That’s right, Snarky Boy and Sheehan puffin’ a big phat one, I’ve got the photo just bellow. . . .

. . . OK, just kidding, I have no such picture.  And something tells me it would be in Cindy’s best interest to not be found in Snarky’s company.  But anyway. . . .

Whatever the GMD experience with Snarky Boy, I know little of it; it was before my time here.  I did spend a bit (far too much) of my time over the weekend reading back on some of his posts, and reading a shit-load of stuff from his blog site.  And OK, I get it, he annoys people.  He is controversial, at times immature, and at times far more concerned with character assassination than with fair-minded conversation about issues and tactics for accomplishing goals.  At the same time, I have to admit that I seldom find myself in disagreement with his positions.  While I have been taught to temper-down my ideals in order to try and engage productively with the tone of the conversation at hand, Snarky Boy has decided to take a different route.  Even though my strategy is different, I can’t say I disagree whole-heartedly with his, nor do I blame him for his choice.

A few days ago I ran into Michael Colby; he denied being Snarky Boy, though I’ll have to admit there was a momentary reluctance from him when I asked that I wonder if it wasn’t his personal conflict in either coming clean about it or lying to keeping up the persona of Snarky Boy.  Who knows?  And really people, who cares?  Snarky may or may not be him.  But Charity over at She’s Right noted that during the testimony at the Statehouse the other day:

Speaking of Snarky Boy, he mentions in his post that a “middle-aged man began booing [Marion Gray, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who spoke in support of the war, and against Sheehan] from the back of the room and shouting that she “was out of order.” He was quickly engulfed by the large numbers of security personnel and, from my perspective, immediately ushered out of the building.”

The Free Press identified this man as one Michael Colby.

If you spend some time over at Snark’s site you may find it interesting that Snarky Boy’s play-by-play of the legislative testimony ends right where Colby gets escorted out.  Regardless though, the man who would be Snarky makes a great point in that the left allowed the right -the less than 30% of Vermonter’s who support the war in Iraq- to look like the strong and the organized on this one.

Also, reading back some, I wonder what the wisdom is in ‘banning’ someone from this forum.  If people feel there are comments, or a conversation, that they don’t want to take part in, can’t they simply not do that?  If Snarky Boy is so horrible and disruptive, won’t readers be smart enough to see that for themselves and choose to not pay attention to the Snarkman?

Anyway, all this talk about war, anti-war, and liberals vs radicals makes me want to escape from the reality of, well, reality. . . .

Which makes me think of the Medical Pot Bill that passed, it would seem from that link, through the VT Senate last week.  I certainly can’t find anything more about it though (which isn’t to say I’ve searched high and low).

What I really like is that this bill (as far as I understand it) lets a doctor decide when and why a patient should be prescribed pot.  The old bill allowed for 3 or 4 very specific illnesses that would allow for a doctor’s prescription; this new bills seems to take the State out of the process of deciding what’s best for those in need.  Of course, I still don’t understand what business it is of that State what choices people make for themselves.  Coffee?  fine.  Cigarettes? just tax ’em.  Booze? tax it, regulate it, decry it but hit the bars after work anyway.  Pot?  Well, since the only real effects are slow-thinking and increased Twinky sales, lets send the fuckers to jail and disrupt the rest of their lives.  Unless of course, you have the money to afford a good lawyer and you can pay some fines and takes some classes, in which case you don’t have to go to jail.

Legalize Pot, legalize the Snark, and send Sheehan home to fight for bringing the troops home.  We can get it done ourselves, if only we actually do something.  The testimony of out-of-State celebrities is, and should be, irrelevant under the golden dome. 

One of the interesting discussions I had at the blogger shindig last night (I’ll get a report up on it later) had to do with, what else, who’s the best candidate for president? There was certainly a strong Obama contingent, ably represented by Philip Baruth and Neil Jensen–did I get that right?–but that may not be the end of it.

Bill Simmon has been arguing for Bill Richardson as a dark horse. Well, he’s obviously a dark horse, but does that mean he’s nowhere? Bill was pointing out a lot of good points for Richardson: many years in Congress, experience at the Cabinet level, he’s a governor, he’s Hispanic. All of those things are correct, but that doesn’t necessarily make him a winner. Funnily enough, though, David Brooks makes all the same points in his column ($$) today.

