This page provides a forum for members of the Democratic Party in Orleans County to express their individual opinions on a wide range of topics. These opinion articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the Orleans County Democratic Committee. Submissions can be emailed to email@example.com, we just ask you to be civil, watch your language, and avoid personal attacks.
Twenty years ago I often asked my classes to reflect on how monkeys differed from people. The simplistic point I hoped would be thought provoking was that monkeys tend to imitate, whereas people—ideally– tend to differentiate between that which is worthy of imitation and that which is not. Being more thoughtful than monkeys, one might hope people would not do what is dumb merely because they were aware that someone else had set a precedent for “dumb”.
When a person disrespects another based on anything superficial, it should not matter who has done the disrespecting. If an unemployed person, a junior high student, a U.S. Senator, a criminal, or a corporate C.E.O. mocks another person for their occupation, religion, race, social station, or whatever, it shouldn’t matter who has behaved badly. Bad behavior is bad behavior, and there is no excuse for imitating it the way a monkey arguably might.
When confronted by ignorant intolerance, we can imitate, or resolve to respond more thoughtfully and become determined to treat all targets of unreasoned disrespect more respectfully than we may have in the past. This is possible even if we have always tried to treat people respectfully regardless of inconsequential differences such as the uniforms they may wear at work, the color of their skin, their accents, what they call the buildings they may worship in, or something else.
How we respond to bad behavior is a measure of our humanity.
“I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”, sounds a bit like a 2017 tweet. Recall that the grounds for Clinton’s impeachment had to have been that his conduct constituted “high crimes and misdemeanors”.
What if he had unwittingly committed treason, another of the impeachment-worthy offenses? (Recall that bribery is the other.) Would not knowing, for example, that he had given “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States—part of the Constitutional definition of treason—have meant he was innocent of treason?
What Clinton did undoubtedly delighted the Kremlin. Did it rise to the giving “aid and comfort” to the enemies of the United States level spelled out in the Constitution? Was there intent to provide aid and comfort? If so, the Senate may have failed when it did not convict Clinton based on potential treason. As with so many other things, the Constitution’s authors did not define what might be included in giving “aid and comfort”.
Fast forward about twenty years. Candidate Trump harped incessantly about the “crooked media”, dishonest journalists, and “fake news”. Those attacks came from a man who, rightly or not, had a lot of credibility once he became the republican nominee. They have continued since the inauguration, and, as President, his credibility has arguably risen.
What difference does it make whether the comments of the President discredit the media? Keep in mind that his comments never cease, and the media was believed by Thomas Jefferson to be indispensable to a democracy. One has to assume that most who understand what it takes to make a democracy work would agree on the importance of a free press to a functioning republic, hence the protection of press freedom included in the very First Amendment.
Dangerous attacks on the judiciary have waned, but President Trump’s baseless allegations and outrageous assertions about election fraud continue relatively unabated. Anyone who has paid a modicum of attention—and is not a serial denier– knows it. Does anyone with an understanding of republican government think it doesn’t matter? Today, Mr. Trump has the influence of the office he sought as a candidate.
Public confidence in their sources of information is essential in a democracy. Once the bulk of the American public loses confidence in those it must depend on for information upon which to act and no longer trusts the outcome of elections—thinks that they may not be legitimate, and cannot be accepted—the grand republican (representative democratic) experiment is in trouble.
There is no doubt that relentless attacks on the foundations of our republic by the President of the United States are pleasing to Vladimir Putin, who once was the world’s disinformation champion. Is it possible that President Trump fails to grasp the significance to our democracy of a President’s relentless expression of distrust in the institutions essential to its existence? Perhaps the most positive conclusion one can hope for is that he does not, i.e. the President did not intend to provide aid and comfort to the Russians.
