Vermont Tiger posted an editorial from the St Albans Messenger on the importance of growth.  The editorial is not perfect: Douglas gets off too lightly and the proposed solutions are half-measures.

However, there is a paragraph I like:

Those in the middle understand – or will accept – the basics. Growth is essential. Without it, you wither away to nothing. Growth cannot be legislated, like cultivating a virus in a Petri dish, the proper ingredients must be in place. We cannot slap a protectionist attitude around our borders [in Vermont, or as a nation] to keep what we have here alive. There is also the understanding that preaching doom is a self-fulfilling prophecy, here and beyond our borders. It is also beyond the pale to expect that sizeable chunks of our job market will be taken care of by large corporations interested in Vermont as a place to do business. We don’t have the space, the infrastructure or the labor market.

Doug Hoffer has proposed the idea of self-reliance.  Self-reliance has some admirable attributes.  Buy more locally.  It is important to remember that Vermont is not operating in autarky- we cannot throw up protectionist barriers.  Thus, unless Vermont goods and services are either demonstrably cheaper or better, there will be limits to how far the buy local thing can go.  As mydog has pointed out, buying local is essentially a marketing tactic.        

Similarly, promoting pension funds to invest more locally is not a bad thing, but it will likely do little to stimulate job or wage growth.  Why?  Because pension funds will not be investing significant money in either start-ups or new industries.  Why?  Because of risk.  Instead, the money will likely be channeled to existing businesses (and government bonds).  Not a bad thing, but not something that is going to generate a lot of new higher paying jobs.

Energy efficiency is also a prime facie good, but it is not likely to stimulate a lot of new jobs simply because consumers will not all channel their savings into buying local.  As has been pointed out, it may stimulate a bit of growth in the construction industry, but that impact will be pretty limited.

In the private sector, wages are a function of the underlying value of economic activity.  There is a a reason why Ben and Jerry’s can afford to pay a living wage – look at the margins it gets per pint!  Premium ice cream is clearly a high margin business so it is easy for the company to pay good wages.

If, on the other hand, people are engaged in low-value, low-margin economic activity (tourism, retail, etc), all the screaming in the world about a livable wage will do little.  Why?  Because increasing an employees pay has to come from one of three sources: increased revenue/productivity, increased prices (bad for competitiveness) or decreased rates of return for the owner.  Now, you may say that fat cat business owners should take a reduced rate of return.  Fair enough.  But keep in mind, at a certain point decreased rates of return will deter investment in new jobs because risk and return must be balanced or people will invest in other areas.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

The best way to get Vermonters a livable wage is to increase productivity by getting them out of low-value, low-margin economic activities and getting them into high-margin, high-value areas.  The only way to do that is foster in an economic environment that creates those jobs.          

If you want people to be able to buy more locally, if you want people to earn better wages, then you need to accept the fact that growth is the only way forward.  A self-reliance strategy on its own is highly unlikely to yield the kind of growth needed to maintain Vermont’s way of life, let alone improve it.

If you are willing to accept the idea that economic growth is the most effective way to provide livable wages and support for local goods and services, then you need to be open to the idea that Vermont needs to develop and specialize in those areas where it has a comparative advantage, both nationally and globally.  I have offered up my ideas in this regard (a green economic zone), but would like to hear other people’s thoughts.

Let me conclude by stating clearly that elements of a self-reliance approach and a high growth strategy are not mutually exclusive.  Buy local, invest local, livable wages can co-exist with a growth-based economic strategy.

 

UPDATE: I’ve included the text of Leahy’s statement opening the meeting, as well as the text of the motion below the fold…

From Reuters, via TPM:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to hold two top aides to President George W. Bush in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate in its probe of fired federal prosecutors.

On a largely party-line vote of 11-7, the Democratic-led panel sent contempt citations against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and former Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to the full Senate for consideration.

As Reuters correctly points out, its likely Republicans will continue to block any meaningful follow-through, but we are, to an extent, into uncharted territory now. Will Leahy and the Senate Democrats be content to let Bush wind down the clock on the matter in the Courts, or would there be movements towards inherent contempt, which would bypass the courts?