I’m not much to take advice from conservatives, and I find Brooks particularly annoying, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. From what I know of Richardson I think he’s an attractive candidate. The biggest question is how he gets from where he is now, which is pretty much nowhere, to the top of the charts. The way Dean did it four years ago was to be first out of the gate as an antiwar candidate. I didn’t exactly buy his conversion from conservative DINO governor to antiwar diehard Dem, but he sure attracted a lot of people and attention.

Unfortunately Richardson doesn’t have that going for him. I still think the Democratic field is going to shape up as Hillary vs. someone else, or maybe Hillary/Obama vs. someone else. If that’s the way it is I lean toward John Edwards, but I think that Richardson has a shot there. Maybe a long shot, but he’s not Kucinich or Vilsack.

Another Sunday, another linkdump…

Don’t you just love it when there’s a natural disaster and the media does its best to show how ‘concerned’ Bush is? The great photojournalism analysis site, ‘BAGNewsNotes’, has a good take on the spin on Bush’s appearance at the recent Alabama tornadoes with ‘The Compassion Gulf’.

Liberal blogs under the microscope again, this time in regards to the ‘nasty, vulgar’ anonymous comments on the blogs after the near-miss explosion with Cheney in Afghanistan. Because, of course, the best way to illustrate what we’re all about is by looking at our anonymous posters and trolls, right? Think Progress has the scoop on Howie Kurtz’s latest idiocy.

Something of agricultural/food interest; the Washington Post is reporting about FDA rules overriding serious warnings about a new antibiotic for cows. Another reason for organics, huh?

Siv O’Neal over at Smirking Chimp has a powerful writing about the 16 million Americans living in severe poverty: ‘The Invisible People Living in a Land of Plenty’.

The Rude Pundit’s maximum rudeness on Bush in New Orleans, with ‘Bush in New Orleans: I was a Drunk and an Idiot’.

And finally, something you should bookmark: The VT Legislature’s Scheduled Committee Meetings Page. Not a heck of a lot going on this week, but it’s a good resource to have on hand to keep an eye on the legislature.

Happy Sunday!

In case you’ve missed it, here’s that vile harpy Ann Coulter on John Edwards.

If you’ve been following the papers in recent years you know that Gov. Douglas’s biggest policy proposal has been civil commitment for sex offenders: basically, lock them up and throw away the key.

Pretty powerful idea. So much so that two years ago there was a legislative study, looking at the experience of other states to see if there is any reason to think it might work. Turns out, it doesn’t.

Here’s what the report says:

However, the committee does not believe that there is adequate evidence that civil commitment is the best use of state resources in trying to protect the community against potentially dangerous sex offenders.

Three of the members of the committee were even stronger in their rejection of the civil commitment idea:

Second, there is no evidence that civil commitment is effective even for those offenders who voluntarily participate in treatment. The evidence shows that recidivism rates in states that have adopted civil commitment are no better for offenders who have successfully completed civil commitment and been released than for offenders who were eligible for civil commitment but were released without being civilly committed.

That’s not enough to stop some people. Once again this year, Kurt Wright is the lead sponsor of a bill in the House to adopt civil commitments in Vermont.

Meanwhile, life goes on. And in this case, when I say “life” I mean more evidence on how these programs really work. Guess what? They don’t.

From tomorrow’s Times:
The decision by New York to confine sex offenders beyond their prison terms places the state at the forefront of a growing national movement that is popular with politicians and voters. But such programs have almost never met a stated purpose of treating the worst criminals until they no longer pose a threat.

But in state after state, such expectations have fallen short. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the laws in part because their aim is to furnish treatment if possible, not punish someone twice for the same crime. Yet only a small fraction of committed offenders have ever completed treatment to the point where they could be released free and clear.

I know that in the face of truly horrific crimes there is an overwhelming impetus to do something, anything. And I certainly don’t discount the fact that getting tough on the most hated criminals at all is a proven vote-getter (in other words, support your local demagogue).

Still, this is an occasion where Vermont may have been a little bit behind the curve nationally, so maybe we can pay attention to what’s happened in other states and realize that we can protect civil liberties and save ourselves a bundle by not going down the civil commitment road.

Just a suggestion.

(Dave “the Rave” Ravenwood — who is, as you can see, an extraordinarily talented political cartoonist — has done me the honor of working with me to capture part of the reality all of us doing impeachment work have encountered. As New Mexico and Washington state forge ahead, Vermont’s bill still languishes, for fear, ironically, of upsetting the enablers of this criminal “administration.”