When only 40% of the American public approve of Donald Trump and the job he is not doing as President, it is somewhat confounding to see someone defend Congressman Chris Collins. Mr. Collins was the first elected official in the US to endorse Trump. Despite the female genital grabbing, the lies about releasing his tax returns, the treason he committed with Russia in hacking our election, the promises to do away with Affordable Health Care, the EPA, the Department of Energy, Education and Meals on Wheels; Mr. Collins said Trump was going to make America great. Trump has gathered the most corrupt cabinet in US history, who are hell bent on destroying the very agencies they direct. Big money ties influence every decision they make. Massive tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the middle class are looming again. Collins is in the hip pocket of big oil, coal and big pharma. So, you won’t see him advocating for fair drug prices, and renewable energy. Collins has been a strong advocate of destroying our national wildlife refuges in the pursuit of fossil fuels so his corporate buddies can get rich. A living wage? You won’t see Collins pushing for that either. Collins is part and parcel of the do-nothing Congress. An elected body which has done nothing to help middle class Americans.
As conservatives like to do when they run out of quasi-arguments, they resort to bashing Liberals, leftists and Democrats, as if they are the same thing. The historian in me cannot resist educating folks like Kimberly Kennedy:
1. Liberal means possessing or manifesting a free and generous heart; bountiful. Appropriate and fitting for a broad and enlightened mind. Free from narrowness, bigotry or bondage to authority or creed. Any person who advocates liberty of thought, speech or action.
2. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are Liberal concepts.
3. A Liberal wrote the wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor, for free.
5. Reagan raised taxes eleven times as President, legalized abortion as Governor of California, and supported gun control.
6. Nixon created the EPA
And one more thing about Chris Collins. If he is so brave, why doesn’t he come to the town halls and speak directly to his constituents? Why is he hiding? Maybe he dreads answering to why he supports a President who is under FBI investigation for colluding with Russia to fix an election.
Thank you for your attention.
Those who write political commentary must see Donald Trump as a journalistic “mother lode”. If I wrote for a living I wouldn’t know where to begin.
Perhaps Maya Angelou’s, “When I show you who I am, believe me the first time” would be a good place to start. Though it went over many heads, when he called a Hispanic maid “Miss Housekeeping”, it inadvertently suggested to me that he judges people in part by how they make a living.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly shown he believes –as some wealthy people do—that he is above the law.
But how many wealthy people are arrogant enough to brag that they are so rich and famous that they can get away with groping women randomly? How many would say they could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose a single vote? Of course, he was only joking. Has his refusal to reveal his tax returns while running for the Presidency been a joke as well? On whom?
Does the $25,000,000 Trump University settlement suggest Mitt Romney’s characterization of him may be on the mark?
After following him casually for over twenty years, one might have a difficult time taking him seriously. My son knows contractors he stiffed in Atlantic City in the 1990’s. He was for the Iraq War before he was against it. Obama pulled out of Iraq too soon. At the time, it was, “We should declare victory and leave”. George W. Bush was responsible for ISIS during the primaries. Obama and Clinton were responsible for ISIS during the campaign. Ted Cruz’s father was connected to the Kennedy assassination. Hillary is unfaithful to Bill, etc, etc, etc.
Guess what? We have to take him seriously now! I have very educated republican and democratic friends who voted for him. The top Senate republican on the Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, said this week, “I have never said this publicly, but I voted for him”.
Each of us will judge for ourselves, but much of what I see him doing is about making himself short term political “hay” for which the entire country will eventually pay.
Foreign policy is an example. Giving right wing ideologue, Benjamin Netanyahu (whom Leah Rabin blamed for her husband’s 1995 assassination by Yigal Amir), encouragement to stonewall against what the King of Jordan said this week is the only answer to Middle East peace—a Palestinian State—may be as troublesome in the long term for Americans generally as Ronald Reagan’s “Strategic Partnership “ with Israel. Expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank is to Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood and ISIS types what aviation fuel would be to a brush fire.
Bans against immigration from predominantly Muslim nations until we can “figure out what the hell is going on” are an affront to the many millions of Muslims who have long seen the United States as an inspiration. Among other things, what it will succeed in doing is aid in extremist recruiting by helping radicalize naïve Muslim youth. But it sounds good in the present and is consistent with campaign rhetoric.
Then there is belaboring the notion that our allies aren’t paying their fair share. One has to wonder what someone as good with numbers as Mr. Trump would suggest are the values of allowing major U.S. weapons systems and military bases across the periphery of Russia. What are our air bases in Ramstein and Incirlik, and so many others, worth? What price might the nations allowing us to station Pershing II’s, our most modern fighter bombers, and air defense systems on their soil eventually pay? What political price have their leaders already paid for allowing them since the Cold War?
