BP      Jack McCullough      JulieWaters      kestrel9000      Maggie Gundersen      Sue Prent 
                          

Vermont Secession: Beyond the Straw Men

by: carbonpenguin

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 14:24:13 PM EDT


* Cross-Posted at http://www.asrblog.com *

Probably the biggest blow to the Vermont independence movement came in 2007 with the League of the South controversy.  Sparked by a Southern Poverty Law Center report on Second Vermont Republic's ties to the League of the South, and fanned by an anonymous blog and an assortment of Vermont bloggers, the controversy focused most of the Vermont political blogosphere discourse around whether or not SVR founder Thomas Naylor is a closet racist and whether SVR is a front for the a modern white supremacist/neo-confederate agenda.

This controversy has had the unfortunate (or intended?) effect of closing off discussion of the many important issues that Naylor and others in the independence camp have brought up.  The accusation of racism is one of the most effective ways to delegitimize an individual or idea in modern American society, and in this case it has been utilized to effectively narrow the range of acceptable discourse around sustainability and decentralism among Vermont's intellectuals.  It's okay to discuss buying local, and maybe even peak-oil; but heaven forfend one brings up the unsustainability of the Federal Government (both in terms of its scale and its fiscal policies).  Only racists like Thomas Naylor talk about that stuff.

The thing that strikes me as most disappointing about this whole state of affairs is that it seems that some those most eagerly attacking SVR are actually folks who value decentralism.  Therefore, I'd be curious to know what people (particularly the GMD crew) think of the independence question divorced from personality-based attacks on Naylor.  For anti-Naylor folks support who it in principle, it seems to me that the intellectually honest thing to do is to start a rival organization that takes the critiques of the last few years into account; for those who oppose secession in principle, I urge you to argue the real meat of the issues at hand rather than fixating on a thoroughly beaten straw-man.

What I personally understand SVR and the Middlebury institute to be doing is working to build a sort of meta-secessionist movement with the purpose of legitimizing the idea of secession in America, divorced from any particular set of political values.  Because of the Civil War, we have the knee-jerk reaction of associating secession with slavery, but anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of world history know that there have been countless example of justifiable and progressive political dissolution (the breakup of the Soviet Union being but one instance).  This total association of the Civil War with secession in the American political consciousness has become a source of Federal Legitimacy which reifies the narrative of American History as a story of continuous centralization.  As a result, Americans seem to have forgotten that, in our own case as in the case of other countries, governments and nations are merely structures created by human beings.  The knowledge of this means that, when they become abusive or decadent, we have the responsibility to deal with those issues head on rather than retreating into the comfortable myths of nationhood.  It's really easy to play the guilt by association and character assassination games; it's much harder to take on the immense problems we now face and attempt to determine through discourse what needs to be done.
carbonpenguin :: Vermont Secession: Beyond the Straw Men
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vermont Secession: Beyond the Straw Men | 84 comments
Well, it's simple. (3.50 / 6)
We can have this discussion ... when Naylor is not in the picture. As long as he's the "face" of it (and his enabling "don't care if they're racists" Rob Williams), it's going to be tainted, as its leaders have some serious moral deficiencies in some regards, putting their movement above all else. Naylor raving like a lunatic abou the SLPC, CIA conspiracies to stifle him and all the other timfoil hat stuff is nothing I want to engage in.

Find someone to represent the movement with a solid moral compass and then maybe we'll talk. Nice try.

And remember, they're not as big as they think they are. Naylor's his own best friend.

The reality is... (0.00 / 0)
that Naylor is around, and isn't going away.  As such, there seem to be two main ways to deal with that reality. (A) Treat the independence question as directly tied to the personality most publicly associated with it.  If that personality is viewed positively, discuss freely and raise the profile of the issue; if he/she is viewed negatively, suppress discussion of the issue. (B) Treat the issue as something divorced from different personalities.  Criticize personalities within the milieu vociferously if they deserve it, but recognize, as with most things, that there are multiple currents within any movement, and advocate for the current you view as the best.

One option allows for a wide field of discourse, the other narrows it; it's obvious that I favor (B).  Additionally, approaching this (or any) issue with the (A) maximizes the influence in the hands of the individual you disapprove of.  By rejecting discourse on independence because of its association with Naylor, you're surrendering by default the opportunity to give a positive alternative perspective to newly minted secessionists.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
The reality is... (4.00 / 1)
...that Naylor is seen as the head of the secessionist movement entirely due to the consent of those who support that movement.  If you want a movement which is taken seriously, create one which does not involve him.

juliewaters.com
[ Parent ]
Ditto. (4.00 / 1)
Naylor is not going away. Lyndon Larouche didn't go away for a long time, either. The fact remains that very few people take Naylor seriously. The far right is really all he has left at this point, because  they have no issues with him getting in bed with Neo-Confederates.
[ Parent ]
a-yup. n/t (0.00 / 0)


undercaffeinated
[ Parent ]
asdf (3.50 / 6)
I'd be curious to know what people (particularly the GMD crew) think of the independence question divorced from personality-based attacks on Naylor.

If you were genuinely curious, you wouldn't have led in with a title and 2 paragraphs about how full of crap you think we all are before getting to the question.

Sorry. If I thought the question were genuine, I'd be happy to engage. It's clear from the body of your diary that its not, and I have no interest in playing games.

undercaffeinated

Full of Crap? (2.50 / 2)
Matt didn't state anything in his first couple paragraphs that isn't fact.  He did not call out GMD specifically, but perhaps you took it personally because for instance, you have a link on your blog to the VT Secession website that is dedicated to calling Naylor a racist.  

Sidenote, though I support SVR, I did think your post a while back about a joint meeting between them and the VT society of Anachronism was hillarious.  

[ Parent ]
Do you have any quote... (3.00 / 2)
...of any website we've linked which specifically calls Naylor a "racist?"

I'm asking 'cause I see sites which reference his allegiances and ties with racist groups, but I don't see anything specifically saying he's a racist.  I, of course, might have missed it, because to me he seems completely irrelevant and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to him except when he's, I dunno, doing things like, say, making public references to the employment of people who dare to criticize him and trying to threaten them into silence.  

So I might have missed something.

