UPDATED–See below 

For the last year, Windsor County State's Attorney Bobby Sand has been trying to start a public debate on the costs and benefits of marijuana prohibition in Vermont. You may remember that when Nixon ordered a look at this very question thirty-five years ago he didn't like the answer, so he suppressed the results. Yes, thirty-five years ago we were on the road to legalization.

So just maybe, when one courageous State's Attorney decides that his office has more important things to do than throw pot-smokers in jail, it can open a debate on marijuana prohibition in Vermont, right?

ll across Vermont Democrats are wailing, gnashing their teeth, and hoping that their one big pre-Christmas wish will come true: a strong challenger to Republican incumbent Jim Douglas. Somebody, maybe one of our top statewide office-holders, to step up, take the big political risk, and tell the voters of the state the truth: that Douglas is an empty suit, someone who looks like a governor, dutifully shows up at ribbon-cuttings, but is a nay-saying do-nothing when it comes to doing anything positive for the people of Vermont.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell is one of those statewide office-holders, and on occasion he has been willing to take independent stands that Governor Scissorhands wouldn't support.

So when Douglas decides, predictably, to take the low road and order the state's game wardens and other law enforcement personnel to bypass State's Attorney Bobby Sand and refer their pot cases to the AG or the feds, what the hell does Sorrel do?

Does he take the opportunity to stand up for Sand, and point out the fact that the so-called war on drugs is diverting vital law enforcement efforts from other, real crimes? Does he talk about the financial costs of confing productive citizens in prisons for enjoying an activity that hurts nobody and is far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, or the Big Mac you can get legally all over the state? Or does he join Douglas and demagogue the issue?

I wish he could take a position that would actually move Vermont ahead, but I'm afraid not.

I guess we need to look somewhere else for a principled Democratic leader.

As it turns out Sorrel may not be such a big fan of Douglas's move after all. Here's what he said on VPR this morning:

Sorrell says that's within the law – but unusual.

(Sorrell) “It's the first time that in a particular county that a sitting governor has directed the law enforcement that answers to the governor to refer certain cases to the AG's office, rather than the county state's attorney.''

(Sneyd) Sorrell says he's sure the governor's position will not sit well with prosecutors.

(Sorrell) “Is this a slap in the face? If I was a county prosecutor, I wouldn't be happy about this action by the governor.''

In fact, Ross Sneyd couldn't find anyone for his story to support what Douglas is doing, and both Dick Sears, chair of Senate Judiciary, and Jeffrey Shields, dean of Vermont Law School, were pretty critical. 

The newest star of the Vermont blogosphere doesn't have a blog (although he has been known to post a bit on less traveled sites). He's Doug Hoffer, go-to guy when you need a hard core, progressive policy wonk in Vermont.

And by hard core, I mean hard core. As in, the guy other hard core wonky types such as former Representative and Act 60 architect Paul Cillo look to when they need someone to do some heavy lifting.

In recent years, Hoffer has been taking full advantage of the small pool that is Vermont. By being smart, persistent, efficient and omnipresent, he has become to the left what John McLaughry pretends at being for the right. Unlike McLaughry, though, Hoffer actually does the work, as opposed to regurgitating canned, simplistic and intentionally myopicly dogmatic drivel from the Heritage Foundation and it's allies.

In a political environment where most self-proclaimed lefties have internalized the corporate line, and mope around in a funk of fiscal and ideological self-doubt, Hoffer has the tools and the wherewithal to virtually single-handedly stand up for Keynesian economics – and manages to do so in a way that seems open-eyed and common sensical, rather than doctrinaire. If you haven't heard his name, trust me, you've heard of his work. He was behind the recent study that showed Vermont taxes as among the most progressive, dropping a bomb right into the Republican election narrative. Here he is at uber-wonk Paul Cillo's counter-Ethan Allen Institute, Public Assets Institute. Here he is with Cillo putting the McJobs facts to Douglas's job growth claims. And here he is all over the freaking place at the interfaith/labor/community coalition site High Road Vermont.

