Lots of things in the media that have generated strong reactions from me of late. First off, Chris Pearson hits one out of the park with a guest op-ed in the freeps:

On May 24 the Free Press ran a story about Gov. Douglas joining 21 other governors to demand answers about why our gas prices keep climbing at the pump. Good for him. We deserve some answers from the folks at ExxonMobil. But, doesn’t this move send a bad signal to business?

Gas prices are climbing and that usually means oil companies are making more money. But the governor has moved to protect similar profits generated at our own nuclear power facility. He has been very clear that taxing profits or increasing the tax on energy generation at Yankee is bad for business. It’s the reason he’s going to veto this year’s energy bill.

What’s the difference, Governor?

Second, where I usually roll my eyes at Congressional photo-op trips, the recent tour of the Middle East by Leahy and Welch generated this reality check which was spot on (and which you never hear anymore):

Leahy and Welch each said Wednesday that the trip ? which coincides with the congressional Memorial Day break and ends this weekend ? shows that the United States now has its priorities backwards in the Middle East.

“Iraq dominates the talk in Washington,” Welch said. “In the Middle East, it’s the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Iraq is not only a disaster in and of itself, its a disaster that allows the more deeply rooted problem that is fueling the regional violence to further fester.

Finally, something to horrify is in the latest in Seven Days (which has been on fire lately) concerning the unseen subculture of explotative conditions in regional Chinese restaurants:

Town and village records confirm that 2 Park Terrace, and another residence at 9-11 Park Street, are both owned by a company that belongs to Lai Poon, who is also listed as the president of Ming?s Incorporated.

In subsequent interviews, which were conducted in English or with a certified Chinese-language interpreter present, other residents of the house told stories similar to the old man?s. They all spoke of working exceptionally long hours ? 12 hours per day, six days per week ? at minimum or even below-legal wages. Many said they work only for tips, with a percentage of their earnings skimmed by the management. Though their employer provides free room and board, they claim to get no breaks, sick days, health insurance or other benefits. Moreover, several complained that if a worker quits or gets fired, he or she may be evicted from the house, sometimes the very same day.

Meet the newest generation of Vermont wage slaves, the Chinese restaurant workers

I’m in favor of the energy bill that was passed this session, and I’m sorry (but not surprised) that the Governor plans to Veto it.

More than just a climate change bill, I truly believe that the thinking behind this measure represents a step in the right direction for Vermont from a political and business prospective as well as an environmental one.

From the Burlington Free Press:

Supporters of the bill argue it offers a number of opportunities to save
Vermonters money on heating bills and, in the process, generate jobs.

Chuck Reiss is a Hinesburg homebuilder who’s hoping for a change in state law that
would allow a group of homes he’s building to share a wind turbine and sell the
excess power to utilities. That change in law is contained in the bill Douglas
has promised to veto.

“It’s time to start helping small businesses instead of
large businesses,” said Reiss, owner of Reiss Buildings and Renovations, who
added that he has several neighborhoods interested in running group wind
turbines if the law allows it.

In addition to striking a blow on behalf of the environment, this bill can also start setting the stage for a modern version of Jeffersonian Democracy here in Vermont.

In his original vision for this country, Jefferson saw a nation of small landholders…none powerful enough to tyrannize over their neighbors, and yet all enjoying the fruits of their labor and invested in “the system”.

For Jefferson, the economic engine he envisioned was primarily agricultural. But the principle holds true in today’s post industrial Vermont Landscape as well. The principal of many of us, owning our own business, making decisions here at the local level and wielding a collective amount of econonmic and political power is just as important to the health of our democracy as are  efforts to decrease our reliance on oil to the environment.

This bill would begin to help generate economic stimulus needed to  speed this process.

One of the things that I’ve always (begrudgingly) respected the Governor for was the way in which he made the point that Vermont kids SHOULD be able to grow up and do well economically RIGHT HERE AT HOME…

However, by opposing the logic of this bill, the Governor is turning his back on the future of Jeffersonian Democracyand the cause of meaningful employment here in Vermont in favor of a Hamiltonian emphasis on Big Business. The few good jobs we might gain for our youth would pale in comparison to the number we would loose by turning our back on small, forward looking, locally owned and managed Vermont Businesses.