A long time ago, I did an NDEA Institute through the U. of R. My “research” involved determining and itemizing forward-based American military installations in Asia. At that time, we had 40,000 troops in South Korea and 115 military installations in Japan. How does one calculate their value? What might the eventual consequence of such facts be to the South Koreans and the Japanese? Who are we there to protect? How might a paranoid North Korean dictator react to them? Continually disparaging the contributions our allies make to their defense—and ours—might not sit well with populations that would necessarily be the first to go in the event of war. But putting America First seems long overdue.
Being “America First” sounds good to many of us. It plays well (remember how Romney described Mr. Trump?). The problem is that most of international politics is not as simple as the President would have us believe. Insulting allies, encouraging disrespect for Palestinians—and possibly even Kurds–and stereo- typing entire religions are a few of the things that will have consequences. Don’t think for a second that the Kremlin doesn’t love it.
But there are many more and they may be far more problematic. This is one history lesson we may not want to sleep through.
What do we really know about the people who immigrated to the United States for three hundred plus years beginning in the early 1600’s?
English separatists, it might be fair to say, were people who were principled non-conformists who decided to take their chances with the Pequots and Narragansetts rather than accept persecution for what they believed. They gave up familiar surroundings for religious freedom. Today we sometimes call such people “refugees”.
South Florida’s Cuban-American population exited Cuba rather than live under Castro. Today, they are some of our most patriotic Americans.
When a family leaves Oaxaca, Mexico and travels close to three thousand miles to try their hand at life in an area where Spanish isn’t even the first language, what does that suggest about them? After all, most of those in their village will never leave, preferring to live out their lives in familiar surroundings regardless of how difficult life may be.
To me it says those who decide to leave are more determined to improve their lives than those who do not. It suggests those who decide to forsake all that they know for an unknown have confidence and courage that most of their neighbors do not. It is likely whoever initiated the move possesses considerable imagination and likely has a plan. A willingness to leave all that is familiar behind—just as it always has—suggests uncommon ability that provides such a dreamer with a sense that he/she can pull it off in a strange new land where not everyone welcomes him/her.
Our ancestors very likely were such people. The land of their birth—familiar though it was—wasn’t meeting their expectations. They may have prized more social mobility, economic opportunity, or religious or political freedom than they had—or were ever likely to have—in their native country. You see, our ancestors rolled the dice. They were risk takers, which is just the “ticket” in a free enterprise system.
It has long been my conviction that the United States is an exceptional country because its people are generally the descendants of exceptional people, if for no other reason than they left. Immigrants are typically the exception, not the rule. Those who are willing to put up with less stay put.
Say what you will about today’s immigrants, their essential experience is, in most regards, no different than it has been since 1607. One needs look no further than the vast majority of newly arrived people from south of the Rio Grande to confirm that they, too, fit the profile of our immigrant origins.
The United States is an extraordinary country largely because our ancestors were not ordinary. Whether they came to clear the woods with an axe to make room for a forty acre farm, dig the Canal with picks and shovels, mine and fashion the stone used to build a 175 foot church steeple in Albion, sit on a cabbage planter all day in the summer heat and dust, cut the mature cabbage heads in the mud during another frigid and rainy November, or establish a Mexican restaurant that is the talk of Western New York State, they likely didn’t do it on a whim. Leaving your familiar birthplace to travel thousands of miles to take a chance that life could be better in a strange place never has been anything like trying a new hairstyle.
America is similar to a functional patchwork quilt that isn’t yours or mine; it is ours. It has become an inspiration to the world no matter where ancestry.com tells us we originated. To me, God may have put innumerable different people on earth as a challenge. Might they look past superficial differences and get along? The answer provided by the American experience has generally been a resounding, “Yes”!
Gary F. Kent
The year was 1998. As I recall, the Reagan era Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was largely responsible for governing our approach toward undocumented immigrants.
At the time, the entire grounds crew at Atlantic City Country Club was of Mexican descent. The course superintendent had the highest regard for every one of them, just as he had for the Vietnamese immigrants who had earlier comprised much of the crew at Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Maryland.