Feel free to demonstrate the factual nature of your claim.

juliewaters.com

[ Parent ]
I actually think... (4.00 / 6)
....that you may not know the history here.

Matt has the timeline backwards. The SPLC's report came out a year after the revelations of the connections to white supremacists and theocrats. It was broken on the blog I link to on the blog roll, and the next day I linked to the report along with some additional research I had done.

And then all hell broke loose. Since "Rowley" was anonymous, all the ire got directed at me. Naylor (and to an extent, Williams) went after me personally.

Naylor went completely stalker psycho. First he devoted an entire radio appearance to me personally. Then he found out who I worked for, put together a 4 page screed attacking me and my employer and a co-worker, called it a press release and sent it all over the state. Then he started sending bizarre, harassing mail to me and everyone I worked with in an attempt to get me fired. Daily. This went on for a long time. Harassing mail was still arriving months later. This was weird, scrawled-stuff too. It crossed well beyond inappropriate and unethical over into creepy. And it was accompanied by a plethora of commenters on the site and elsewhere suggesting I was part of some sort of FBI/CIA/Bernie Sanders plot (Naylor was especially fixated on the fact that I used to work for Bernie Sanders - this seemed to bother him more than the fact that I used to work for the Democratic Party) to derail the movement because it was becoming some sort of threat.

I could go into greater detail, but the history here is ugly. He threatened my livlihood, which included my family's health care - all for opening my mouth. It was a bad time, and coincided with Colby's attempts through his Snarky Boy persona to run me off the web with the constant barrage of personal insults directed at me and my family (and the combination was briefly successful, but I was able to come back after a brief hiatus). In fact, you can draw a clean line of style delineation between my posts before that period and after. I freely admit that, ever since then, I have a hard time getting out of cornered animal mode online. It really had an impact on my approach to blogging that is as obvious as it feels hardwired.

When I wrote about the connections, though, I made a point of saying that it wasn't about the concept of secession - that the idea sort of romantically appealed to my anarchist streak.

But it was quite ugly, creepy, and lots of other adjectives. That should help to explain why its generally not discussed here.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
For explaining this, odum; I've been aware of bits and pieces of this, but have only been involved in blogging for the past year or so, so I didn't "live" through these events in real time.  As a history nerd (and grad student :P), I deeply appreciate knowing the background of the present state of affairs, and I will certainly be taking that into account in my thinking on this topic.  Over the past year, I've gotten the vibe that there's a lot of soreness on both sides, which I never really had understood the origins of, and which I've found frustrating because I find it to be a fascinating and relevant topic of discussion.  Such attacks would certainly explain your own touchiness on the subject, and I thank you for explaining this with such honesty.  As for the romantic appeal to your anarchist streak, what would, to you, be a legitimate way forward for the pro-secesh camp?

http://www.asrblog.com
[ Parent ]
I think the problem comes down to... (4.00 / 4)
...the attitude of the secessionists - that secession is an end in itself, rather than a means to an end. What are the goals here? To here the secession folks talk, it is simply being a standalone nation, and the rest is details (details that can vary significantly from person to person - which is a problem). For proponents to approach this rationally, they need to articulate a shared vision. Once they do, secession may or may not be a means to that end. Or maybe it is in this decade, but may not be in another. Maybe its not enough to just secede. Maybe its too much.

Proponents speak of secession as some kind of ethic in itself, which is silly. the result is a sort of fetishizing of the whole idea which makes rational analysis impossible. It becomes an article of faith.

No radical social movement should be leading with secession. If they are, they're probably reactionaries by definition. Non-reactionary secessionists wouldn't even get to the word secession until the 3rd or 4th paragraph.

It's a strategy. And a strategy isn't supposed to define the end goal. Something s seriously askew if it does.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
....and again... (4.00 / 4)
...all of this isn't even to engage with the question of whether or not I would want to lock hands with a group that considers some of the lowest, scariest people in history (white supremacists) to be their partners in building a better world.

But that's the kind of place you can end up if you myopically, ignorantly, and simplistically focus on the strategy of secession rather than assessing it AS strategy against the goal of building a better world.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
YES! (4.00 / 2)
I have a lot to say on this topic (and I'm hoping to do so soon, at the least over on my blog) but right here you nailed everything that I've got to say exactly.

If I could I'd rate this a "7" for "fucking perfect".

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

[ Parent ]
Kirkpatrick Sale (4.00 / 3)
Naylor rightfully receives a lot of the criticism for the racist fraternizing of the SVR movement.  But Sale shouldn't be left off the hook.  I believe Sale has provided much of the intellectual heavy lifting for the BS philosophy of secession for the sake of secession - your description above is precisely the analysis Sale unapologetically promotes.  

I naively attended the original 2004 "middlebury institute" conference and then ran, not walked, away from the 'movement'.  I attended because I thought the SVR movement would be a kind of - largely symbolic - protest movement against the Bush Administration's appalling policies (OK - like I said - naive).  I was horrified at the conference by the autocratic way in which Sale ran the discussions, the complete lack of diversity at the conference (e.g. I think there were only two women in attendance and they and others were completely shut down when they tried to speak) and my realization that Sale and Naylor could care less about what a rebel state would stand for, even whether it would be democratic, as long as it was a secessionist state.  It was philosophically ridiculous and morally bankrupt - and that was even before the repugnant racist connections surfaced.

[ Parent ]
It becomes... (2.00 / 2)

the result is a sort of fetishizing of the whole idea which makes rational analysis impossible. It becomes an article of faith.

... Mental masturbation. End of story.

[ Parent ]
Good Point (0.00 / 0)
I think you're absolutely correct in pointing out that secession is a tactic which is problematic to fetishize as an end in and of itself.  However, the seeming simplicity of such a state of affairs in an entirely rational discourse concerning potential options is clouded by the question of where the "boundary of acceptable options" is demarcated.  As a result of historical processes that have already been discussed, the vast majority of people in American society see secession as out of the range of real options, for better or for worse.

For better or for worse, because, if secession is an inherently value-free tactic as you asserted, it is a tool that can be used for both liberatory or oppressive purposes.  The question then becomes: are we better off in our liberatory struggle armed with the legitimate option of peaceful dis-association from a potentially tyrannical supra-hierarchical unit, or is it better/more liberatory to prevent regressive groups from having that option?