It seems unlikely that the Democratic leadership would have the stomach for a full-blown Constitutional battle. We’ll see. I expect there’ll be a statement from Leahy’s office anytime, and I’ll post it when there is as an update to this diary.

Opening Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy

Executive Business Meeting

December 13, 2007

This week we have held three more important hearings before the Committee.  I have noticed two more hearings next week to consider several of the President’s Executive Branch nominees.  Regrettably, many of those announced for top Justice Department positions were not, in fact, nominated when announced, and even after those nominations were finally received, many still lack the necessary background checks and materials necessary to be considered.  We are proceeding expeditiously with the nomination of Mark Filip to be the Deputy Attorney General and will hear from him next Wednesday.  I noticed that hearing immediately upon receiving the nomination and background materials.  

This week’s agenda includes a number of items I had hoped the Committee would have considered last week but that were carried over.  We begin with the resolutions arising from the failures of Karl Rove and the President’s chief of staff to honor this Committee’s subpoenas.  As the Ranking Member has said, when we issue subpoenas, we need to follow up.  We have worked together during the last week to modify the language in the resolutions and I believe we can proceed efficiently this morning to consider and approve those items.  The White House’s blanket claims of executive privilege and immunity are insufficient to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this Committee’s investigation.  Having been directed to comply with the Committees’ subpoenas, they have not done so and now we must take the next steps to enforce the Committee’s subpoenas.  This is not a step I have wanted to take – in fact, I have tried for many months to find ways to work with the White House and avoid a confrontation.  

The President has not accepted responsibility for the firings or given any indication that he was involved in White House efforts to politicize federal law enforcement.  Instead, the White House line is that “mistakes were made.”  Apparently no one, least of all the President, is responsible, yet somehow executive privilege supposedly applies to cloak all White House activities and communication in regards to these firings affecting the independence and integrity of federal law enforcement from oversight.

The White House counsel asserts that executive privilege covers all documents and information in the possession of the White House.  They have gone further and claimed absolute immunity even to have to appear and respond to this Committee’s subpoenas for Mr. Rove and Mr. Bolten.  And they contend that their blanket claim of privilege cannot be tested but must be accepted by the Congress as the last word.  Their views of the unitary and all powerful Executive know no bounds.

The position taken by this White House in refusing to turn over documents or allow White House officials and former officials to testify is a dramatic break from the practices of every administration since World War II in responding to congressional oversight.  In that time, presidential advisers have testified before congressional committees 74 times, either voluntarily or compelled by subpoenas.

Executive privilege should not be invoked to prevent investigations into wrongdoing, and certainly should not prevail.  These resolutions are an effort to provide a fuller account and accountability.  We should act to protect Congress’ ability to conduct oversight and the right of the American people to learn the whole truth about the U.S. Attorney firings.

During the past week we have learned that the CIA destroyed videotapes of detainee interrogations.  That revelation is leading to another investigation.  As the Ranking Member on this Committee from 2001 through 2005, I was not informed of the existence of the videotapes or of their destruction.  I do not believe the Republican Chairmen were either.  I have repeatedly sought information about the Administration’s interrogations of detainees, including in connection with the consideration of the Mukasey nomination and my October 25, 2007, letter to the White House counsel.  We continue doing so. This week Senator Specter and I jointly wrote the Attorney General seeking information relevant to the tapes, their destruction and the preliminary inquiry now underway within the Executive Branch.  Surely, Congress must retain the authority to investigate and even subpoena relevant information without being foreclosed by blanket claims of executive privilege.  I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the Vermont’s Rutland Herald about the destruction of these tapes be included in the record.  

We will next turn to Senator Specter’s bill to use the legal concept of substitution as an alternative to retroactive immunity in connection with the warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to law from 2001.  I commend his constructive effort and look forward to that discussion.

Also on our agenda is our bipartisan bill to adjust judicial pay.  I introduced this bipartisan legislation with Senators Hatch, Feinstein, Graham, Reid, and McConnell almost six months ago.  It was the first bill introduced on this matter following the plea from the Chief Justice at the beginning of the year.  This bill would authorize an increase in federal judicial salaries to recognize the important constitutional role judges play in administering justice, interpreting our laws, and providing the ultimate check and balance in our system of government.  Since 1969, the salaries of federal judges have significantly declined when adjusted for inflation.  