The problem with Hoffer's work has been the problem with intellectual leftism in general; that is, it'ss a total “if you build it, they will come” presentation. Some great position papers, a chat with a reporter or two and a pretty website – followed by no attention whatsoever and little counter to the effect of politics on public policy.

But Mr. Hoffer has taken his show on the blog road lately in, what to a policy professional, is the most mundane and low-brow of media; blog comments. And in the process, he's been not only stirring up quite a few online kerfuffles, but in the process is beginning to make quite the name for himself…

His favorite points of contact are in the sites rigged for anonymous posting that do not require registration. You know, the ones where you often think you might want to get in on the discussion, before you reconsider the wisdom of diving into such a mosh pit of anonymous nastiness, insults, vulgarities and dueling poster-outings.

Hoffer, however, is fearless, and dives right in (generally) with aplomb.

Here he is going after usual suspect right-wing automaton “bubba” at vtbuzz recently:

  Doug Hoffer  said…

“a small, struggling state with an aging demographic, a rising tax burden…”

I guess you didn't read the figures I provided on manufacturing job losses in the states that have “lured” big foreign auto plants. You guys still don't get it. As much as you want to bash VT, it's not just us.

The “aging demographic” is a reality in many states, not just VT.

A “rising tax burden”? I guess you didn't read the JFO tax study. And please don't tell me about how it doesn't include property taxes. Find me another state where the education property tax is based on income.

“Narrow minded isolationist points of view” did not got us to where we are today. Huge job losses all over America are the result of many factors having nothing to do with what happens in VT. In fact, the architects of NAFTA and other “free” trade agreements have helped create the situation – and that includes lots of Republicans and Democrats. Are they all isolationists?

bubba  said…

Hoffer's figures on manufacturing state that they are from the “last” recession. Is that the one Bush inherited from the Clintons or some other? In any case, NAM web site does list Manufacturing employment gains/losses from 2001-2006. A few: Alabama +42.4%; Vt: +13.8%; Tennessee: +29.9%; MS: +8.9%. You can find all the others at their web site. Just a note to show how far off Hoffer can be!

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Bubba – I'm glad that you did some research. Good start. But you didn't do it right. Information from the NAM is not official; it's a lobby group after all.

The ONLY source for jobs data is the U.S. Dept. of Labor – Bureau of Labor Statstics (BLS – every state uses exactly the same methodology). You will not find a reputable economist who uses anything else (unless they're paid lobbyists and then they're not reputable).

The figures I provided are correct. Please check these sites if you don't believe me. And if you prefer 2001, that's fine with me. They STILL show manufacturing job losses in every state I listed. I used Sept. to Sept. because that is the most recent data, but the annual data tells the same story.

Alabama
http://data.bls.gov/…
Kentucky
http://data.bls.gov/…
Mississippi
http://data.bls.gov/…
S. Carolina
http://data.bls.gov/…
Tennessee
http://data.bls.gov/…
Vermont
http://data.bls.gov/…

Furthermore, it is clear that you misread the NAM data. The figure you provided is NOT for jobs. Read it again. It says “manufacturing share” – not job growth. The figure you / they presented does NOT mean manufacturing jobs grew 42.4% in Alabama from 2001 – 2006.

Look at the tables. On the left it shows 299,800 jobs in manufacturing in July. That is correct – it's from the BLS (see the site noted above). But if you look at the site, it shows that manufacturing jobs in July 2001 were 322,000. That's a loss of 22,200 jobs (7.4%). You thought that NAM said it was a gain of 42.4%. that's absurd. Do you see it?

In fact, the NAM site only says “manufacturing growth” – so we don't know wxactly what it means. I suspect they are refering to the growth of manufacturing GDP as a % of total state GDP (unadjusted for inflation to make it look bigger – that's a trick used by lobby groups like the NAM).

Bottom line: As I stated, manufacturing jobs in Alabama (and all the other states discussed) is down. That's a fact.