If one believes that it would be a net benefit for liberation to legitimize the option of secession in political discourse, then it is rational to work with anyone else who supports legitimizing it, even though you may find their political philosophy distasteful.  The assumption would be that, under the better ground-rules you'd oppose them vociferously, but until those mutually agreed upon rules are established it makes sense to pool resources towards a common goal.

If one believes that adding secession to discourse is a net benefit to the forces of reaction, then the rational course of action is to oppose secession's legitimation within political discourse.

An interesting piece to this puzzle is that there are both types of individuals (people who believe legitimated secession helps their side, and those who believe it hurts their side) in both the reactionary and liberatory camps, and so it forms an alternative axis in the power dynamics of the two groups, shaking the more root assumption in the American political environment of the natural political dichotomy (e.g. R's and D's).

As such, it seems to me that any movement pushing for systemic change, rather than merely policy change, will inherently contain people with radically differing political perspectives.  If the systemic change is seen as of primary importance, then the people who believe in it would find the personal beliefs of their fellow travelers on unrelated issues to be of relatively little importance in relation to their commitment to systemic change.

I'm certain that I'm making some unsupported assumptions or erroneous logic (particularly concerning the way in which the veracity of ones belief in the "true nature" of secession legitimation can be legitimately determined. In curious if wdh3 can parse some non-aperspectival value from the hierarchy interactions of paragraph 2); tear 'er open.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Rationality (4.00 / 5)
If one believes that it would be a net benefit for liberation to legitimize the option of secession in political discourse, then it is rational to work with anyone else who supports legitimizing it, even though you may find their political philosophy distasteful.

It might be rational in a very abstract sense, but practically  it's quite irrational if it drives away a lot of people who would normally support your cause.  Racism is an issue that people are (rightly, I think) just not willing to look past.  

upsetpatterns.wordpress.com

[ Parent ]
Funny thing is... (3.83 / 6)
...I think most people are quite willing to look past subtle racism with plausible deniability, such as much of the racism demonstrated in popular culture, but they reach their limits when it turns more overt.  In Naylor's case, if he'd been associated with groups which are quietly racist but express it in terms such as oppositions to quotas and the like, I don't think we'd be in this situation, but the overt attacking of the Southern Poverty Law Center and connections with the League of the South are just too much for most people to overlook.

Like I've said before, Naylor's basically a joke at this point.  What used to be a movement that was looked at with at least some small amount of interest has now been completely discredited.  If people are serious about secession, they need to reinvent their movement into something that is not a collection of people connected to racist groups.

In the meantime, It really is nice to finally see an advocate for secession admit that they have no problem with working with white supremacists.  I do appreciate that.

juliewaters.com

[ Parent ]
To say that I have *no* problem working with white supremacists... (0.00 / 0)
is an oversimplification of my point.  I disagree with them vociferously on policy issues, and would not be willing to give an inch of ground to them in the political arena.  However, when dealing with the purely structural, such ideological-policy positions aren't relevant.  SVR itself is not a racist organization; it has associated with racist organizations like the LOS in the context of advocating the right to secession, not in the context of advocating a total shared vision for a post-secession social/political order.  I see this as similar to the paleo-con/left liberal anti-war alliance.  The two groups have radically different visions for what society should look like, but they both view overseas wars as terrible enough to join forces in opposition, whatever else their policy disagreements might be.

Also, I think its important to bear in mind that within the group of people who're into the legitimacy of secession, racists make up only one group.  It's not just white supremacists and disaffected Vermont progressives, there are people from all across the political spectrum.

Finally, what is your opinion of the effect of the legitimation of the secession option.  Do you see it as being of greater benefit to reactionaries?

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Wow.. (4.00 / 3)
Your rationalizations are stunning. I just seemed to think most people wouldn't get in bed with some of the vilest aspects of society, regardless of the cause. For most people with a moral compass, it's not negotiable. I can't think of anything I'd get in bed with neo-Nazis with, especially a lost cause such as this one. Silly me.

I know you're asking Julie this, but what do you mean "effect of the legitimization of the secession option"? Legitimized by whom, the general public, who could care less? Some legislature in some non-existent state? As far as I can tell, it's not gaining real, substantial headway anywhere outside of the fringe, Naylor's inflated, self-commissioned poll numbers not withstanding.

Keep chasing that rainbow.

[ Parent ]
By "effect of the legitimization option" (0.00 / 0)
I mean within the general public, who, I'd argue, care a great deal.  When it's not an issue they devote no thought to it, but if a State announced that it wanted to secede, I'd wager that a vast majority would simply activate their "one nation under god indivisible"/"the Civil War settled it" schemas and would oppose any secessionist move whether or not it was justifiably liberatory. The "effect of legitimation" would, to my estimation, mean that people would break down the idiosyncrasies of an individual secession scenario before passing judgment upon it, rather than being opposed a priori.

As for the racists bit, you've raised an important point that is an issue whenever there is another group whose world-view you oppose working towards the same goal as yourself.  How do you deal with that reality, which is not a cut and dried, black and white thing?  I think a good metaphor here is the United Front against Fascism and WWII.  Should we have not given the Soviets any aid when we were at war with Nazi Germany because we opposed their Stalinist system, or was it more appropriate to maximize the effectiveness of the resources arrayed against Hitler in order to quicken his downfall, while simultaneously positioning ourselves to be in a superior position vis a vis the Soviets once victory was achieved?  There are historians still arguing this issue to this day, so I don't think the answer is a simple one.  However, as such, I don't think it can be as easily dismissed out of hand as you seem to believe, but instead merits further analysis and discussion.  From my perspective, it seems that one should measure the costs and benefits of any alliance of convenience, rather than rejecting any possibility out of hand in deference to a Manichean worldview.   Furthermore, such an outright rejection ignores the fact that organizations such as the LOS contain multiple factions that are in competition for influence and power.  Yes, there are racists, but there are also libertarians, etc.  The connections with progressive-dominated organizations strengthens the internal position of the more progressive members of an LOS type organization,  while isolation strengthens the position of the racists and hard-liners.