Eight years ago, Congress saw fit to double the President’s salary to $400,000 a year.  We are not proposing to increase judges’ salaries by 100 percent, but by half that.  Our democracy and the rights we enjoy depend on a strong and independent Judiciary.  Surely we can do half as much for the judicial branch of government as we did for the Executive eight years ago.   This was a key subject in the Chief Justice’s annual report for this year and I would like this Committee to act on it today.  

I trust that the Republican holdover of the bill for the reauthorization of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will not portend further delay and that we can consider and report that measure without complications.

I urge all Members who have not yet arrived to come and participate with us in the work of the Committee.

# # # # #

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the facts of the failure of Joshua Bolten, as the Custodian of Records at the White House, to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary and produce documents as required by Committee subpoena.

WHEREAS, since the beginning of this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted an investigation into the removal of United States Attorneys;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s requests for information related to its investigation, including documents and testimony from the White House and White House personnel, were denied;

WHEREAS, the White House has not offered any accommodation or compromise to provide the information requested that is acceptable to the Committee;

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2007, pursuant to its authority under Rule 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary authorized issuance to the Custodian of Records at the White House, a subpoena which commands the Custodian of Records to provide the Committee with all documents in the possession, control, or custody of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 13, 2007, the Chairman issued a subpoena pursuant to the April 12, 2007, authorization to White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten as the White House Custodian of Records, for documents related to the Committee’s investigation, with a return date of June 28, 2007;

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2007, in response to subpoenas for documents issued by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, White House Counsel Fred Fielding conveyed the President’s claim of executive privilege over all information in the custody and control of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, based on this claim of executive privilege, Mr. Bolten refused to appear and produce documents to the Committee in compliance with the subpoena;

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2007, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees provided the White House with an opportunity to substantiate its privilege claims by providing the Committees with the specific factual and legal bases for its privilege claims regarding each document withheld and a privilege log to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that is asserted to apply and why;  

WHEREAS, the White House declined this opportunity in a July 9, 2007, letter to the Committee Chairmen from Mr. Fielding, while reiterating the privilege claim;

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2007, Mr. Fielding rejected the Chairman’s request for a meeting with the President to work out an accommodation for the information sought by the Committee;

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2007, the Chairman ruled that the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation and directed Mr. Bolten, along with other current and former White House employees, to comply immediately with the Committee’s subpoenas by producing documents and testifying;

WHEREAS, Mr. Bolten has not complied with the Committee’s subpoenas or made any offer to cure his previous noncompliance;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s investigation is pursuant to the constitutional legislative, oversight and investigative powers of Congress and the responsibilities of this Committee to the Senate and the American people; including the power to: 1) investigate the administration of existing laws, and obtain executive branch information in order to consider new legislation, within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including legislation related to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys; 2) expose any corruption, inefficiency, and waste within the executive branch; 3) protect the Committee’s role in evaluating nominations pursuant to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent; and 4)  examine whether inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading testimony or other information was provided to the Committee;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of the Senate certify the facts in connection with the failure of Joshua Bolten, as the Custodian of Records at the White House, though duly summoned, to appear and to produce documents lawfully subpoenaed to be produced before the Committee, under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Joshua Bolten may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

# # # # #

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the President of the Senate to certify the facts of the failure of Karl Rove to appear and testify before the Committee on the Judiciary and to produce documents as required by Committee subpoena.