I appreciate that you tried to nail me, but you got it wrong. You really need to let go of your belief that I misstate the data. I never do that.

BTW – The remarks in the previous post about the need for and value of investing in people is right on. That is a much better way to use public funds then wasteful tax credit giveaways to large corporations.

 “Bubba” collapsed almost immediately, falling back on his mantra  of dogmatic conservative talking points as a life raft.

It didn't help.

  bubba  said…

“Giveaways” to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal. Auto makers are only one example of what can be done if a state is business-friendly. You cannot imagine what a Nissan plant does for Mississippi, or a Hyundi parts plant for Georgia. The WRONG way to go about it is to be so anti-business like Dean and pals, then panic, and end up giving a special deal to less-than-legitimate outfits like Husky, who I imagine got away with exaggerating claims of employment. In any case, no matter what the shortcomings of the free enterprise system,if left alone, it benefits workers far more than a bunch of Montpelier environmentalists, social engineers, and paid book-cookers spending taxpayer dollars trying to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. As a final comment (only here) I saw where some writer stated that the JFO was an “independent” group! Sure, like CNN is “Fair and Balanced”!

6:30 PM, November 03, 2007

 

  Doug Hoffer  said…

Nice

When you are proven wrong, you revert to Rush-speak.

Is it so hard to just admit that you were wrong?

Go ahead, admit that the “Leftist” hired gun was right. If not – in the face of inescapable facts – you have nowhere to turn but the same old tired Right Wing baloney.

Are you willing to learn something or are you so stuck in the ideology that you can't see the truth?

You said that “Giveaways to companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Honda, etc. have proven so far (BMW i think is now in S. Carolina over 20 years) to boost the economy of the states a great deal.”

B____hit. Refute the facts or just shut up.

Chuckle. And so it goes. Hoffer actually works with and understands what the numbers are saying, as opposed to just some other guy with a chip on his shoulder and access to Google. Making him even more of an asset to the Vermont left is his apparent equal comfort working with the Peace & Justice Center, archetypal Vermont Dem Paul Cillo, and posting on the Prog Blog.

But he doesn't just swoop in to set people's numbers straight. H e also gets into the knock-down-drag-outs on rhetoric and general viewpoints. He and “the other 'Vermonter'” got into a back and forth that ended with this uncharacteristicly deferential comment by Freyne Land's “Vermonter:”

First, I acknowledge that you are a good debater and I appreciate that.  We disagree, but hat's off to you anyway.

Second, I'll just have to disagree with your belief that the Governor's events are lowly PR events and the Senator's are (apparently) altruistic “community outreach” events. One is venal and the other is high-minded? Sorry, I don't buy it. Different style, but same intent and same result. I also can't believe you would say that Bernie's events aren't covered. One cannot pick up the Freeps without reading about another so-called town meeting or media event by Bernie. You can't.

Third, you say that the editorial positions of the two largest media outlets in the state have been openly anti-Bernie for years. That may be historically true for CAX, but I think the case of the Freeps is much grayer, to say the least. Certainly in recent years. The Freeps covers him all the time. And leaving aside the Freeps and CAX, at least be honest and ackowledge that the “one reporter” is pro-Bernie. He reports on his doings in generally positive, if not glowing, terms almost every week.

Finally, I'll acknowledge that in my frustration I have lashed out against Bernie and the blog host. I apologize to Bernie and Peter. You may be suprised that I actually agree with many of Bernie's policy positions, if not his style.

Posted by: vermonter | Oct 28, 2007 5:20:58 PM

Yeah, you won't see that too often.

Unfortunately, we need to appreciate the show while we can, as Hoffer will likely burn out quickly if he continues to engage in that sort of debate.

Further down the same thread, though, is this smackdown of conservative activist and blogger Curtis Hier repeating Douglas talking points:

Curtis

According to the data, Jim does not equal jobs.