I am glad to read in the Free Press that Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility and other Groups are, according to director Will Patten, “not going to take no on this issue” .

Again, from the Free Press:

Patten said his group will continue to try to persuade the governor not to
veto the bill. Failing that, he said, the business owners hope to persuade
enough legislators to override the veto when the Legislature returns for a veto
session July 11.

According to State Senator Ginny Lyons and State Rep Robert Dostis (who I heard at the recent VBSR convention) letters to leaders really ARE effective…and I hope to write a few. Maybe you will too.

With respect to extremist views being bantered about in the impeachment debate, I think that it’s all good. One of the beautiful things about the “Vermont Impeachment Movement” is that is doesn’t exist as an entity. We are all individuals, although many of us are working together on various aspects of the struggle.
  I have been very fortunate to be able to work with the 603 Democrats such as John Odum, having discovered them by being introduced to Jeffry Taylor by a national impeachment advocate from California. I have also found discussions with the “fringe” Greens to be useful, and there are plenty of folks who are considered extremists who were out ther this winter gathering names to get impeachment on town meeting ballots. I also appreciate the efforts of Jimmy Leas and Liza Earle, and do not think that their interests are anything other than building a powerful and effective call for impeachment.
  I realize that not all of these groups have thus far co-mingled successfully, but I don’t even see that as a serious problem, although it is an unfortunate one.
  We don’t need an organizxed movement. We just all need to be moving towards the same goal. To the extent that we can support each other, we’ll get better results. But even if groups who mistrust each other are both working towards the same goal, it’s still to the good.
  Loyal Democrats face a bit of a dilemma. Their leadership and many of its representatives are not living up to the expectations that came with the last election. Many many Americans feel betrayed by them. If some, as Cindy Sheehan, renounce their membership and  call for a third way, it is understandable. If party members want to stick with the party and work for change within, that is also understandable. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to support both of these approaches as honest individual responses to a national crises that is not being dealt with as of yet.
  If it takes a credible threat of a major loss of support to get the Dems. to act, why not try that approach? If Democrats like the PDA can change the culture of the party leadership and win back the dissaffected, how beautiful would that be?
  Personally, I don’t even think about party affiliation when I’m thinking about activists or representatives. I’m looking to what people a doing, and make my judgements accordingly. Unfortunately, many politicians and others in the public eye are not acting honorably and instead put ambition in front of Constitutional duties. No one should be spared our ire simply because they’re a member of one group or another. And no good deed should go unnoticed. You may distrust Peter Shumlin’s motives or methods, but the fact is, he saw that he was on the wrong side of the im[peachment argument and he did something about it.
  If we can’t all just get along, so be it. Let’s not let it get in the way of saving the Republic from jettisoning the Constitution and slipping into fascism.

(I’m promoting it up here just because there’s been quite a bit of discussion going on. – promoted by Brattlerouser)

From the Windham County Monthly: The Commons.

I would preface this letter for GMD by saying that going after bad deeds with no holds barred doesn’t mean relinquishing the determination to continue to try to change such bad behavior. Until our representatives are admonished in public, repeatedly, they will continue to follow an errant leadership and serve us badly. If they continue to betray us, they should lose their jobs.

What do you call a man who betrays his own deeply held principles as soon as he thinks it expedient to do so? Congressman, in this case Vermont Congressman Peter Welch. When campaigning for election last year, Mr. Welch was all about ending the occupation in Iraq. “I want this war to end yesterday” he reiterated to cheering crowds, raising hope that at least Vermont could get one voice into Congress that would actually work to end the Iraq debacle.

But Welch’s legacy as Vermont Senate majority leader, where he caved in to Governor Douglas and the nuclear power industry, selling out southern Vermont residents in the process, and where he caved into Douglas and pharmaceutical lobbyists by failing to marshal the Democratic majorities in the Vermont House and Senate to enact any meaningful health care reform during his tenure, has proven to be a better barometer of what to expect from this freshman representative in Washington D.C.