WHEREAS, since the beginning of this Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conducted an investigation into the removal of United States Attorneys;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s requests for information related to its investigation, including documents and testimony from the White House and White House personnel, were denied;

WHEREAS, the White House has not offered any accommodation or compromise to provide the requested information that is acceptable to the Committee;

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2007, pursuant to its authority under Rule 26 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary authorized issuance to Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, subpoenas in connection with the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 28, 2007, in response to subpoenas for documents issued by the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, White House Counsel Fred Fielding conveyed the President’s claim of executive privilege over all information in the custody and control of the White House related to the Committee’s investigation;

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2007, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees provided the White House with an opportunity to substantiate its privilege claims by providing the Committees with the specific factual and legal bases for its privilege claims regarding each document withheld and a privilege log to demonstrate to the Committees which documents, and which parts of those documents, are covered by any privilege that is asserted to apply and why;  

WHEREAS, the White House declined this opportunity in a July 9, 2007, letter to the Committee Chairmen from Mr. Fielding, while reiterating the blanket privilege claims;

WHEREAS, on July 26, 2007, the Chairman issued a subpoena authorized March 22 to Mr. Rove for documents and testimony related to the Committee’s investigation, with a return date of August 2;

WHEREAS, the Chairman noticed an August 2, 2007, Judiciary Committee hearing under its Rules at which Mr. Rove was subpoenaed to testify;  

WHEREAS, Mr. Fielding, in an August 1, 2007 letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member, informed the Committee that the President would invoke a claim of executive privilege and a claim of immunity from congressional testimony for Mr. Rove, and directed Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify before the Committee about the firings, and that Mr. Rove would not appear in response to the Committee’s subpoena;

WHEREAS, based on these claims of executive privilege and absolute immunity,

Mr. Rove refused to appear or to produce documents or to testify at the Committee’s August 2, 2007, hearing in compliance with the subpoena;

WHEREAS, on August 17, 2007, Mr. Fielding rejected the Chairman’s request for a meeting with the President to work out an accommodation for the information sought by the Committee;

WHEREAS, on November 29, 2007, the Chairman ruled that the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation and directed Mr. Rove, along with other current and former White House employees, to comply immediately with the Committee’s subpoenas by producing documents and testifying;

WHEREAS, Mr. Rove has not complied with the Committee’s subpoenas or made any offer to cure his previous noncompliance;

WHEREAS, the Committee’s investigation is pursuant to the constitutional legislative, oversight and investigative powers of Congress and the responsibilities of this Committee to the Senate and the American people; including the power to: 1) investigate the administration of existing laws, and obtain executive branch information in order to consider new legislation, within the Committee’s jurisdiction, including legislation related to the appointment of U.S. Attorneys; 2) expose any corruption, inefficiency, and waste within the executive branch; 3) protect the Committee’s role in evaluating nominations pursuant to the Senate’s constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent; and 4)  examine whether inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading testimony or other information was provided to the Committee;

BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of the Senate certify the facts in connection with the failure of Karl Rove, though duly summoned, to appear and testify before the Judiciary Committee and to produce documents lawfully subpoenaed to be produced before the Committee, under the seal of the United States Senate, to the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that Karl Rove may be proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law.

Thanks, Peter.

BILL TITLE: Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith.

                    Yeas Nays PRES NV

Democratic 195 9 9 19

Republican 177 1 21

Independent

TOTALS 372 9 10 40

—- ANSWERED “PRESENT”    10 —

Conyers

Frank (MA)

Holt

Payne

Pence

Schakowsky

Schwartz

Wasserman Schultz

Welch (VT)

Yarmuth

Crossposted to Daily Kos

---

Imagine that you are shown a card with a line on it, and given three options, and are asked “which line best matches the one on the card?”

You’d choose “C,” right?

Now imagine that you are the last in a line of people answering this question out loud, and every other person in the room has chosen “B.”  

What do you do?  The answer, once again, sounds easy: “I’d still choose ‘C.'”  Except that for a lot of people, that’s not the answer. About one out of three respondents consistently went with the majority and nearly three quarters conformed with the group at least once.  Some did this because they questioned their own answers.  Some did this because they didn’t want to diverge from the group.  Others did this because they didn’t want to “sound stupid.”  

Today we’ll be exploring Solomon Asch’s work on conformity and what it teaches us about the power of conformity.

Previously, I’ve written about diffusion of responsibility and the use of language to subvert morality.  There are ties into that work here, but first I want to give some background:

So really, this is an incredibly simple experiment: get a group of people into a room and tell them you’ll be giving them some questions to answer.  Put them around a table, like shown on the right.

Then give them questions like the one above, or (my personal favorite):

      2

   + 2

  ——

     ?