Private sector job growth has been significantly lower in the last three years than in the 1990s. [Note: I focus on private sector job growth because state economic development policy is not directed to and has little impact on public sector jobs.]

Not only is Vermont's annual rate of private sector job growth weak compared to the `90s (0.6%), but it is only half the national rate of 1.2%. And Vermont's rate has been lower then the U.S. rate for the last 3 years. Since September 2004, U.S. private sector jobs have grown 5.3% while Vermont's rate was 1.5%.

Furthermore, a significant percentage of the jobs being created are low wage (which the state Dept. of Labor fails to tell you each month in their press release on unemployment and the labor market).

Obviously, The Gov. is not responsible for the large economic forces beyond our control, but his policies are not helping.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 7:16:02 AM

Doug,

Our latest unemployment rate is at 4.0 percent, which puts us at 19th and below the national unemployment rate. Your job growth comparison is based on the net number of private sector jobs. Our labor force in Vermont is shrinking as Vermonters are retiring and there aren't younger workers to take their place. Governor Douglas has been trying to address that.

Furthermore, I am concerned that the public sector is growing so much and the private sector is shrinking. (From my perspective as a teacher, it seems like everyone in town is becoming an instructional aide here at school.)We can't pay for that forever. I feel that the Republicans would do a better job of addressing that problem. I'm wondering why you picked September 2004.

Posted by: Curtis Hier | Nov 1, 2007 7:47:01 AM

Curtis

The unemployment rate sounds great but it's been below the national rate for the last 30 years and, therefore, has nothing to do with Jim Douglas' policies. And for the record, it's 4.2%, not 4%.

Furthermore, the median number of private sector jobs created annually in the `90s was over 4,000. In the last three years, the figure is under 1,300. These figures don't lie.

I picked September because it's the last month available to show year – to – year figures. That's exactly what the Dept. of Labor does every month.

Moreover, I track these numbers for my work and it doesn't matter what month you pick. Job creation is – and has been – anemic since the last recession.

As for Republicans doing a better job, we have had a Republican governor for the last 5 years. It is HIS Dept. of Economic Development carrying out HIS policies. Furthermore, with very few exceptions, this is the same pattern in most other states (regardless of the party in power). The Gov. is attempting to use old “tools” to solve new problems. It's not working.

And of course we've had a Republican President for the last 7 years, with a Republican Congress for most of that time. U.S. job creation is also anemic.

It's not about Jim Douglas per se. He just represents old thinking that is out of step with new realities.

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 1, 2007 8:06:06 AM

So Hoffer continues to provide content that is often more informative and useful than the entries he's commenting on. Very cool, and as I said, we should enjoy it while we can, especially after this comment:

I understood blogs to be free of the corporate filter that determines most of what we see & hear. That people could speak their minds freely. Those two criteria are met.

But I didn't expect this level of personal antagonism, anger or pettiness. 

Posted by: Doug Hoffer | Nov 7, 2007 9:08:19 AM

Heh. 

Welcome to the blogs, Doug.

Now somebody pass me the popcorn. 

Number of people currently held at Guantanamo: approximately 320

Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent to Albania: 8

Number of people who have been held in military detention at Guantanamo: 778

Number of Guantanamo detainees who were sent back to their home countries: nearly 450

Number of Uighurs (members of an ethnic minority from Western China) who were sent from Guantanamo to Albania: 5

Number of other people in Albania who speak the Uighur language: 0

Age of the oldest prisoner ever held in military custody at Guantanamo: approximately 75-78 (As he put it, “How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?”)

The Snelling Center presents itself as a “nonpartisan” nonprofit working to engage the public in serious discussion of public policy issues. Its current project, on which it began polling last year, is whether Vermont should amend its constitution to change the term of office for Lt. Governor and Governor from 2 years to 4. A question that is clearly treated as secondary is whether the Senate and/or the House should get the same deal.