All of this discussion obscures an issue that is far larger and more pressing than whether or not Vermont secessionists should be in communication with some Southern closet racists: that the American Federal Government is responsible for a great array of atrocities spanning the last century (if you're already convinced that I'm a rationalizing, intellectual version of an in-denial alcoholic, stop reading now, as the remaining text will be a waste of your time.  However, the difference between a rationalization and an explanation is the veracity of the the assertion, so for those who haven't written me off as an entirely deranged wacko, venture onwards).  From the genocide of the Philippines at the beginning of the twentieth century to the occupation of Vietnam to the bloody, CIA-backed toppling of the governments (many democratically elected) of Guatemala (1954), the Democratic Republic of Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976), Guatemala (again) (1993), and Venezuela (failed) (2002), to the Iraq war and the re-escalation of Afghanistan by Obama, the US Government has been an incredibly brutal force on the world stage.

In the first hundred years of the Republic, if States didn't approve of what they saw as a fool-hardy military adventure, they had the power to not commit their resources to it.  During the war of 1812, much of New England stayed effectively neutral because they opposed going to war with England (which they saw as motivated by Southern expansionism), and there were even rumblings of secession before the peace treaty was signed.  During the Civil War, State governments appropriated funds and raised regiments for the Union Army.  If that were still the state of affairs now, Vermonters (and the residents of other anti-war states) could have decided in 2003 that we would not be sending our citizens to go to war in Iraq, thus hamstringing the ability of the Federal Government to project imperial power.  However, the Feds now have a standing army which is unparalleled in human history, and an income tax with which to fund it without requiring the consent of the State legislatures.

This is the situation with which we are faced, and the history of the last century has shown, again and again, that this state of affairs does not change when the Rs or the Ds are in power, nor does a "good" President mean the abuses stop.  Eisenhower oversaw Guatemala, Kennedy Vietnam, Nixon Chile, etc.  All of this evidence adds up, for me, to the fact that the Federal Government is an out-of-control, homicidal system that cannot be reined in through internal reforms.  We've had a century to try, and the abuses and wars continue unabated.

Instead, it is imperative that it be dismantled, and at the very least, reconstituted from the ground up.  In most societies when the socio-political system becomes decadent, the only way to replace it is through violent overthrow.  In our system, however, we theoretically have a way around this in the form of the sovereignty of the states.  In this way, local governments that are closer to the people have the legal right to assert their sovereignty and withdraw from a national government if it becomes overbearing.  The threat of this was implicit in the politics of the Republic up until the Civil War, and it had residual effects for decades afterwards.

However, the Civil War began the process of dismantling that process of checks and balances, and by the twentieth century we were faced with a Federal Government and a set of modified set of founding myths that ignored the vital function that the power to secede played in the negarchy of the original Federal system.  If one accepts the premise of the un-reformability of the Federal Government as laid out above, we are left with two options.  One, the overthrow of the system through extralegal means, or two, the re-legitimization of the mechanism through which the States were intended to discipline Federal decadence.  I'd argue that the second choice holds less potential for bloodshed, and is a tool that that the framers of our Constitution, flawed men though they were, had the foresight to leave for us in case we ever found ourselves in a similar situation to the one they were in in 1775.  In order to do so, however, we need to recover it from the effects of 150+ years of centralist propaganda, and that's a big project and one that I believe is worth doing.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Up until now ... (4.00 / 3)
I've been happy to just read this thread without jumping in. But this, carbonpenguin, deserved a comment:
However, when dealing with the purely structural, such ideological-policy positions aren't relevant.

Means and ends are inseparable. If you jump in bed with racists to achieve what you perceive as a mutual end, what do you think the racists will do upon reaching the near term goals? Do you think they'll go quietly into the night feeling good about advancing humanity?

Not.

When you work with racists you empower racists. But that's a choice you, carbonpenguin, are consciously making.

Hey, I know all about rationalizations. I'm a non-practicing drunk and one-time cigarette monkey. I know how to say things that sound just right to me.

I also know how much like bullshit all my rationalizing sounded to so many others ... and they were right.

If you weren't in bed with racists, carbonpenguin, I'd feel kinda sorry for you.

It's about community ... RAMABAHAMA DOT NET (only it is still under construction ... isn't that life?)

[ Parent ]
First off, (0.00 / 0)
don't feel sorry for me.  I've had the honor of having my thoughts picked apart and challenged by a group of rather intelligent people over the course of this discussion, and my own thoughts have gone places I never would have expected had I not had this opportunity.  It's the best kind of education one can have, and I thank everyone who has contributed to this discussion.

As for the "rationalizations", I think you're right to point out that one should not enter into an alliance of convenience naively.  However, I don't think that the implication is that one should never form an alliance of convenience, but that one would be remiss in not preparing for dealing with the aftermath.  Important lessons can be learned from the 1980 Iranian revolution against the US backed Shah.  The left and the mullahs allied to take him down, and then the mullahs took power in the aftermath.  The Shah wouldn't have fallen if the two sides had not allied against his dictatorial regime, but the left should have been better prepared for the power struggles that ensued in the aftermath.  Similarly, I don't think the corporatist/imperialist "center" can be effectively neutralized without a left-right alliance; however, progressives should be absolutely ready to defend their gains once the Leviathan is slain.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Good luck with that n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Oh? (4.00 / 1)
Similarly, I don't think the corporatist/imperialist "center" can be effectively neutralized without a left-right alliance;

Kinda presents a problem when neutralizing the right is an important priority, as well, doesn't it? I'm not going to gt into bed with racists for anything, especially a futile cause such as secession.

[ Parent ]
I'm puzzled (4.00 / 1)
why you think the Right would care to challenge corporate America; while you're at it, please explain the difference between the Right and corporate America
[ Parent ]
Let me say this. (3.60 / 5)
I think Naylor is a racist. Period. I said it, send in the lawyers, whatever I don't give a shit. There's been too much he's said in common with the hate movements to convince me of otherwise.I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, I know the lingo quite well, especially after going through that whole SVR bullshit a few years ago.

Now, before you comment on that, answer this question. What would YOU call a person who has no qualms about going onto a radio talk show of an avowed white supremacist as a guest and yucking it up jovially? Open-minded? Most people I know, given the chance to interact with those kinds of people would either avoid them like the plague or smash their teeth in.  So what does that make Naylor?