What you do not tell them is that everyone at that table but the little red dot at the end is a confederate.  I.e., they’re part of the experimenter’s team and they have been instructed to give the wrong answer and give the wrong answer consistently.

Here’s what Asch learned:

• conformity occurred across gender and class lines;


• even people who did not conform showed serious discomfort when giving the correct answer;


• having a single confederate dissent from the group greatly decreased conformity;


• those who conformed often found excuses for doing so: said they didn’t understand the question or had poor eyesight.  Few blamed conformity or other group members for their conformity;

Let’s take a few of these in turn:

1. even people who did not conform showed serious discomfort:

   it’s amazing how much of our social interactions influence our attitudes and perceptions of who we are.    And people who are not so interest in the truth as propagating their misinformation are well aware of this.  There is a reason that Bush administration officials work in talking points.  If you keep hearing people say “the form of a mushroom cloud” for days on end, we tend to believe it, not because it’s true, but because, on a social level, we’re more comfortable when we agree with people;



2. those who conformed often found excuses:

   this ties into the concepts of diffusion of responsibility and cognitive dissonance I’ve discussed before.  We want to conform but, more importantly, we want to think that our reasons for doing so are for some other reason.  So we have cognitive dissonance: that niggling little sense inside ourselves that something doesn’t match, even if we can’t articulate what that something is.  So, instead, we pretend to ourselves that we’re conforming because we didn’t understand the issue, or we didn’t perceive the lines properly.  

   But the key thing is that having everyone else give the wrong answer gives impetus for the subjects to do so as well, but it leaves them with more cognitive dissonance — “I gave the wrong answer, but I’m not the sort of person who would give the wrong answer just because everyone else does” gets transformed, internally to, giving the wrong answer because “I didn’t understand the question” or “my eyesight was poor.”  We create these ready-made excuses to avoid responsibility for our own behavior;



3. having just one person dissent greatly reduces conformity:

   this is crucial, and it’s big.

   If we want truth to matter, dissent is important.  This is why those few voices opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq at the time it started were essential.  It’s not that we were going to change anything in the short term.  It’s that having those voices out there to keep that niggling thought in our mind that what so many people are saying, even if consistent, is flawed.  It took a few years but consistent dissent paid off.

   It didn’t even have to be about knowing the right answer.  Just consistent questioning of the party line was essential.   The press, as a whole, failed us back then.  The didn’t dissent, nor did they ask important questions.  It was up to the blogs to handle the dissent;

Think about diffusion of responsibility again: having people in authority gives us cover when we, as a country, commit crimes against humanity.

Let me say right now, by the way that, contrary to popular belief, I don’t think Americans are stupid.  We are, however, complacent and we’re conformists.  So we plead ignorance:  

I didn’t know that that was torture.

Everyone kept telling me we don’t torture.

If there were torture going on, I’m sure someone would put a stop to it.

It’s not our fault.  Someone else is doing it.  Hey, let’s talk about EYE-leeg-AHL immigration instead.  Didn’t you hear those folks are stealing our jobs?

So we ignore the issues, because our authorities are telling us that something else is going on.  Or we ignore them because everyone else is.

But we do know better than that.

And we can, as a people, be better than that.

So– outside of the blogosphere– outside of our personal ramblings and writings, what can we do to give people that dissent they need to give them the permission to look beyond the obvious?  What can we do to push one another to think beyond the simple?

I have no easy answers to this, but I’d love to hear what the rest of you have to say.

Despite the Governor being a serial offender of political double standards and hypocrisy, States Attorney Sand obviously showed mercy. With a seemingly lost cause/lost soul Republican-American Governor pleading for a second, third, forth(?) fifth just one more chance to get on the straight-and-narrow with public opinion, Mr. Sand generously offered to give a lost political soul another really big chance.

Sand exercised judicious political discretion in allowing the Governor to enter in a Political Opportunists in Trouble Diversion program (“P.O.T.dirv.”) despite a questionable showing of remorse or likelihood of rehabilitation.

Bless him.

take a hit after the jump. . .

