About 75 people and I vied for seating at the Hartford Selectboard meeting on June 4. After board business and Town Manager Brannon Godfrey’s report (including a plug for maintaining the status quo with Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the board opened the floor to the topic we came to discuss: amending the town’s Fair and Impartial Policing policy.
Activists from Migrant Justice testified and citizens stood up in solidarity. At one point, someone asked people to stand if they were in favor of barring communication between Hartford police and federal authorities about a person’s immigration status. Only the Selectboard and panelists remained seated.
The town manager has said the existing policy already states that Hartford police have “no obligation” to communicate with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s immigration status, and police Chief Phil Kasten, who was not at the meeting, has stated his officers “would never do that.”
Au contraire, mon frère, the point is the police officer is free to rat on the migrant. And where the cruelty comes into play is not just by sustaining a conduit of xeno-hatred into our otherwise progressive hamlet, but it’s also from within when Kasten and Godfrey and board members Richard Grassi and Dennis Brown suppress the will of the people, and of the majority of the board.
This is stonewalling at the municipal level, induced by our culture of repression. We see stonewalling on the climate crisis at the state level and nationally. One may not be able to change city hall, but at least let’s try appealing to the Selectboard: Ask them who they serve — the people or the Department of Justice?
Two weeks later, the board opened the floor to public comment again and heard dissatisfaction that Kasten’s absence was dragging out the process of adopting the amendments. Selectboard member Jameson Davis championed the feeling of many that it was a power issue that prevents progress, while Chairman Simon Dennis tried to promote a unified, methodical advance.
KEVIN McEVOY LEVERET
White River Junction
In case you run out of things to worry about, this past week a University of Alaska-Fairbanks team on expedition in the Canadian Arctic was “astounded” to find that permafrost (you know, that stuff that has been frozen solid for thousands of years) was thawing 70 years earlier than predicted.
When permafrost melts, it releases methane, which is a particularly potent greenhouse gas. When that happens, it accelerates global warming, which in turn accelerates the melting of permafrost, which in turn — you get the idea.
Climate scientists call it a “feedback loop.” A more apt description is a “death spiral.”
Meanwhile, last month, at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, carbon dioxide levels were recorded at 415 parts per million. That is the highest level recorded there since it began such analyses in 1958. It is also 100 parts per million higher than any point in the roughly 800,000 years for which scientists have data on global carbon dioxide. In other words, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 30 percent higher than ever in human history.
CHARLIE BUTTREY
Thetford
Why not a woman as the Democratic Party’s nominee in 2020? To be sure, President Donald Trump needs to go. He has brought us to the brink of autocracy aided and abetted by Republican sycophants and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., “the gravedigger of democracy.”
As for the question of electability, Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin addressed that issue convincingly in a recent Valley News op-ed (“So you want to know who’s electable? Hint: The women,” June 11), noting that “women aren’t just electable, they were elected in droves in 2018 — in state legislative, House, Senate and governor races.” The midterms brought a record-breaking 127 women to Congress. Remember also that in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million votes.
I’m encouraged by the list of women candidates that this is their time to make a difference. Think of the potential. In her 2018 Senate re-election campaign, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., flipped 18 counties that had voted for Trump just two years earlier. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, has drawn on her electoral success in red counties to position herself as a bridge-builder in increasingly polarized times. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, who soundly defeated a popular Republican incumbent in her first election, is thoughtful in her policy proposals and can clearly excite a crowd.
Many citizens hold to the assumption that a man is the archetype of presidential leadership. After all, 45 presidents have been men, and seeing a woman in that role is something that we’re not used to. Despite this stereotype, however, Warren, Gillibrand, Klobuchar and Sen. Kamala Harris of California can all claim that they have never lost an election in their political careers. In Warren’s view, the one who is best positioned to beat Trump depends not just on poll numbers or the ability to flip red districts. It hinges on who can present an “affirmative vision” that excites voters and draws contrasts with the current administration.
In my view, each of these women candidates are doing just that.
BOB SCOBIE
West Lebanon
A recent morning tweet by our esteemed leader, President Donald Trump, read: “I meet and talk to ‘foreign governments’ every day. I just met with the Queen of England (U.K.), the Prince of Whales, the P.M. of the United Kingdom, the P.M. of Ireland, the President of France, and the President of Poland. We talked about ‘Everything!’ ”
An aide made a quick but belated correction.
E.J. NOBLE
Quechee