You know, with the nutjobs, it's always either a CIA conspiracy, a Zionist (or SPLC) conspiracy, "character assassination", or they're being "attacked because we fear their ever-growing power". Naylor's used all four of those. When do you concede that you're admiring a lunatic?

[ Parent ]
Or when Naylor blamed all this on Bernie Sanders.... n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Interesting (2.00 / 1)
Carbonpenguin.. easier to rate this comment a "2" than to address the concerns it raises?
[ Parent ]
Man, you are attentive. (0.00 / 0)
to your score :).  I rated it a two because it raised some good issues (so not a 0 or 1), but didn't address the topic I'd prefer to devote my time to discussing.  As such, I wasn't excited about it as something to relish dissecting and formulating a response to (as I have with several of odum's posts), so it didn't really rank as a 3 or 4 for me.  I guess I'm of the opinion that, if you have a five point grading system, one should use all five points, not just "awesome" or "blows".

As for your points, they're something I've struggled with for a long time.  When I was younger, I was involved in ARA and BB's in DC/Baltimore, and had plenty of hostile interactions with racist/nationalist skins.  However, I've since come to be of the opinion that its better to allow racists to remain human and approachable.  As fun as it is to bust someone in the mouth while wearing a bandanna over your face, doing so merely reinforces their identity and ideology by giving them the experience of persecution to bond over. I'd say that someone who can sit down and get a racist into a situation where their ego and identity defense mechanisms are not on red alert is far more effective than "smashing their teeth in".  Direct action has a place in the context of containment and self defense; however, it by itself is a tactic and a mindset that will not win the war.

If that is the more effective tactic (and Naylor is conscious of it; here we move into more open speculation), then the association argument for "Naylor the racist", which I'm perceiving as the crux of this post as well as the one below, goes out the window, and then the real issue to address becomes the question I posed to odum at 01:20:02.

http://www.asrblog.com

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
OK (4.00 / 1)
Way to not answer the question. Given Naylor's well-documented associations and statements, do you believe he's a racist? And if so, do you care in the least? And when I say "Care", if you do, why would you want to give any attention to him whatsoever? I'd think if you were that serious about how you feel about secession, you'd be working hard not to have paranoid racist be the de facto leader of the movement, right?
[ Parent ]
I felt that I did answer your question, but again, (0.00 / 0)
no, I don't personally believe Naylor is a racist.  I think his goal is the legitimation of secession within discourse as discussed above, with his questionable associations coming from the ecumenical mindset of pan-secessionist perspective.  I think that its quite legitimate to call into question the effectiveness of those associations as the best tactic, as diggs did when he said:

It might be rational in a very abstract sense, but practically  it's quite irrational if it drives away a lot of people who would normally support your cause.  Racism is an issue that people are (rightly, I think) just not willing to look past.  

At most, I think Naylor can be accused of a tactical blunder, but, to my thinking, the nature of the blunder implys that Naylor might have been a bit myopic, but not racist.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Ok, that's your answer. (4.00 / 1)
I don't agree, in fact I think it's a bullshit way of coming to terms with the truth; like Rob Williams, you put the "cause" above any kind of greater moral good. Can't see any other reason you'd cast Naylor's anti_SPLC rants and his appearance on a white supremacist talk show as a "tactical blunder". We're not talking Reagan at Bitburg here, where it was more just a case of a person with pudding for brains not realizing the interpretation of his actions. Or Sarah Palin being stupid enough to sit for interviews when she has the intelligence of a fifth grader... that's a tactical blunder.
Naylor knows exactly what he's doing here, and he's fine with it. Moreso, now that he's lost the left (with the exception of the Bread and Puppet people), his rightist followers are more or less comfortable with this paradigm, so why change now?

Seems like you're exactly the kind of person they're looking for.

[ Parent ]
As a sidenote (0.00 / 0)
After reading this article on the SPLC by Alex Cockburn on Counterpunch, I have little respect for them.  As such, an anti-SPLC rant isn't much of a mistake in anything beyond PR terms.
http://www.counterpunch.org/co...
Appearing on the white supremacist show is a bit more troubling.

http://www.asrblog.com
[ Parent ]
Just a bit? (4.00 / 1)
Appearing on the white supremacist show is a bit more troubling.

Not troubling enough for you to keep from getting in bed with him, apparently.
[ Parent ]
Not so (4.00 / 1)
Matt has a girlfriend and is monogomous.
[ Parent ]
Ya know, normally that'd stop me... (0.00 / 0)
but there's something about a scrawny meth-head in a white hood that really can really get a feller hot 'n botha'd. Rawr!!!

http://www.asrblog.com
[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
Way to not answer the question. Given Naylor's well-documented associations and statements, do you believe he's a racist? And if so, do you care in the least? And when I say "Care", if you do, why would you want to give any attention to him whatsoever? I'd think if you were that serious about how you feel about secession, you'd be working hard not to have paranoid racist be the de facto leader of the movement, right?
[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
who in Mobtown where you working with in ARA? (feel free to answer in a personal email).

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

[ Parent ]
Right, because... (3.50 / 6)
...the accusation of racism is one of the most effective ways to delegitimize an individual or idea in modern American society...

...it's not we have anything real or serious to say about the subject.  We're all about the accusation of racism.


juliewaters.com

I feel like you're dodging the point... (0.00 / 0)
...it's not we have anything real or serious to say about the subject.  We're all about the accusation of racism.

That's a strawmanning of my position.  I made the point (which I think is important in the context of modern media dynamics) of the power of racism accusations because I felt that the Naylor-LOS/racist organization association is the dominant focus of discourse whenever the independence issue comes up on GMD. What I asked for in the diary was for the "real and serious things to say on the subject", because I enjoy a serious discussion.  Which does not happen when the racism witch-hunt dynamic is the dominant metaphor of a discussion.

I'm asking what you think and why, Julie. Because my own perspective is enriched by hearing yours.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Actually... (3.00 / 3)
...you posted some incorrect and misleading statements about the history of this discussion and then accusing us of having done a smear job on Naylor.

That makes your motives and your interest in this topic suspect from the get-go.  While you may be interested in a serious discussion here, you have a bit of work to do in order to demonstrate that to me.