With the State police, the AG's office and the U.S. Attorney's office all apparently not returning his calls and giving him the cold shoulder, not to mention that (“grass-is-always-greener-on-the-Republican-side-of-the-sentencing- fence-political-hypocrisy-problem), the Governor was, begrudgingly,  showing signs that he was learning his lesson or at least wanted to beat a quick retreat. 

Particularly considering (from the Valley News):

By now, it's a little hard to tell exactly what it is that Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas objects to in the decision by Windsor County State's Attorney Robert Sand to refer a controversial marijuana case to court diversion rather than pursuing a felony prosecution.

  

Is it that he believes Sand's decision was tainted by his personal views that marijuana ought to be decriminalized? Or is it that Douglas believes the defendant got preferential treatment because she is a lawyer? Or does the governor think the marijuana laws are not being enforced equally throughout the state?

 

Douglas has raised all three objections to Sand's handling of the case of Martha Davis, a Windsor lawyer who was charged last month with possession of 36 marijuana plants and more than two pounds of dried marijuana. The fourth possibility, of course, is that Douglas' outrage was fueled by partisan politics, a suspicion that unfortunately gained credence with the disclosure last week that a similar case in Orange County involving 110 marijuana plants was referred to diversion without so much as a raised gubernatorial eyebrow.

  

Indeed, the only salient difference we are able to discern in the two cases is that the prosecutor in Orange County is, like Douglas, a Republican, and Sand is a Democrat. [Surprise, Surprise Surprise,  Sergeant!]

So with the Governor's political liabilities piling up, Bobby Sand obviously felt the time was right for a little Solstice Season Clemency for the reeling Governor

With he Governor grasping for ANY weed straw to find his way out of the hole he dug for himself, Bobby Sand generously forwarded a prosaically straight-forward email that merely said, in effect, “Like, Dude, if you thought I had a blanket policy, I don't. But no harm no foul, man.”

The governor lurched for that escape hatch like a stoner going for a pint of Chunky Monkey. Next thing we see, by return email, the Governor had quickly retreated, back-tracked, reversed, double-flipped and did an about face so fast it twisted his pants up another four inches closer to his armpits.

Turns out, the Governor now claims, Bobby Sand is “doing the right thing” and the Governor is therefore “willing” (**cough, cough**) to abandon his lead balloon directive that no one in State Police, the AG's office or the U.S. Attorney's office was looking to see take a trial flight in the first place.

Don't suppose public opinion coming out overwhelmingly in favor of Bobby Sand's position, and against the Governor's, had much to do with this either, ya think?

Seven Days actually gets a second mention today. The new issue has an article by Patrick Ripley that covers the recent iBrattleboro libel story  that's been all the buzz lately. The coverage is a bit different from the others in that it also discusses the some of the VT blogosphere's reaction to the suit, which was decidedly different from that of the Reformer and the Argus. The newspaperrs were quite supportive of the claim against IBrattleboro. And of course, there's that “old media vs. new media” vibe that runs through the whole discussion at length in the pice. And it mentions a few familiar names, as well. Have a read.

Seven Days continues its recent track record of fantastic articles, and this week’s has a lot of material to mine for discussion. Of particular note is the article that highlights the extraordinary work of nuclear power experts (and anti-Vermont Yankee activists) Arnie and Maggie Gunderson, who have so often been lauded over at VDB. From 7 Days:

Of late, troubling new questions have arisen about whether there will be enough money to dismantle the Vermont Yankee nuclear power station in Vernon when it reaches the end of its useful life. Many of those questions have been raised by Margaret and Arnold Gundersen, two longtime nuclear-industry experts living in Burlington.

In interviews and a recently released white paper, the Gundersens contend that Vermont Yankee’s current owner, Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee (ENVY), has not met its legal obligation of setting aside money to decommission the plant when the time comes to shut it down, clean it up, dispose of its radioactive material, and return the site to its natural state.

The Gundersons have prepared this prodigious report on their own time and on their own dime, and it concludes, as Seven Days states, that “Vermont and its rate-payers could be facing “two equally bleak alternatives”: One, ENVY could declare bankruptcy and leave the future cost of decommissioning the plant to Vermonters. Two, environmental remediation of the site could be delayed for years – possibly decades – leaving highly toxic material in the Connecticut River flood plain until enough money accrues in the fund to pay for its disposal.”