But frankly, there’s an agenda here, and it’s not exactly nonpartisan — although the polling figures handed out at last night’s debate between Gov. Madeleine Kunin and Prof. Frank Bryan suggest that majorities of both Democrats and Republicans participating in a randomized poll favor an increase in the Gov’s term.

I blogged on this, with an aside regarding John McLaughry’s strong support for the four-year governor and total disdain for the four-year legislature, almost two years ago. My opinion hasn’t changed. But the urgency of taking the poll online has: the Snelling Center will present the results of its polling in January in a push to get a vote on an amendment bill.

The amendment process, a cautionary list of supporters, and the two competing proposals after the jump.

A Constitutional amendment must be approved by a 2/3 majority in the Vermont Senate, pass by a majority vote of the House this session, then get majority approval in both chambers in the next legislative session, then win a popular vote in order to be enacted.

As for the “funding partners” supporting the Snelling Center’s relentless “engagement” with this issue (last defeated by public vote in 1974), here’s the list:

Funding Partners:

AARP Vermont
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Vermont
Central Vermont Public Service Corporation
Champlain Oil Company
Doubletree Hotel
Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC
Entergy Nuclear VT Yankee
Fletcher Allen Health Care
Forcier, Aldrich, and Associates, Inc.
Gallagher, Flynn & Company, LLP
GBIC
Green Mountain Power
Hackett, Valine, MacDonald
Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp.
Hubbardton Forge
Kelliher, Samets, Volk Communications
Lang Associates
Middlebury College
National Bank of Middlebury
National Life Group
Neagley & Chase Construction Group
Northfield Savings Bank
Paul Frank & Collins P.C.
Queen City Printers, Inc.
Union Mutual Insurance
Union Street Media
Vermont Business Roundtable
Vermont Electric Power Co., Inc. (VELCO)
Vermont Gas Systems
Vermont Law School
Vermont Mutual Insurance
Vermont State Chamber of Commerce
Wells River Savings Bank
Windham Foundation

What I see here for the most part is a who’s who of folks who fund the army of lobbyists and donate to Gov. Does-less: banks, utilities, insurance companies (include AARP in that group), and law firms which provide “government liaison” services.

Yes, there’s a bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Bill Doyle, he of the famous Town Meeting Day survey of issues, along with Ann Cummings, Harold Giard, Don Collins, and (ahem) Doug Racine, among others. A competing bill that includes all the legislators was filed by Jim Condos and co-sponsored by Diane Snelling, and (more on this in a minute) Don Collins, among others.

Sen. Collins, of Franklin County, was at a different event in Montpelier at the Capitol Plaza, but dropped by briefly before the debate. He said, “I support a 4-year term for constitutional offices and the Senate, and that’s it.” It was said lightly, with a laugh, but I think that’s what he really means.

Other shared sponsors between the competing proposals are Hinda Miller and Ginny Lyons.

The chairs of the three major parties were on a “reaction panel” at the debate, and Dem chair Ian Carleton and Repub chair Rob Roper agreed (!) that each of their parties held a “diversity of opinion” on the subject. Only Martha Abbott of the Progressives was solidly against moving to four-year terms.

Carleton admitted that, personally, he would support moving to four-year terms for statewide offices. The issue is not (yet) on the agenda for the State Committee meeting on Nov. 17. Perhaps it should be.

Final note: on Nov. 28 there will be an “interactive forum”  with Supreme Court Justice John Dooley and Vermont Law School Professor Peter Teachout at UVM in Burlington at 4:30. The topic is “looking at the roles of Vermont’s Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches in the 21st Century.” The location has not yet been listed.

NanuqFC
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the TRUTH Is a Revolutionary Act. — George Orwell

Oh, and PS: I’ll bet a four-year term wasn’t something Gov. Does-less heard from Vermonters on his STAT.
 

…here are reports today about how Chuck is landing in the lap of hedge funds in exchange for a couple of $28,500 gifts to the DSCC from two hedge fund executives. 

