Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Last week, Al and Tipper Gore announced they were separating after 40 years of marriage. The media analysis started immediately. The New York Times said, “In political circles, reaction to the Gore news struck often on the Clinton connection and the inherent irony of it. There was always a perception that the Clintons would split up the day they left the White House.… And there was never any suggestion that the Gores would have.â€
The Gores represented the perfect all-American family. In politics this used to be essential. (Though as events would show, it was not enough to clinch the election. But maybe because at that point it was no longer the American public deciding, rather nine court justices.)
Americans seem most comfortable with simplistic extremes: This couple has a happy marriage, that couple has a troubled marriage. Dualities and complexities, particularly in politics, aren’t discussed. But of course they exist and every person who has ever been in a relationship, whether sanctified by marriage vows or not, knows this.
I think that after spending 40 years together, much of it lived in the public eye, enduring disappointments and losses and raising children together, they had a successful marriage. And from the wording of their announcement, they will continue to have a successful relationship.
On the Today show the announcer used these words; “Perfect marriage.†“Sad end to a storybook love affair.†“They seemed very much in love.†“After 40 years of marriage, why screw it up?â€
Let’s parse these comments:
“Perfect marriage.†Perfect – really? There’s the American tendency to go to the extreme again. Why not say “good marriage� No marriage is perfect. Marriages and long-term relationships are extremely hard work and they require vast amounts of compromise, personal sublimation and good humor. Anyone who has ever been married or even in a long-term relationship recognizes that. White-washing it almost negates the struggle.
“Sad end to a storybook love affair.†Hold on! Why is it sad? Or a better question might be, for whom is it sad? Not for the Gores. They lived it, experienced all the ups and downs and know that the storybook had lots of pages in it that were probably not publishable because they were either too boring or too messy. Sad? Maybe, for us — the audience; for those who seek role models and want to believe that the perfect union exists.
“They seemed very much in love.†No need to qualify it with the word “seemed.†They were in love. Probably still are. Or, if the phrase “in love†suggests passion and sex, then at least they still love each other. That is clear from the respect they show each other.
“After 40 years of marriage, why screw it up?†Whoa! There are so many things wrong with this statement, I hardly know where to start. Maybe there’s something else going on here. Maybe they’re salvaging their marriage. Maybe they would be screwing it up if they continued to be married and it is time for it to be over, naturally and organically. Maybe they are honoring their marriage by putting the seal on it. There. Done. Complete. Maybe the Gores are showing another path.
If marriage is a challenge, consider the added difficulties of being in the public eye, and on top of that, in politics. Americans like their politicians happily married. But divorce is now the outcome of approximately 50 percent of marriages in this country. The political marriage is like a deer caught in the headlights about to become road kill.
The Gores came to represent something that perhaps they didn’t personally feel, but they wore the mantle anyway. They did not ask to be put on the pedestal, but there they have been for a very long time. They can be forgiven for wanting to step down and live outside the definitions set by the American public.
Some will say the couple that seemed to represent the all-American family and its “family values†let us down. They didn’t. They are actually leading the way. Because it doesn’t make a bit of difference to any of us, whether Al and Tipper live in the same house together anymore. They should be our role models, not for the perfect marriage, but for the realization that there are many, many ways to experience marriage and the important part is that whatever you do, you do it with decency, compassion and respect.
Tara Kelly, copy editor at The Lakeville Journal, is an avid follower of social trends. She may be reached by e-mail at tarak@lakevillejournal.com.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.