(Amen – promoted by JulieWaters)

Sometimes I wonder about our country. I wonder how we can let ourselves be stuck in the situations we find ourselves and not speak out, or vote out the people responsible.

I see the government getting ready to provide massive bailouts to the banking industry as they foreclose on homeowners who made ill-advised borrowing decisions based on unsound lending practices, and I know that we will let it happen.

I see a war in Iraq that we actually had some passion about for while, but that was few months ago and now we are pretty much rolling over on that one too.

I see a government that tramples civil rights and practically laughs in the face of feeble attempts at oversight, while a legislative maneuver delays the FISA bill so the passion will recede on that too. And we go along with it.

We have the most expensive health care system in the world, by far, and for all that money we get mediocre systemic care and record corporate profits.

We have the largest carbon footprint in the world, we undermine attempts to address global warming internationally, and we have record, all-time record, corporate profits.

We have an emerging mercenary military force with hired thugs who rape, detain and threaten female soldiers, and are paid ten times what enlisted American soldiers are paid, and their parent corporations are making obscene profits on no-bid contracts.

We have an education system increasingly obsessed with testing and an accountability system designed to lead us to privatization and more opportunities for corporate profits, at the expense of our children’s education.

We have a tax code that has been manipulated to the advantage of the wealthiest 1% of individuals in this country, while working people and the middle class have seen wages stagnate.

We have trade agreements that benefit multi-national corporations, and in return we get lead in our toys.

So, have I become “shrill” yet?

Does calling someone shrill make any of this more easy to dismiss or capitulate to?

I have seen John Edwards 4 times in person over the past year, and I have never heard him be anything that I would call “shrill”, despite the repeated dismissals of him on this basis. He is the only one who is willing to lay these problems out for everyone to see clearly and the only one who is willing to take these problems on directly on behalf of the American people. Clinton will not. Obama will not. To think or claim otherwise is to ignore every bit of evidence from his actions and words in this campaign, and in his previous legislative track record of avoiding divisive issues. It’s practically his campaign motto that he won’t be divisive.

When members of Congress voted to extend the Iraq war, or allow unwarranted wiretapping, or open up access to sweatshop labor markets or any of the many other actions that we may find unfathomable from Democrats especially, I bet they had their own justifications; that this was bipartisan, they were not being divisive or shrill, and gosh, all the mainstream papers were in favor of it. And they can sleep at night apparently. And they will be reelected mostly.

And nothing will change if Democrats, and Democratic voters, capitulate yet again.

Last week, I urged you all to Fight Back against the war on solstice.

Today is your final day to do battle.  I gave a list of ways you can fight against the anti-solstice forces and ended with the traditional pagan litany:

Never give up.  

Never surrender.

Today, I will give you your final orders.  You have a mere twenty-one hours to make this happen until the official time of solstice.

Your task is now simple.  

It is to fight for the solstice and to achieve final solstice victory by any means necessary.

The time for letter-writing is past.

The time for picketing is past.

Now, it is merely war.

To go into battle, you merely need three things:

The wisdom of righteousness

Remember: you are the only people who are right on this.  Everyone else is either a heathen, a blasphemer, or otherwise unsuitable.  You are not wrong.  You can do no wrong.  As long as the gods tell you what to do, you can do no wrong, and will be held harmless for all acts you conduct in the name of Solstice.

This, of course, applies to the right gods.  Make sure you don’t pick the wrong ones, or we’re all screwed.  And really, there’s a whole lot of them.  So be careful.  But once you’re sure you’ve got it right, pursue your goals with all due zealotry and obliviousness to any belief but your own.

The power of numbers

Get your neighbors, your friends, your postal workers and your UPS delivery person to help you out with this.  And trust me, once you tell those last two that that you’re fighting back against Christmas, they’ll be right on board.  No one hates Christmas more than UPS unless its the US Post Office.  If anyone seems skeptical, tell them you’re going out caroling.  Sometimes the best way to fight Christmas is to pretend to support it, and then go in for the kill.

Torches

Remember the snowmen?  Torches are great for repelling the forces of the turncoat snow traitors.  They’re also good for burning down manger scenes, non-chemically treated wreaths, non-artificial “Christmas” trees and the vehicles of the anti-pagan forces.  Plus, there’s nothing more exciting than an angry mob with torches.  Gets the solstice blood flowing.