Let's do the math:  $57,000 for the DSCC, or closing up a 20 point tax loophole for hedge fund execs.  So that’s 20% on, say $1.7 billion on appropriately charged income to add to the common weal, or $57,000 for the DSCC.  Hmmmmm….  How much of the $57,000 is landing in Schumer’s war chest?  Heck, even if he got it all, he’d still be a really cheap date for a couple of high flying billionaires.

The bill being discussed suggests that hedge fund execs should be taxed on income, not on short term capital gains.  Short term capital gains tax is 15%. For anyone else earning over $174,850 a year, there’s a a reasonable income tax of 35%  

But if you're pulling down $1.7 billion, then Chuck is ready to give you a break. 

( – promoted by odum)

A couple of issues near and dear to the hearts of Vermont activists are playing out (or beginning to).

First is the aftermath of Rep. Dennis Kucinich's move to do what so many Vermonters wanted Rep. Peter Welch to do – sort of. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, Kucinich called the impeachment question on the floor of the House (where motions on impeachment are considered privileged and must be addressed). Yay Dennis, except, well – it was a call for the impeachment of Cheney, which seems to me to miss the target politically and ethically. Long past are the bygone days where people on the left wondered whether President Bush was no more than an ineffectual empty suit. Cheney may be his most crude, effective and brazen hatchet man, but he is still a hatchet man – a mere symptom of the problem that is Bush himself.

In any event, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland moved quickly to table the motion, but was stymied by a block of Democrats joined (ultimately, after some vote-switching) by Republicans who thought a public debate over the merits of ditching a vice president whose approval rating is nearly in the single digits would somehow embarass his critics more than his defenders (this is bizarro world, isn't it?). The motion was not tabled, but, after getting the dissident Dems marching to his drum, was then quickly sent by Hoyer to the Judiciary committee where the profoundly disappointing Chair, Rep. John Conyers, will simply stack it to die along with the other Kucinich impeachment resolution gathering cobwebs in that committee.

But the question on everyone's mind is – will Kucinich simply bring it to the floor again (and aim at Bush next time)? By House rules, it remains a privileged motion that must be considered. If Kucinich is serious, he could well bring it to the floor on primetime every day of the session. He's gotten gobs of good feedback on this, so activists are watching and waiting…

Second is Rep. Welch's moment of truth on Iraq funding that is now on on its way.

Welch has gone through a process which many Vermont activists (myself included) have found rather frustrating in terms of Iraq Warfunding (and I'm not refering to the bizarre, Welch-is-personally-responsible-for–Iraq crowd who seem so obsessively fixated on him, or who see piling on him as a means to other political or personal ends). Welch has moved through a series of steps on his dealing with Iraq much like the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and now, acceptance. While he's done them all within the course of a year (which is fast in Legislative time), it has been frustrating to watch him go through such a process to end up where he reasonably should have been years ago (and where many of us thought he already was when he was elected); at a point where he's prepared to stop playing political games and refuse to continue funding of Bush's Middle East adventure.

Some time back, Welch joined other frustrated members of the Progressive Caucus in signing a letter saying enough is enough – that they would no longer follow the Democratic leadership (intent on biding its time until next year's election, apparently) and would simply vote against any and all funding for the Iraq War without firm withdrawal timetables. The Welch-haters, naturally, didn't care that he'd made the very commitment they were demanding, and have even continued to circulate angry emails that simply state (in the face of reality) that he hasn't signed the letter, and castigate him for it. Whatever.

But the point is, the moment of truth is nearly here. From AlterNet:

In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against Iran.

If Welch means what he says, he can likely hardly wait to cast his vote to get the Welch-haters to shut up (they won't, of course, as he has somehow acheived almost mystically evil stature in their eyes. Why is beyond me, but that's a matter better addressed by social psychologists). If he doesn't (and I can't see why he wouldn't, as he seems to be playing out a fairly consistent pattern), he's gonna rightfully catch holy hell if he flubs this.

Stay tuned.