In 1998, the Social Security Administration discovered that the entire 23 person Atlantic City CC grounds crew was illegal. To prevent them from being deported, the course superintendent knew that each of his crew would have to come up with $2,000 initially, jump through a bunch of hoops, and pay another $2,000 in order to become legal, though not citizens. Some called this “amnesty”. Many still do. Tom Reynolds called it “amnesty” as I recall.
Congressman Chris Collins, one of President Trump’s earliest camp followers, insists that neither local farmers, nor their valuable employees, need worry about farm workers being rounded up by a deportation force.
Hopefully, Representative Collins is keeping track of the wind direction coming from Washington. Our food supply and economy may hang in the balance.
A reporter from The Boston Globe was in Orleans County earlier this week having a difficult time finding farmers who would speak to him on the record. It isn’t hard to understand their reluctance.
President Trump puts on a good show. It may be he is smart enough to realize that it had better be nothing more. From what I hear, farm workers are not so sure of his intentions. Even if he is mostly talk, he has many of them scared.
My brothers are two generations removed from what has ironically become a sort of stigma—immigration status—in a nation of immigrants! I guess my Austrian grandparents were legal (not sure about the ‘refugee’ thing), though they thought it wise to change their last name nonetheless.
My brother, Keith, worked for Martin Farms for many years. Cutting cabbage was his specialty, and he was the only “Anglo” Martin’s had who could cut cabbage with the migrant workers on a consistent basis—for years.
My brother, Kevin, was the only “Anglo” I ever saw who could match– hamper for hamper– the cucumber picking stamina of the Ramos family and the other Mexican-Americans from Mercedes, Texas who worked at Spalla Farms. (In case you missed that history lesson, Mexican people have been living in what is now the United States longer than Captain John Smith’s people.)
In the late 1960’s, I tried picking cucumbers for a grand total of three hours before surrender. Crying “Uncle” got me on the wagon dumping hampers.
Guess what? If Mr. Trump gets too carried away playing to his base and trying to match campaign rhetoric with “Presidential” action, we are in a lot of trouble. Farm workers reclaim abandoned houses, have their own local businesses, keep many local farms going, and are among the best students in Orleans County’s schools. None of the ones I have known was/is a “bad dude”, and I have known quite a few.
I want to talk about an astounding gift. It was given to the United States by France. A statue, named, “Liberty Enlightening the World”, more widely known in the present day as the “Statue of Liberty”. It was placed there in 1886. My great-great-grandfather Carl Fink must have seen the Statue when he arrived by steamship in 1887 from Germany. It faces southeast, the direction of incoming ships. It faces outward to those arriving, not inward to those already here. It represents the principled welcoming of our nation. It is not a barrier or a threat.
There are two texts I want to share. The first is the conclusion of the poem written by Emma Lazarus, “The New Colossus”, whose words are displayed with the statue:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
The second is from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:
“You are the Light of the World. A city on a hill cannot be hid.
No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket,
but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all the house.
In the same way, let your light shine before others,
so that they may see your good works, and give glory to God in heaven.”
I commend both of these texts to you as we strengthen our resolve in troubled times. Let us lift up our light of welcome!
I understand that we may be witnessing the dawn of a post-fact “world”. But, I wonder if “common sense” is still acceptable?
A college-educated person I have known for fifty years told me last week that Obama had been helping ISIS by refusing to call them “radical Islamic terrorists”. Isn’t that like saying we have never called the KKK “radical Christian terrorists” because we want to help the KKK? I have never heard anyone call the KKK a Christian group.
Truth is that the actions of the KKK have been alien to Christianity and calling the KKK “Christian” would be ridiculous, and the reader knows it. Many Christians would likely take offense to dignifying the KKK’s actions by suggesting that they were in any way consistent with Christ’s teachings.
Understandably, the KKK is never called a radical Christian terrorist group, and it isn’t because we want to help them.
Similarly, if you want to offend Muslims, dignifying ISIS by calling it in any way “Muslim” would be the perfect way to insult the vast majority of Muslims. One would think offending people we depend on to fight terrorists would be something we would want to avoid . . . in a common sense world.