While Welch will point proudly to his recent vote against funding for the Iraq occupation, he won’t be so quick to tell you how his earlier procedural vote guaranteed that the funding bill would be passed, even without his vote. The procedural vote banned any hostile amendments from being added to the blank check approval for Bush’s war escalation plans, and conveniently separated some added domestic spending from the occupation money so that “progressives” could vote for dollars for their districts while letting others vote for the occupation appropriations. So ending the war is the most important thing, unless you can be bought off with some monetary support for Vermont dairy farmers.

Mr. Welch has just become a shareholder in this illegal and disastrous war. He should enjoy his membership in the democrat/republican corporate toady club now, because he won’t be happy with the dividends that his investment will realize when the next election comes around.

Dan DeWalt

South Newfane

Legislative Democrats had their chances for a significant power shift increase dramatically today – and they have Jim Douglas to thank for it.

Despite an enormous, broad-based push on its behalf, the Governor has made it clear he will veto the climate change bill, which has become less and less controversial the more members of the media, the legislature and the public have had time to familiarize themselves with it. legislative leaders have scheduled an unusually late July 11 special session to attempt an override – presumably to allow plenty of time to muster support.

Still, an override remains a long shot at best – even with its prospects improving daily. But the Governor just made another decision that opens up a strategic vulnerability; his veto of the new campaign finance bill.

This veto should surprise no one – with a few high-profile exceptions, there’s nothing that bugs the GOP machine like campaign finance reform legislation. Both they and their constituency groups can’t stand that stuff.

But in adding another potential override to the plate, Douglas may have given an out to some of the more conservative or vascillating Dems that will be under enormous pressure to tow the party line in July. A way to vote with the Governor on the most high-profile issue, but vote against him on the other. Freshman Democratic Representative-appointee Jon Anderson of Montpelier has done little but piss off the Democratic leadership since his arrival (voting with the Governor on a previous veto-override vote, but also in particular on campaign finance, where he sided with the Vermont GOP and Right-to-Life on a key amendment vote), and is very much in the Douglas camp on most issues. However his vote for the impeachment resolution and subsequent comments in the Montpelier Bridge publication indicate he is very concerned about winning re-election as a conservative in liberal Montpelier.

Such a twofer would enable Anderson and others in similar situations to vote for their man Douglas on the high-profile climate bill, but vote against him on campaign finance in order to try and claim political and intellectual independence before their constituents (and the caucus leadership). This isn’t necessarily good news for climate change, but it’s still good news for Dems, potentially. Why?

Because if a Douglas veto –any veto – is overridden, that’ll be the headline in all the papers the next day. And the perceived power shift will have the potential to send shockwaves into the next session, as well as the next election season.

Remove all troops immediately (like today).

Give a most sympathetic hearing to requests for the extradition to either the Hague or Iraq of all the architects of the war as well as all charged with war crimes.

Domestic trials for those guilty of violations of the Code of Military Justice.

Complete comliance with all requests for information from allied nations.

then let’s talk about other things.

This year marks Barbara Cook’s 80th birthday.  A big celebration for this greatest of all artists is what we should be planning

In a comment thread, I posed the following question:

So here’s the hard part: how do we engage in pressure tactics on Democrats (or any majority party) without being so extreme as to make ourselves irrelevant?

There was a time when the extremist groups served a really good purpose: to make the not-so-extremist groups seem moderate. I’m wondering if we can find a way to use the extremist rhetoric of the impeachment groups to our advantage.

When I was living in Rhode Island as part of the gay rights group there, we were trying to figure out how to push the legislature to not treat us as extremists.  One suggestion was that we create a genuine extremist group: a chapter of Queer Nation and present a choice to the legislature: you can interact with the raving lunatics banging at the door, or you can listen to us, the rational people who want equal rights.

It didn’t matter much that some of the people in that room having the nice, rational, discussion, were also some of the same people sometimes out there banging at the door, because that wasn’t the point.  The point was that sometimes you can push the debate in a fashion which makes your point of view more moderate.