You are now equipped to fight back against the war on solstice.  

Attack.

Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

As climate change continues to gather more steam as an issue both in Vermont and abroad, I'm continually and increasingly perplexed as to what neurons are misfiring in Whinin' Jim Douglas' brain cavity.

First, a bold and comprehensive energy bill gets shot down by Douglas so he can keep his VT Yankee buddies from paying their fair share of taxes. In Douglas' perpetual taxpayer funded campaign stops “Set The Agenda Tour”, Jimbo says that he's not really hearing much about global warming. It's all about that that nasty, overtaxed, harsh business climate that Douglas seems intent on promoting Vermont with (the only “climate” he seems to be interested in). Then, the guv's Commission on Climate Change issued a report detailing the severity of the problem, seemingly contradicting the short shrift the guv' seems to be giving it. 

On Wednesday, the Bush toadies at the EPA (soon to be renamed “Exploitation Propagation Agency”) rejected California's request for a waiver allowing the state to implement a law reducing emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles. From the Sacramento Bee:

The EPA's rejection kills copycat rules that have been adopted by 12 other states and are under serious consideration by six others. Top officials from many of those states, representing both major political parties, were quick to condemn the EPA.

As you probably know, Vermont is affected by this, as we've recently adopted similar standards to California. But the mind-boggler here is a quote in the article from Whinin' Jim himself…

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said the EPA “is out of touch with the reality of climate change.”

WTF? Anybody see a bit of mental disconnect with what Douglas is saying here? Sorry, Jim, it's not just the EPA that's “out of touch” with the reality of climate change. You're full-fledged out to lunch on it yourself.  

Douglas will say something like this and he next three things he says in Vermont will completely contradict it. Chalk it up as yet another issue he's extremely vulnerable on next year, provided we can get a candidate out there in time.

Welch is circulating another letter. Yeah, letters are fine, I suppose. He does a lot of them.

What makes this one special is the way he’s bringing in the peace movement into the process, rather than just making it an isolated, low tech version of those silly speeches I used to watch on C-Span where the Congressperson was making an impassioned speech to an empty room, just to get on record. From HuffPo:

MoveOn is sponsoring hundreds of events around the country Thursday against war with Iran — folks will be delivering petitions to Members of Congress at their local offices.

Meanwhile, Reps. DeFazio and Welch are sending a letter next week to President Bush asking for a “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive” dialogue with Iran in the wake of the Iran NIE. Current signers include: Woolsey, Ellison, Kucinich, Doggett, Farr, Olver, Baldwin, Hirono, McGovern, Lee, Blumenauer, McDermott, Moran, and Wu.

The letter now has 28 signatures (including Bernie’s) and is being promoted and pushed nationally by United for Peace and Justice as well as many other peace organizations. This means, unlike other “very serious letters” from members of Congress, Welch and DeFazio are taking this beyond the Washington brick wall and working more directly with the greater activist community. It may seem like a footnote now (albeit a pleasant one), but this is just the kind of thing that we need more of. As we saw with the recent FISA filibuster, it’s more and more the case that energy needs to be imported from outside the beltway to get things done. This is a great way to do it. Text of letter and United’s action alert below…

Action alert:

Call for ‘Direct, Unconditional, and Comprehensive’ Dialogue with Iran

Urge your representative to sign the DeFazio/Welch letter calling on President Bush to seek a “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive” dialogue with Iran.

Call the Capitol switchboard today:

202-224-3121

U.S. intelligence agencies have announced their belief that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Many in Congress, including some Republicans, have argued that the new National Intelligence Estimate should be the basis of a fundamental shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, away from military threats in favor of real diplomacy and engagement. But so far the White House has refused to change course. President Bush has said his aggressive stance toward Iran would not change as a result of the new NIE.

Representatives Peter DeFazio and Peter Welch are sending a letter this week to President Bush urging that the U.S. seek a “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive” dialogue with Iran in the wake of the Iran NIE. Current signers include: Representatives Woolsey, Ellison, Kucinich, Doggett, Farr, Olver, Baldwin, Hirono, McGovern, Lee, Blumenauer, McDermott, Moran, and Wu.

Help make this a stronger statement by encouraging your representative to sign this letter. Call the Capitol switchboard ASAP at 202-224-3121. The deadline for signing on to the letter is this Wednesday at noon.