Obama understood that “little” things matter, and bigger things matter more.
What is perceived as a “Muslim ban” based on the actions of a small percentage of extremists, many of whom have been recruited from outside majority Muslim countries, is a bigger thing.
Under Trump’s recent dictate, people who have sacrificed the most in the fight against ISIS—Iraqi Kurds—are banned from the United States until, “We can figure out what the hell is going on”. As the Commander in Chief said in a morning tweet, “Study the world”. Don’t hold your breath waiting for either of those to happen.
The point is that Kurds from Iraq, the very people who have borne the brunt of the ISIS fight, are temporarily banned under his recent order. Even under Obama, the Kurds were slighted for fear of angering the Turks. Now we are throwing them into a basket of ‘deplorables’ that includes ISIS psychopaths.
When John McCain said (1/29/17) on “Face the Nation”, “In some instances it may give ISIS more recruits”, he was referring to the Muslim ban. Such actions are viewed favorably by enemies who see them as contrary to our national interests.
To the Editor:
It appears that Congressman Collins is afraid of his own constituents. When was the last time he had an open meeting in front of us? I’m not talking about one of his telephone meetings where questions are carefully screened, or invitation-only events for his supporters. I’m talking about appearing in front of his constituents. Perhaps he is afraid to face the anger of thousands in his district who stand to lose their health care coverage because of his votes. Or maybe he is too busy peeling grapes for his new puppet master in Washington? Or cashing in on insider stock tips? Has anyone even seen him around here lately?
“Hillary’s corruption is a threat to democracy. If she is elected, investigations will go on for years and nothing will get done, folks.” Well said, Steve.
How serious is the damage being done to our Constitutional Republic by inflammatory rhetoric and irresponsible demagoguery? As he spouts the intoxicating phrases of someone (Steve Bannon) who may, or may not, be an anarchist/Leninist, we must assume for sanity’s sake, that candidate Trump is motivated by love of country.
This election is a test of our knowledge of history and the principles embodied in the Constitution. Glenn Beck, the self-proclaimed Constitutionalist, a man who once had a lot of “street cred” among the anti-Obama right, has warned of dire consequences should Trump prevail.
Make no mistake, the potential for calamity exists whether he “prevails” or not. He has used the megaphone of his wealth, fame, and stature as the nominee of a national political party to fan the flames of suspicion and distrust of the judicial system, and raised doubts about the validity of democratic elections and the free press indispensable to that democracy. Recall that Jefferson once said, “If I had to choose between a government without newspapers and newspapers without a government, I would not hesitate to choose the latter.” But who is he compared to Donald Trump? The fact that numerous solidly Republican “leaning” editorial boards have refused to endorse him qualifies them as “failed” in Trump world.
In some ways it is as simple as the chants he leads at his rallies: “Lock her up!” “Hillary for prison!”
Ironically, he forecasts apocalyptic scenarios for democracy if Clinton gets elected. Of course, he suggests investigations would have to go forward whether she is elected, or not. Has his popularity among millions of patriotic Americans made him forget that the criminal justice system separates responsibility for bringing people to justice into three distinct roles? Not even Donald Trump has the power to arrest, prosecute and convict without Fifth Amendment due process of law and a jury trial.
Keep in mind that Clinton was part of the administration that followed George W. Bush, a President whose “shortcomings” resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans. There were no investigations of Bush initiated by his successor that I know of. Neither was there an investigation of Ronald Reagan after he overruled the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff and sent 264 Marines to their deaths at the Beirut Airport in the early 1980’s.
In fact, Bush and Reagan were both re-elected overwhelmingly.
But Trump would have us believe Clinton is “different”, even if the chain of responsibility for the tragic deaths of 4 Americans at Benghazi is less clear.
The question is whether a President Trump will respect a Constitutional system and traditions (on view as recently as Obama’s Presidency) that helped make The United States of America great in the first place, or assume he knows better than everyone who has gone before him, including The Founding Fathers.
Or, should Clinton prevail, will candidate Trump graciously accept/respect the will of the people and set about attempting to disarm the “bomb” he has so cleverly devised?
Gary Kent, Retired American History teacher