RICHMOND — A 21-year-old soldier from the Jonesville section of Richmond was killed Monday during a roadside bomb attack near Kirkuk in northern Iraq.

He graduated from high school the same year my younger son graduated. 

“He went into the Army to pay off his college loans,” Wells said. “It's really a crying shame that in the wealthiest country in the world, people have to go into the army to pay for college.”

Just a quick question of the day:  What is with NPR’s fascination with the Hollywood writer’s strike?  It’s at the top of the hour, and follows at just after the half-hour break with an “in-depth” interview. 

I mean, with all that’s going on today for news, how does the writer’s strike float anywhere near the top? 

Don’t get me wrong, I fully support labor interests and especially creative writers.  But, geez, is America gonna melt down if we have to put up with — gasp! — reruns? 

Perhaps I live in that small corner of the world that doesn’t live or die by television and the movies.  Perhaps it really is vital to the well-being of America for entertainment to roll on in the midst of war.  (Oh yeah, there’s a war, right?)

Somehow the phrase, “opiate of the people” keeps ringing in my ears.  Maybe that’s it!  If people aren’t pleasantly distracted or lulled into trance-like apathy, they just might actually pay attention to what’s going on around them, and what their tax dollars are being used for. 

Better get them writers what the want, pronto!  For the sake of national security!

Here's a quick Vermont political checklist of endorsements (on the left side of things, at least) for President. These are the names I could find easily, so feel free to add or correct in the comments and I'll try to update this at the end of the day.

I find this sort of thing interesting, not so much as it regards the candidates, but in terms of the insights it provides into the actual endorsers. 

I'm sure there are more names out there. Anybody?

I’m going to start by explaining this picture.  When I show people photos of fireworks, I often get asked how I manage to time the shots to get the fireworks just right.  This is because they’re under the impression that I wait until I see the perfect fireworks shot coming and trigger the camera at exactly the right moment.

That, of course, isn’t how it works.  This picture is one of dozens I took that same evening.  Some of them were excellent: crystal clarity and perfect motion, with the fireworks cascading through.  Most weren’t. 

I made errors.

I got many shots out of focus.

I didn’t leave the shutter open long enough. 

I left the shutter open too long.

Sometimes it works. 

Sometimes it doesn’t. 

But I’ve never tried shooting fireworks and failed to get a shot that I wanted to use.

But there’s still a trick to all of this.  This picture isn’t a quick exposure that I timed perfectly.  The shutter was open for about thirteen seconds.  I wasn’t trying to get the fireworks timed perfectly so I’d have them at the exact right time.  I started at the beginning, opened the shutter and waited for the blast to leave the base, fly into the air and do whatever it would do. 

That’s because even though I do make mistakes, I also know what I’m doing and have experience with this sort of photography.  But that’s not particularly meaningful if I won’t take risks from time to time as well.

So let’s talk about risk taking.

And experience.

And why you can make all sorts of mistakes and still come away from it proud of what you did.

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about Rosa Parks and how carefully planned the Montgomery Bus Boycott had planned, despite popular belief that it was a spontaneous uprising.  It was potential energy, waiting and ready to be made kinetic.  It was small movements of light that might seem imperceptible at first, that wouldn’t form a full picture at the the time viewed, but when seen as a whole paints a different picture.

When we build political movements it’s easy to treat them as though they are failures if they don’t meet their goal.  When Theresites created the Vichy Democrats blog, the site was dedicated to:

…exposing… and bringing… down… traitors to the Democratic Party, the Republican-lites, the lefty-neocons, the Iraq War apologists. The Vichy Dems.

This, obviously, didn’t quite happen.  And it’s easy to be discouraged by this, just as its easy to be discouraged by Democratic fecklessness.  When both Schumer and Feinstein agree that Mukasey should just as well be confirmed, it’s clear that traitorous Democrats still hold serious power.  When Schumer tries to scuttle the candidacy of an openly gay senate candidate against Elizabeth Dole, we’ve got a big problem.