Letter:

Dear Mr. President:

The release of the National Intelligence Estimate and the success of negotiations over arms shipments into Iraq clearly demonstrate that our nation’s differences with Iran can and must be resolved diplomatically. We write to urge your Administration to engage in direct, unconditional, and comprehensive dialogue with the Government of Iran.

As you know, on December 3, 2007, the Director of National Intelligence released a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) declaring that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. According to the NIE, “the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure.” It further concludes that “Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the [nuclear] issue than we judged previously.”

Meanwhile, our Generals in Iraq report that discussions between Ambassador Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterparts were successful in demonstrably reducing the flow of arms across the Iran-Iraq border. On November 15, 2007, Major General James Simmons stated, “We have not seen any recent evidence that weapons continue to come across the border into Iraq… We believe that the initiatives and the commitments that the Iranians have made appear to be holding up.”

These developments indicate that diplomacy has produced concrete changes in the Iranian government’s behavior.

Furthermore, the progress made with Libya and North Korea under your Administration proves that “rogue” states can be convinced to abandon nuclear weapons programs as a result of sustained, direct diplomacy with the United States. This model can and must be applied toward Iran.

We urge you to build upon the progress made by Ambassador Crocker and upon our own intelligence agencies’ positive assessment of Iran’s responsiveness to diplomacy. It is time to begin direct, unconditional, and comprehensive negotiations with Iran.

Sincerely,

Peter Welch

Peter DeFazio

Yesterday’s Reformer had a piece by GMD reader (and sometimes poster) Paul Heinz that echoed some of our own concerns about Freyne’s piece:

If you believe everything you read, you might think the 2008 gubernatorial race is shaping up to be a two-man contest between Republican Gov. Jim Douglas and the Progressive Party’s Anthony Pollina.

That is, if you read this week’s Seven Days.

One page of the weekly Burlington paper features an ad with a Pollina campaign logo asking interested “volunteers, donors & campaign staff” to sign up for the campaign.

And on another page, columnist and long-time political observer Peter Freyne writes that Pollina is “the man who looks to have the best shot against Jim Douglas next November” and that another top contender, State Sen. and former Lt. Gov. Douglas Racine, D-Chittenden — isn’t very serious about the prospect.

“The recent floating of former Democratic Lt. Gov. Doug Racine’s name was less than a genuine trial balloon,” Freyne wrote. “Doug is not interested. Trust me.”

But according to Racine himself, that’s just not the case.

“Unlike journalists, I guess (Freyne) doesn’t have to call somebody to find out what they’re doing. He never talked to me about it,” Racine said Wednesday. “I am considering it.”

So here’s my question, and I say this once again noting that I like Peter and I like Seven Days.  But on Peter’s own blog, he makes a plug for a Progressive Party ad sponsored by  his own paper.

So… I guess I need to know what Peter’s intent is here: is it to report on Vermont politics or to influence them?  It sure comes across as though either he or Seven Days (or both) is attempting to influence the race and get the Democrats out.  They have every right to do so, but I’d like to see them say so up front if that’s their goal.

In the meantime, we have a direct contradiction here: the Reformer is reporting that Doug said Peter never talked to him about it.  

Freyne, on the other hand is saying that they did  talk.  Freyne, however, does not indicate when they talked or whether or not it was about the Gov. race.  

Peter?  What did you talk about and when?

With a master's degree in diplomacy from the Fletcher School at Tuft's, Bill Richardson has batted in the .300's in international negotiations. 

With international affairs perhaps the leading concern for our next president, I welcome other GMDers to point to any other candidate who's batting average comes close.

Did I hear anyone say Bill Clinton who may ascend to First Laddie?  I might question his success.  NAFTA isn't turning out to be the greatest plan invented.

But even if you like Bill, it's quite a trade-off voting for Hillary.

Am I hearing “Richardson for vice president” or “Richardson for Secretary of State”   or “Richardson for Energy Secretary” (again)?  I can go there with you.  

But even after the long haul of this summer's primary run-up, I'm wondering what exactly is it that the breezy, GQ Edwards offers that is frankly more substatial in experience than Bill Richardson. 

I welcome your thoughts, and will refrain from responding — since you know where I stand.

 Loading ...