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