Republicans have been doing this for at least thirty years now, and they’ve done a good job of it, at least in some areas.  Focus on the Family can appear more moderate in comparison to Fred Phelps. 

On the left, this seems to have happened with civil unions.  Thinking about how much vicious resistance there was to civil unions in Vermont at the time, it’s amazing that now civil unions are now the moderate, mainstream choice.  I remember watching that unfold while watching the legislature in MA wrestle with the issue only to discover that many of the anti-marriage folks were pushing for civil unions and saying that of -course- same-sex couples deserve equal rights, but not to call it marriage.

So if we’ve got people out there being self-righteous and arrogant about impeachment, how can we use it to our advantage?  How can we frame the issue in a way which is useful, as opposed to condescending and ineffective?

A long time ago, a couple conversations started more or less simultaneously. In Newfane, Dan DeWalt and others were working on Town Meeting Resolutions that requested then-Representative Bernie Sanders initiate impeachment proceedings. At the same time across the internet, there were discussions such as those in this diary of mine from January of 2006 about the possibility of using obscure House rules in section 603 of the Jefferson’s Manual to bring the conversation to Washington via a state legislature. From that latter conversation came the “Rutland Resolution” that swept Vermont’s Democratic County Committtees, itself drawing press attention from across the country. When the Rut-Res was stymied at the State Committee, largely through the intervention of Senator Leahy’s staff, the “603” crowd retreated and regrouped. At this point the gap was bridged between the two groups, and by this last legislative biennium, a synergy had formed. The grassroots coalition of Progressives, Independents and Democrats that worked the Town Meeting angle leveraged their renewed success into the goals of the Democratic Rutland Resolution movement (until about a week ago, the Progressive Party rebuffed our effort to get them on record with a Rut-Res). The result was a thing of beauty. A true merging of grassroots and netroots across party lines towards progressive goals.

For my part, I’ve been involved from way back, talking to legislators and others, making phone calls, crafting letters to state committee members, and more recently launching vtimpeach.com (for which I just dropped a setup/hosting check in the mail). Truth to tell, when I spoke with Kagro X (the second person I asked to be a front pager when GMD started), I admitted to him that much of the reason I wanted to start this blog was to support the nascent Impeachment movement in this state. It has been a long, deeply emotional relationship.

It is therefore with sadness that I announce my divorce from the Vermont Impeachment Movement over irreconcilable differences. You see, we’ve drifted apart over the past months. So far apart that I no longer feel welcome in my former “spouse’s” company.

The problem started when this “beautiful” synergistic movement was greeted in the worst possible way from the Democratic leadership. Here was organized, statewide, grassroots energy towards progressive goals. A veritable army ready to support real policy changes locally and nationally – all we asked was a little respect from elected officials. But as we all know, the movement was greeted with scorn from the offices of Senators Sanders, Leahy and Speaker Symington. Shumlin was not much better, choosing to try to crudely play the movement for (presumably) later advantage (the truth is – the only major Democratic elected who has dealt honorably with the Impeachment Movement has been Peter Welch, although good luck getting those organizers who are irrationally contemptuous of him to admit it).

What followed then was all too predictable. With our elected “leaders” choosing not to lead, a leadership vacuum was created. And nature abhors a vacuum. Into that vacuum rushed people like James Leas and Dennis Morriseau – people with agendas far beyond impeachment, and far too much unrestrained self-righteousness and contempt for those who do not share their views to bother restraining themselves. Those of us in the original “603” crowd began to get regular servings of rhetoric like this one from Morriseau, sent out to whoever’s email address he could get his hands on and regarding Peter Welch:

I think little Pete is “the enemy”.  In fact I’m sure of it, so I doubt he can be
moved by anything.

Very quickly, the greater culture of the movement began to reflect this rhetoric. Finally, last week came this from Freyne Land:

Welchie’s “no” vote on the latest Iraq War funding bill is too-little, too-late for a couple of the folks who’ve organized Vermont’s statewide “Impeach Bush & Cheney” Campaign.