The Gunderson’s efforts deserve more attention than I have time to give them in this diary, so I encourage folks to check out the article and read the entire white paper, generously provided for public viewing. Check it out. Good (if scary and disturbing) stuff.

More than 8,500 Granite Staters from across New Hampshire descended on the Verizon Wireless Arena in Manchester Sunday night for a rally with Barack, Michelle and special guest Oprah Winfrey.

The event added a boost of momentum and organizational strength to a campaign that is quickly gaining ground in New Hampshire.  In the week preceding the event:

• More than 650 new volunteers signed up to help the campaign
• More than 500 supporters volunteered in the lead-up to the rally
• More than 250 volunteers worked on-site at the event
• More than 2,300 new New Hampshire supporters joined the campaign

Tim Foley

Proud to be a NH staff member for Barack Obama’s movement for change.

As you all know, the secular-hedonism forces in the country are doing everything they can to attack the valuable cultural icon of the Solstice.  To wit:

• People are refraining from saying “joyful Solstice,” replacing it with such heathen phrases as “happy holidays,” “happy New Year,” “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Chaunakah;”


• Our traditional solstice symbols, such as the star and wreath, have been co-opted by the forces of Christmas;


• Stores across the country have abandoned their stock of solstice-specific merchandise.  You can find Dradles, mangers and other merchandise, but nowhere can you find solstice-specific items;

Want to help end this anti-Solstice scourge?  We at the Department of Pagan Enthusiasm (DOPE) have prepared a short list of tasks you can incorporate into your everyday life.  See below the fold for this list.

Great.  So you’re on board with our pro-solstice campaign and ready to fight the scourges of the anti-Solstice agenda.  There’s a lot you can do to help:

1. organize letter writing campaigns: see a store that ignores our great and glorious Solstice?  Write them a letter.  Get your friends to do it, too.  Use phrases like “merchants of the forces of hedonism” and “supporting the powers of darkness;”


2. picket people who refuse to say “joyful solstice.”  Be sure not to just picket their places of business, but their homes as well.  If they object, leave sheaths of wheat on their doorstep.  They’ll get the message and shape up in no time;


3. see a tv program that doesn’t sponsor any pro-Solstice activities? write them letters, too, but also focus on their advertisers.  Ask the people who advertise on their show if they’ve ever had a bunch of angry pagans outside their offices.  If that doesn’t scare them, nothing will;


4. sabotage events supporting other holidays that exclude the Solstice: get a job as a mall Santa and eat lots of cabbage and beans before your shift.  If anyone asks, blame it on the elves;


5. bumper sticker your car: there are some great bumper stickers available form our shop: “Remember the Solstice!” and “12-21: not just a palindrome” are two of our best sellers.  But be sure to not stick to just bumper stickering your own vehicles.  Be sure to bumper other peoples’ cars as well.  Best to do this late at night so they drive around with our message of hope and peace for hours before they find out;


6. there is no number six;


7. see a manger scene? Get a bunch of “it’s a girl!” balloons and tie them to the hands of the wise men.  Tie them to the crib as well and make sure to put a pink bow on the baby’s head;


8. fight the snowmen: snowmen have been transformed from their traditional pagan status so as to no longer have their connection to traditional pagan rituals and rites.  They are no longer our allies and must now be seen as our enemies.  When you encounter a snowman, you may fight it through a variety of means.   Hair dryers are effective, but it’s difficult to find an easy to use outlet near many, so we recommend carrying a carafe of hot coffee.  Its effect is similar to that of “holy” water on vampires.  (vampires are neutral in this fight, so please don’t make your coffee with holy water.  It will be perceived as a threat by them, and the last thing we need is for them to ally with Christians);

We hope this update on the War on Solstice has been helpful.  With your help, we can defeat the forces of anti-paganism and bring society into conformity with our pantheistic tree-hugging dirt worship, which everyone knows, is the One True Religion.  And remember, if anyone challenges you, you’re doing this for their own good.  Just tell them that and everything should be fine.

I will end this message from the front lines in the culture wars with a traditional pagan litany:

Never give up.  

Never surrender.