As far as what I think goes, I think that the secessionist movement is irrelevant except insofar as it gives cover for white supremacists and other similar groups and would personally like to see it crushed.  I want my country to be a whole country, not a bunch of fractured states with their own government.  I want more local control over some aspects of government, and I'm a big believer in local economies, but I didn't move to Vermont to separate from the rest of the country.

juliewaters.com

[ Parent ]
"I'm asking what you think and why" (3.60 / 5)
No you weren't. You didn't get to that until well into the diary. Before your "just asking" we were treated to:

Vermont Secession: Beyond the Straw Men

"straw men?" Excuse me? Slamming the door from the get-go, aren't you.

the controversy focused most of the Vermont political blogosphere discourse around whether or not SVR founder Thomas Naylor is a closet racist

No, it didn't at all. Not even close. Who have you even been talking to? Remember - you dont even have the basic chronology right.

This controversy has had the unfortunate (or intended?) effect of closing off discussion of the many important issues that Naylor and others in the independence camp have brought up.

Name one. Seriously. A single one. Anything they may have worthwhile to say is being more vibrantly, openly and effectively being discussed in dozens of other sources. Nothing was "clos(ed) off."

The accusation of racism is one of the most effective ways to delegitimize an individual or idea in modern American society

And racism itself is one of the most destructive forces in human history. Or doesn't that matter?

The thing that strikes me as most disappointing about this whole state of affairs is that it seems that some those most eagerly attacking SVR are actually folks who value decentralism.

And it doesn't even occur to you as a possiblility that you may have that equation turned on its head. Try "The thing that strikes me as most disappointing about this whole state of affairs is that it seems that some of the folks who value decentralism seemed unconcerned about racism." Not even a possibility for you.

....and then you get to your "I just want your opinion" stuff.

Sorry. This was an attack diary, plain and simple. As I do above, I'm willing to chat, but take some honest responsibility for what you've written. If that's beyond you, a reasonable discussion probably is as well, and we're all just wasting our time.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Comment Hypocrisy (1.00 / 5)
OK, you caught Matt, maybe he had a slant to his diary entry because he respects Naylor's academic and professional history, accomplishments with SVR (he has been on Fox, NECN, Brazilian TV, Russian TV etc.) and is a personal friend.  I know that your posts are always 100% bias-free, with no hidden messages or reflections of a personal agenda, so I'm sorry that you are offended by his very sly, conniving, rightwing, warmongering and racist post.  

I must say though that I see some bias in your comments, especially the last "some folks who value decentralism seemed unconcerned with racism."  Have you ever written in your posts:

"Some of those value social programming seem unconcerned about a stable currency"

"Some of those who value peace seem unconcerned with Obama warmongering in the middle east"

"Some of those who value gay marriage seem unconcerned about whether the government should be regulating it at all"

"Some of those who value the Constitution seem unconcerned about Obama appointing Czars left and right and attempting to bestowe more power on Ben Bernanke"

"Some of those who value the VT budget seem unconcerned about the $200 million deficity we'll face in a year"

"Some of those who value employment in Vermont seem unconcerned that only goverment jobs are increasing in number"

"Some of those who value electing a quality candidate to the office of VT Governor, seem unconcerned with Odum pledging $100,000 to whoever happens to win the Democratic Primary, even if there's a substantially better candidate elsewhere."  

not even a possibility for you


[ Parent ]
Doofy, hostile response (3.33 / 3)
I never claimed to have no biases. We all have biases. This sight is all about a point of view - what people would call a bias.

So what on Earth is your gripe? Do you go to Ben & Jerry's and deride them for not having entrees? Ridiculous. As is the rest of your post. Vapidly so.

Your friend dropped into a left wing site and wrote a diary attacking people for their viewpoints - then he tried to claim he was simply asking folks their opinions.

Maybe you should both take a breath, take some responsibility for your own words, and re-think your Tasmanian Devil routine. In this very same thread is plenty of evidence folks here will engage if you dont lead with attacks (and then play the victim when folks respond - why oh WHY are conservatives ALWAYS playing the victim...?)

In other words - don't start none, won't be none. But don't make the ridiculous demand that GMD stop being a left wing site. Good grief. Start your own blog if you want a right wing site, you don't get to co-opt this one. In fact, you don't even get to TRY.

undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
We have a blog (2.00 / 2)
Here you go if you're interested.  The latest post is a big shout out for VT finishing 7th in the rankings of Worst 2010 State Budget Gaps.  We were soooo close to first! Oh well, better luck next year.

http://asrblog.com/

[ Parent ]
The motivation for this post (0.00 / 0)
was JD Ryan's post about Naylor's appearance on Glen Beck's program.  That post seemed, to me, to be indicative of the flavor of discourse that has seemed to surround the secession issue, and I wrote this with the intention of expressing my sense of the state of affairs and my feelings about that perceived reality.  However, by writing this I was not claiming to have a privileged perspective on the Truth; that's why I included the question.  It was not intended as a rhetorical CYA; I expressed my opinion of the issue, but that opinion (as is the case with all opinions) is based upon an incomplete pool of information.  It was an invitation to add the missing pieces and contribute to the process of more complete understanding.

In that vein, again, I really appreciated the fact that you shared the story of your experiences during the time after you wrote about the LOS/SVR thing.  That gave me access to a perspective that hadn't informed my perspective up to that point, and is a motivation to dig deeper into this issue.  I'm not one who takes much pleasure in flame-wars, so I hope this clears up the "why" and satisfies the accusation of ulterior motives.  In any case, I'm going to head up the thread where the discussion that I'm quite interested in having is going on.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Well (3.67 / 3)
That post seemed, to me, to be indicative of the flavor of discourse that has seemed to surround the secession issue.

Well, perhaps if you had done a bit of research about that raving lunatic before jumping into bed with him, you'd see why, no?

It's not a conspiracy, Zionist, SPLC, CIA or anything else. Thomas Naylor has no problem associating with racists.An irrefutable fact. Period. In fact, he seems quite comfortable around them, and his attacks on the SPLC mirror the exact same criticisms you'd see on Stormfront or VNN. Believe me, I know, as when we were going after them I had to read a lot of that vile crap, as there were a lot of associations there with some on the SVR advisory board.