“This bill, that has the support of Democratic Party leaders Pelosi and Reid, funds the war without any limits,” said Iraq War veteran Adrienne Kinne. “The Iraqis want this occupation to end. The American people want our soldiers home now. I fear Peter Welch’s no vote is too little too late. Peter Welch has been going along with that failed Democratic Party leadership for too long, and this terrible bill is the result.”

“We call on Peter Welch to speak out against the Democratic Party leadership that talks peace and makes war,” said Kinne. “We call on Peter Welch, Patrick Leahy, and Bernie Sanders to initiate investigation of Bush and Cheney, not just underlings like Alberto Gonzalez.”

“This bill, sponsored by the Democratic Party leadership, forces us to ask how Peter Welch and Pat Leahy can remain in a party that accepted Bush and Cheney’s demands to fund the war without any meaningful conditions,” said James Marc Leas. “A party that talks peace but makes war has lost credibility. Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy can do much more to end this war if they stop supporting a pro-war party. Just as Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, Peter Welch and Patrick Leahy should leave the Democratic Party.”

I, and the other Dems in the 603 movement became angry. These two organizers had single-handedly branded the Vermont Impeachment Movement an anti-Democratic Party movement, delivering a kick to the groin to all of us Democrats who had worked so hard on this for so long before people like Leas even knew there was an Impeachment Movement.

When confronted with our anger and our expectation that there would be a clarifying statement, we were met with the typical self-righteousness and scorn we’ve come to expect from the “you’re-with-us-or-you’re-with-the-Bushites” wing of the left. The slash and burn crowd who can’t recognize that those in positions of leadership must take responsibility for their words and work to bring people together – even if that means subsuming one’s own ego from time to time. The closest we got to an apology from Leas was:

You ask me to apologize because you misread our statements as speaking for the movement as a whole, even though Peter Freyne introduced it clearly as the views of two of the people within that movement. Fine. I apologize. And in the future I will state, “speaking for myself,” to make clear that I am speaking for myself, not for the movement as a whole. In this case, however, even without such an express disclaimer from me and Adrienne, Peter Freyne made it clear that we were speaking for ourselves and that there could be other views among those who’ve organized Vermont’s statewide ‘Impeach Bush & Cheney’ Campaign. Why don’t you apologize for the misreading? The only evidence you give that it was not clear is the fact that you misread it.

Basically, “it’s not my fault, and I’m sorry you’re too stupid to see that.” Now that’s leadership.

But he spent the majority of his response – paragraphs and paragraphs – with stuff like this:

I think you are attacking Adrienne and me because you have no idea what to say or do about the Democratic Party cave in and support for this war. I am wondering whether your priority is to protect the Democratic Party no matter what they do. Prove me wrong by putting out your own statement to Peter Freyne and the rest of the media stating your view, speaking for yourself of course, about the war funding vote.  I am more and more interested in knowing what your view is on the subject.

Guy doesn’t spend much time on the blogs, obviously.

Unfortunately, we’ve seen nothing from any of the others in the movement’s current leadership making the point that Democrats are still welcome.

And nobody wants to stay where they’re not welcome.

So I’m afraid the divorce is final, but the truth is, I’ve already been seeing someone else; the National Impeachment Movement. Organically speaking, it only makes sense for the Vermont Movement to fully merge with the national, as all attention is now on Washington and efforts there. We in Vermont have shown them the way, organized and pushed the matter through our capitol – empowering and furthering the conversation from coast to coast. Nationally of course, the movement is fueled by groups like Progressive Democrats of America and Democrats.com – and in case you didn’t catch those names, they remain Dem-friendly.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention another positive legacy of the Vermont Impeachment Movement – the vaulting of Dan DeWalt onto the national scene. Dan is one of the more decent and thoughtful people I’ve met, and clearly has no problem living with disagreements among allies over things such as Party affiliation. The nation is only a better place now that Dan has earned a wider audience.

But whether or not the state movement is about to lose all its Dem membership, I don’t know. Certainly the many I’ve talked to are done with it after the Freyne Land quote. Organizers need to realize for their own sake that their supposed allies across the country are largely Democrats, and if they insist on insinuating or stating that Dems should be marginalized from the group, they will inevitably find it is they themselves banished to the margins – again.