And it looks, on the surface, like we’re losing the battle against the right-wing bush-supporting sychophants.  We haven’t made any obvious ground when it comes to ending the occupation of Iraq.  Bush has still, despite his 24% approval rating, managed to bully this Congress.  House leadership supports corrupt incumbents like Al Wynn and behaves badly towards those who ask about it.  We have Barney Frank dismissing the left-wing kooks who think that ENDA needs to be all-inclusive. 

But there’s a real change going on here.  We all felt in November of 2006.  Netroots candidates made significant progress in ways most of us didn’t think possible four years earlier.  But that was quickly deflated as it became clear that we weren’t going to be leaving Iraq anytime soon.  And, once again, we feel betrayed by those Democrats who aren’t as progressive as we’d like or by those who have been corrupted and co-opted by the party machine.

So we lose.  Again.

But here’s what I figured out, and it took me about 40 years to get this: winning and losing don’t matter. 

Let me say this again: winning and losing don’t matter.

And this is what Pelosi and Schumer don’t understand: they’ve been out of power for so long that they don’t know what it’s like to have power and to use it wisely.  So they focus all their energies towards holding onto that power.  So they don’t do anything about Iraq and they refuse to consider impeachment and they only bother to fight on issues like SCHIP when the country is over 70% behind them and refuse to take Bush on over the hard stuff.  They cave on FISA.  They decide that Mukasey is just fine even though he doesn’t think Waterboarding is necessarily torture.

So they don’t fight. 

They compromise.

They capitulate.

Because they think that the way to win the game is to hold on to power.  Even if you don’t use that power.  Even if you’re afraid of using that power because you think that if you use it, you’ll lose it.

Because here’s what’s really true about winning and losing: it doesn’t matter because fighting matters so much more.

What did Reid and Pelosi do as soon as Bush vetoed them on war funding?

They turned around and gave him the bill he wanted.

Rosa Parks didn’t even get noticed the first time she got arrested on a bus but she fought a great and enormous power because she felt a duty to do so.  She fought.  Not with force.  Not with destruction. 

Her weapons were quiet grace and peaceful resistance.

How do we, as activists, find our own way to create resistance to what we see in this world?  How do we find new ways to fight the injustices we see?  How do we battle the poverty of ideas that we see coming from our representatives?  How do we fight for better people in office, ones who will challenge any president who tries to justify torture and wiretapping, by any name?

How do we fight for representatives that will not capitulate to anyone who tries to justify long-term occupation of foreign lands?

And, more importantly, how do we stay in that fight without falling into despair?

We do it by looking at the long view. 

We do it by being prepared. 

We do it by knowing that what happens now is not nearly as important as what happens three or four years from now.

We do it by knowing that every change takes longer than we’d like and that just because we win some battles doesn’t mean we’ve won the war, but we continue to strive, to try, because if we don’t, we do fail.

So we fight.

And we try to see the big picture.

And it’s not always clear what it’s going to be.

And it might be something that just doesn’t work the way we’d hoped.

So we learn.

And we try something different.

We all lose at some point.  We all, in the end, will die. Some of us will die penniless and think of ourselves as failures. Some of us will die with modest wealth and look back on our lives as though we had some success.

But really, we all win at some point, too.  Every one of us has some moment that we can look back on and say “I can’t believe I did that.  That was so awesome!”  (if you really can’t say that, then you should really look at your life and think about what you need to do to change it, because you deserve a moment like that).

But the most important thing is that when you look back at your life, you don’t look at what you’ve acquired, thinking of your successes in terms of what you’ve earned and what you’ve gained.  Think about them in terms of what you’ve tried and what you’ve been willing to try even though you might fail.

So I’m going to ask questions I’ve asked before:

As an activist, what are you going to do this week that might change the world?

What are you going to do this year that scares you a little bit to do, but will be worth it in the long run?

What are you going to do that makes your community better?

What are you going to do that challenges an established power?

What are you going to try that’s likely to fail, and how long are you going to keep it up?