Thanks, Dave. You’ve captured what we’ve all felt. – promoted by Kagro X)

Just wanted to let our readers interested in agricultural issues know that the VT delegation will be having a field hearing on Monday, March 12 at 10 AM, in the House Chamber of the Vermont State House in Montpelier.

From the press release:

The hearing will include testimony from several panels of witnesses representing a broad cross section of the Vermont agricultural community who will be invited to provide information and perspective on issues of particular importance to Vermont in the Farm Bill, including dairy policy, conservation programs, forestry, organic agriculture, rural development, and nutrition issues.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance

Here’s the news. I saw it on TV tonight, but I just found it in the Times.

You’ve probably heard part of this story already. Cheney was over in Pakistan earlier this week, apparently to kick Musharraf’s ass about cooperating with us on tracking down terrorists. He then gave an interview–correction, “a senior administration official”–gave a group  interview talking about Cheney’s meeting with Musharraf. The senior administration official seemed pretty well informed about the private meeting between Cheney and Musharraf, and seemed very interested in pointing out inaccuracies in press reports of this meeting.

For instance, did Cheney have this meeting to beat up on Musharraf?

A: That’s not the way I work. I don’t know who writes that, or maybe somebody gets it from some source who doesn’t know what I’m doing, or isn’t involved in it. But the idea that I’d go in and threaten someone is an invalid misreading of the way I do business.

So whoever the senior administration official is, he is apparently in a position to use the first person singular when referring to Vice President Richard Cheney.

Okay, so far it’s just ridiculous, a story of a little charade Cheney and the press agreed to.

Now, here’s the good part. Cheney goes over to demand that Musharraf do a better job at rounding up terrorists, and the same day, what happens? Pakistani forces pick up a terrorist, a really big one.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, March 1 – The former Taliban defense minister was arrested in Pakistan on Monday, the day of Vice President Dick Cheney‘s visit, two government officials said Thursday. He is the most important Taliban member to be captured since the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

The man, Mullah Obaidullah, was a senior leader of the Afghan insurgency, which has battled American and NATO forces with increasing intensity over the last year.

He is one of the inner core around Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban leader. The leadership is believed to operate from the relative safety of Quetta, Pakistan, where Mullah Obaidullah was arrested.

This is good news, right? After all, this is almost the top guy over there, bigger than anyone else we’ve picked up.

So what’s the problem? Well, to hear Bush tell it, the Pakistanis are our stalwart allies, standing side by side with us, fighting terrorists and building democracy (okay, that part may not be that important). But what happened on Monday? Cheney went over, demanded that they start handing over some terrorists, and that just happens to be the day they pick up one of the biggest targets of all.

I don’t think so. If they could pick him up Monday, they could pick him up Sunday. Isn’t it obvious that they have known where this guy was all along, but they weren’t sufficiently motivated until Vice President Senior went over and threw his weight around?

And if I’m right about that, doesn’t that also mean they’ve been protecting him?

And if they’re protecting this guy, what are the odds they aren’t protecting bin Laden?

Good thing we let al Qaeda out of Tora Bora so we could invade Iraq, isn’t it?

I feel a need to weigh in on the issue of whether Naylor and others associated with the Second Vermont Republic movement are tied to racists, racist movements and racism in general. 

In his book, The Vermont Manifesto, Naylor quotes one H. Newcomb Morse of Pepperdine Law School on why the confederate secession was legal.  For those unfamiliar with Pepperdine, the school is fundamentalist and the Dean of the Law School is Kenneth Starr —  yes that Ken Starr. 

“…Morse argues that the proper way for a state to leave the Union is through a state convention elected by the PEOPLE (emphasis ew) of the state to decide one and only one issue, namely the right of self-determination.  According to…Morse every Confederate State properly used the convention process.”

There it is folks – racism to the very core.  The clear and simple meaning of the above is that blacks and women are not people.  Only white men (and not all of them) could vote. 

In Morse’s list of reasons why secession was legal, he fails to mention the need to good faith negotiate assets and liabilities and also fails to provide for a period of time during which those who find themselves on the wrong side of the divide can change location.  As well, he fails to discuss the issue of secession from the seceding entities. 

There are separatist movement in many countries.  I find it interesting that Naylor doesn’t discuss the separatist movement in Quebec.  Separatist movements are all over the political map.  The only justification for separatism is that liberty and participation are not protected and respected in the current regime.  The notion of separation to protect tyranny, slavery, and oppression should be anathema.  And that’s what the Confederate States of America were all about.