As our thoughts turn not only to to those soldiers who have died but to those now alive that sadly, will have to be remembered next and subsequent Memorial Days thanks to Bush’s war of choice, it is important that even as we pay respects, we need to keep the truth at the forefront of out hearts and minds. I read this op-ed in the Chattanoogan today, and it said something that needs to be screamed from the rooftops, as it should have been a few years ago when the propaganda was in full swing (emphasis mine):

The only way to truly honor our war dead and those that have fought in our wars would be to tell the truth about why they died and why they fought and why there must come a day – in honor of them – when we must put a stop to needless war and the killing and maiming, the ruining of lives and the heartbreak and suffering that comes from it.

The last time an American soldier died or fought for our freedom was World War II. That is the plain fact and the plain truth. To say that any soldier since World War II fought or gave up his life in order that we might enjoy our freedom is a horrible mistake in reasoning.

It is a horrible mistake because it is not just a mistake but a mistake that perpetuates and promotes our insatiable appetite for needless war and needless death and suffering under the guise that it was all for the cause of freedom.

No, it wasn’t. Every soldier that has died or fought under the American flag since World War II has done it because of the immoral and wrong-headed policies of our presidents and government leaders, backed by the ignorant and phony patriotism of the masses…those same masses that still believe even to this day that each one of our war dead gave up their lives for our freedom.

Other than reiterating how important and obvious the above statement should be to anyone with half a brain stem, there’s nothing else to say except as you remember those who have died, remember that many of them didn’t have to, and we should be never be afraid of reminding those who feel otherwise about that fact.

Crossposted from Reason and Brimstone:

The Bush administration (that may be an oxymoron) would have you believe that we’re in Iraq to damp down terrorism, that they are the soaring eagles with their watchful eye.  When you get down to the details, however, it doesn’t quite work like that.  Years ago, my students asked me what I thought of the invasion of Iraq, shortly after it begun.  I told them that from my point of view, it was a “strategic blunder” and that it would lead to a major groundswell in support in the Mideast for terrorist causes and it would, in the long run, do us much more harm than good. 

Sometimes, I really hate being right.  Per The New York Times:

Militants Widen Reach as Terror Seeps Out of Iraq
[…]
The Iraq war, which for years has drawn militants from around the world, is beginning to export fighters and the tactics they have honed in the insurgency to neighboring countries and beyond, according to American, European and Middle Eastern government officials and interviews with militant leaders in Lebanon, Jordan and London.
[…]
Last week, the Lebanese Army found itself in a furious battle against a militant group, Fatah al Islam, whose ranks included as many as 50 veterans of the war in Iraq, according to General Rifi. More than 30 Lebanese soldiers were killed fighting the group at a refugee camp near Tripoli.
[…]
Militant leaders warn that the situation in Lebanon is indicative of the spread of fighters. “You have 50 fighters from Iraq in Lebanon now, but with good caution I can say there are a hundred times that many, 5,000 or higher, who are just waiting for the right moment to act,” Dr. Mohammad al-Massari, a Saudi dissident in Britain who runs the jihadist Internet forum, Tajdeed.net, said in an interview on Friday. “The flow of fighters is already going back and forth, and the fight will be everywhere until the United States is willing to cease and desist.”
[…]
In an April 17 report written for the United States government, Dennis Pluchinsky, a former senior intelligence analyst at the State Department, said battle-hardened militants from Iraq posed a greater threat to the West than extremists who trained in Afghanistan because Iraq had become a laboratory for urban guerrilla tactics.

“There are some operational parallels between the urban terrorist activity in Iraq and the urban environments in Europe and the United States,” Mr. Pluchinsky wrote. “More relevant terrorist skills are transferable from Iraq to Europe than from Afghanistan to Europe,” he went on, citing the use of safe houses, surveillance, bomb making and mortars.

A top American military official who tracks terrorism in Iraq and the surrounding region, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic, said: “Do I think in the future the jihad will be fueled from the battlefield of Iraq? Yes. More so than the battlefield of Afghanistan.”
[…]

Way to go!  We’ve got ourselves a training ground.