Wanna get into bed with him for your secession fantasy? Go for it. Just don't whine when thinking people don't take you seriously.

[ Parent ]
okay lets remove the racist seccessionist connections (3.86 / 7)
Wanting to leave the Union is a fantasy, one that would severely weaken the power of every Vter. We have 600K+ people so we are overrepresented in the most powerful country in world history. We have had an outsize progressive effect on a nation with strong reactionary tendencies. Jeffords even single handedly flipped the Senate. We'd be fools to want to leave.

And that doesnt even touch upon other practicalities like how would I get my soical security $$ back? Or is that too mundane?  Should I be discussing the narrative of reified federal legitimacy with patriotic Vermonters at 4th of July parades this weekend? You can almost feel the groundswell of support.

Happy Independence Day!

Silly you... (2.00 / 1)
...for getting into those trivialities such as the actual feasibility of the idea actually happening.
[ Parent ]
actually (3.43 / 7)
it's an interesting legal / political question
(and no, I don't want to enable these hosers)

but - having come together freely, do states have the right to disassociate peacefully? it really is at the core of self-determination

apart from the practical issues (which could keep analysts busy for years - i.e., not just getting our Social Security $$ but what about paying our share of the national debt?), the constitutional issue is as raw as it gets

[ Parent ]
that'd be fun (4.00 / 1)
we could each pay our $30K or whatever it is each indiv owes on the debt up front the day we unfurl our new flag. I just hope it's not the stars and bars, no thanks to the "white man's paradise" reputation the seccessionists have cultivated.  
[ Parent ]
Wow Doug (0.00 / 0)
you really have a fan club. Random zero anyone?  
[ Parent ]
Eh (4.00 / 1)
Those "feasibility" questions didn't seem to get in the way of scores of rebels from the beginning of recorded time...  

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

[ Parent ]
indeed (4.00 / 1)
rebels are good.



undercaffeinated

[ Parent ]
Hah! (1.00 / 1)
You apparently have no idea what Star Wars is even about.
[ Parent ]
Oh good god (3.86 / 7)
You really have no idea who you're talking to.

undercaffeinated
[ Parent ]
that's just too funny (4.00 / 1)
rofl
[ Parent ]
The funniest bit is where, in another thread... (4.00 / 1)
...she accuses us of acting like 14-year olds after posting that :)

juliewaters.com
[ Parent ]
rebels (0.00 / 0)
typically don't give a shit about accounting

the hypothetical was about a peaceful disassociation, not a revolution or a civil war

[ Parent ]
In the case of many of the practicalities... (0.00 / 0)
I'd say that you're right if you take the situation of the moment with no consideration of the future.  However, when the dollar crashes and we're unable to finance our debt externally, we as a society are going to need to make some very hard choices.  I'm personally of the opinion that we're so deep in the hole that we're either going to be forced to effectively default through hyper-inflation or raise taxes in order to service our debt to such an extent that our economy will sputter out further as enormous chunks of wealth are transferred to over-seas creditors.  In either situation, I think that the ability to assert our sovereignty will be a critical tool to shield Vermonters from the worst case scenarios.

America's debt and currency is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government.  If we withdraw from the Union, I'd argue that we are free of that burden since VTers would no longer be US citizens.  We'd also be free to adopt another currency in the event of a hyper-inflationary default.

Would secession suck for a time? Undoubtedly.  Would it be better for us than the future we face as a part of the United States? I tend to think so.

As for Social Security; I'm in my 20s, so I'm never getting that money back in any case.  I just look at my pay-stub and mentally consider it to be a part of the income tax I pay.

Should I be discussing the narrative of reified federal legitimacy with patriotic Vermonters at 4th of July parades this weekend?

Yeah, I can get a bit technical at times, but, hey, we're all nerds here, right.  I mean, we are talking about Vermont Secession on the internets :P.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
while I disagree with many of your assertions (4.00 / 1)
(the inevitability of the dollar's collapse, the impossibility of our debt)  I am most saddened by your complete hopelessness about the generational covenant that is social security. Sounds like W's disinformation campaign worked.
[ Parent ]
With multilateral discussions going on as to abandoning the greenback as the WRC... (0.00 / 0)
where do you see hope for the Dollar coming from?  The way I understand it, the American prosperity of the past 30-odd years has been based upon leveraging real assets and exporting dollars to other countries and collecting a "rent" for their use in terms of being able to export our inflation.  Once that state of affairs is ended (and the major Federal debt holding countries would like it to end, albeit smoothly), the structural support of American Economic Exceptionalism will be gone.  If you're interested, I go a bit more into this state of affairs in this essay: http://asrblog.com/2009/04/25/... .

As for Social Security, it's less Bush propaganda than this same state of affairs that worries me.  If the center of the global economy shifts, we're going to be no better off than the other third-world countries that have neo-liberal structural adjustment regimes imposed upon them by the IMF.  I have no great hopes for the future of Social Security if something like that happens, so I'm planning my personal consumption/saving patterns accordingly.

http://www.asrblog.com

[ Parent ]
Vermont Scrapwood... (4.00 / 1)

... back when that blog was in existence... did an amazing study on the economic drawbacks of seceding from the U.S.  He picked apart the economic rationale of seccession line by line. I wish it were still out there. It was a masterpiece. If anyone can find it, post it on here. Thanks!
[ Parent ]
Would it be cached in Google? n/t (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Not anymore n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Leahy, Sanders, & Welch (0.00 / 0)
... are not the "outsize progressive effect" that Vermonters like to think they are, unless "almost zero" is what you mean by "outsize".

Sir Patrick is a joker.  Thirty-four years, going on 40, of nothing more than occasional tisk-tisking and finger-wagging while monstrous criminality goes on unchallenged.  

Ditto Bernie.  18 years in DC, gadflying and Don Quixote-like flailing around.  Still, when push comes to shove, he goes quiet.    He's going to help educate the masses on the virtues of socialism, as opposed to doing his damn job and defend the Constitution.

Both these guys have virtually no chance of not being re-elected.  But neither one is willing to spend their considerable political capital to do what's right in terms of the war

Being a newbee, perhaps Welch has to watch the political winds, but let's face it, all of these guys should be willing to put their jobs on the line to do what's right, and they don't, ever.  

