But did A, emissions, cause B, climate change? Since we cannot possibly test an alternative case, we cannot know that if our historical emissions had been lower that the global temperatures would also have been lower.

I have to admit, even as a Human Theorist, that it is possible we are guilty of the fallacy.

But rather than throw up my hands and admit defeat, which is more or less what Natural Theorists advocate, I think we have to make the leap of faith that since we cannot test our logic for the fallacy, we must assume the logic is correct. For if it is not, and we change our habits and nothing changes, then at least we tried. But if we could have averted global disaster by changing our habits and we did not, then we can rightly and truly be blamed for the consequences.

When the world met in Copenhagen last month, there were high hopes that some sort of binding and lasting agreement would come out of the meetings. But amid all the noise and clamor of protest and all the whispering in closed-door diplomatic meetings, all the world could muster was a tepid accord that acknowledges that global climate change is a challenge the whole world needs to address.

Richard Ellis says it is too late for the polar bear, and I fear he is correct. The loss of one species is a drop in the bucket compared to annual extinctions worldwide, but it would be a deep symbolic loss. Worse, however, would be the loss of New Orleans or Miami or Charleston or Boston to rising waters.

If we don't all agree to do something, soon, then it might be more than the polar bear that can only be seen in the history books.