The Titanic has been sinking, for a long time, and the VT delegation wrings their hands, wags their fingers, and helps move the deck chairs around.  

[ Parent ]
Vermont is also a "receiving state" (4.00 / 1)
Secession would mean that we'd lose all of the Federal dollars that pave I-89 ad I-91 as well as state roads.  We would also lose a lot of health care reimbursements through Medicaid.  

These two cost factors alone would put Vermont in bankruptcy.    

Nate Freeman

Northfield, VT

natefreeman@gmail.com

[ Parent ]
true, but (0.00 / 0)
one source reports that VT'ers sent $4.085 billion to the feds in 2005 and received $4.645 in return; so yes, we're a "receiving" state but the gap is "only" $560 million (and this does not include interest psaid on gov't. bonds and since we have an unusually high % of wealthy folks the number is probably less)

and the losses might be offset by the savings from not paying for wasteful spending in other areas (e.g., defense)

[ Parent ]
Not a Beneficiary State (0.00 / 0)
Hans Ohanian, a professor at UVM, wrote an article for VT Commons about this subject and claims that the Tax Foundation provides misleading numbers when it claims we are a 'beneficiary state.'  Something as simple as the post office, if postal service is on the federal benefits side of the balance sheet, then why do we still pay postage and other fees?  I have reprinted the full article on my blog with permission from VT Commons.  http://asrblog.com
[ Parent ]
Palin just 'seceded' (0.00 / 0)
as gov of Alaska
Oo! Thanks for the heads up (0.00 / 0)
And this one I could click over and find, even! Still wondering what the dKos/CIA thing was about.... never found it...

undercaffeinated
[ Parent ]
Palin just 'seceded' (0.00 / 0)
as gov of Alaska
Twice, even! n/t (0.00 / 0)


undercaffeinated
[ Parent ]
My screw-up (4.00 / 1)
Guess I got excited between the news and the phone call.  Anyway, it says she steps down July 26.  No reasons given.
Maybe she wants to barnstorm Tea Parties.  Or, better still, something weird.  Nah, it can't get any weirder.  (yes it can)
[ Parent ]
Either (4.00 / 1)
a) She's a real person accidently thrown into the spotlight and it has all finally taken its toll on her and her family (quite possible, really) or
b) she's been offered an incredibly lucrative job with some private firm or conservative party/organization that she perceives as putting her in a place of more power/higher profile/more money.

Either way, good fucking riddance ( hopefully).

-In America the people fear their government; in France, it is the government that fears the people

www.integralpsychosis.com

[ Parent ]
Or... (4.00 / 1)
3) there's a helluva big scandal about to break, and this is the first time she's ever done something intelligent.
[ Parent ]
Right (0.00 / 0)
I'll go with that.
[ Parent ]
Questions re: SVR (0.00 / 0)

* Did anyone ever find out why Bill McKibben really lifted all his stories from the SVR Web site? Did that ever follow through? Are they back online? Whatever happened with that?

* Also, is Bread & Puppet still in with the SVR? They were doing SVR performances in 2004 and other times as well. What's up with them?

Let me know.  

Yes (0.00 / 0)
Bread and Puppet performed at the 2008 Secession Convention in the state house last November.
[ Parent ]
Bread and Puppet? (0.00 / 0)
Or just Jim Hogue (as Ethan Allen)?  I wasn't there - just asking.  I thought that B&P was no longer associated.  
[ Parent ]
Bread & Puppet is getting played... (0.00 / 0)

either that or Peter Schumann is going senile and not thinking before he gets involved in something.  
[ Parent ]
From my Front Porch Forum email today (0.00 / 0)
Second Vermont Republic founder Thomas H. Naylor will speak at the Bread & Puppet Theater in Glover, Vermont following the 8:00 p.m. Lubberland National Dance Company show in the Paper-Mache Cathedral on Friday night, July 10. The theater is located at 753 Heights Road (Route 122).  Naylor's topic will be "The Vermont Independence Movement: Challenges and Opportunities."  For additional information call 802-525-3031.
[ Parent ]
My past week... (0.00 / 0)
Vermont Secession: Beyond the Straw Men | 84 comments
Publisher: odum
Contributing Editors:

Caoimhin Laochdha
greenvtster
JDRyan
mataliandy
NanuqFC
Poll
Who's most likely to sue GMD for the last poll?
Dan Freilich
Emily Peyton
Dennis Steele

Results






GMD Links
Vermont Daily Briefing
Rational Resistance
VT News Guy
VT Digger
Minor Heresies
What's the Point?
Vermont Yankee, evacuation plans, & more
Mulish Behavior
Political Animal (with Steve Benen)
Reason and Brimstone
Blazing Indiscretions
sneigwh
Dohiyi Mir
Blier Watch
five before chaos
Blue Hampshire
Blue News Tribune
Burlington Pol
Norsehorse
Rip & Read
Integral Psychosis
VT Secession
She's Right (conservative)
VT Bloggernaut
Morgan's Gov. race blog
Bureaucracy Blog
Austanspace

National

Congress Matters
Daily Kos
Open Left
BlogPac
Talking Points Memo
My Left Wing
MyDD
Docudharma
Glenn Greenwald
Firedoglake
Atrios (Eschaton)
Think Progress
Driftglass
Pam's House Blend
Hullabaloo (Digby)
The Plum Line (Sargent)

Legacy Media Blogs

Vermont View
vt buzz
Blurt (7 Days)

Non-political

Candleblog
iBrattleboro
WKVT 1490 AM
Vermont Mornings
False 45th
Bosox Wally

International

The Irish Independent
Comment is free...(Guardian UK)
Al Jazeera
Pulse Media
Global Voices
All Voices
Vermonters for a Just Peace in Israel/Palestine
STATE BLOGS
About GMD   Contact Us

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?
Search




Advanced Search

Active Users
Currently 3 user(s) logged on.

50 State Headlines

    follow the 50SBN on Twitter




    Specialized Feeds:

    Google Reader or Homepage
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe in Rojo
    R|Mail
    Add to Technorati Favorites!


    RSS FEED





    Powered by: SoapBlox