UPDATED APRIL 8

Slate has also picked up this story. They definitely got the “Dairy Council got what they paid for” angle:

 Nowhere does the release compare the garbage intake from a glass of plain milk to the garbage intake from a glass of chocolate milk. That's because the release was issued by the National Dairy Council. Next I'll be getting alleged research reports about the benefits of drinking ethanol.

The universities are probably the most important centers for scientific research in the United States, and people are naturally inclined to trust what comes from them. They come with a built-in credibility as institutions.

Still, it's important to look a little bit behind the institution and see who's paying.  We're certainly familiar with this phenomenon in drug-company financed researched, but a story on VPR today exemplifies a similar situation using our home-grown version of the drug companies: BIG DAIRY.

Study says flavored milk doesn’t increase risk of obesity

Monday April 7, 2008
Ross Sneyd

<!– /id=white_pad –>

(Host) A University of Vermont researcher has some advice for parents and school administrators: Encourage kids to drink milk, even if it requires a spoonful of sugar to make it go down.

As VPR's Ross Sneyd reports, a new study has concluded that the small amount of sugar in flavored milk doesn't contribute to childhood obesity.

And guess who paid for the study: the National Dairy Council.

The research may not be compromised by the payer, but it may be worth noting that the VPR story, at least, makes no mention of the significant questions about whether cow's milk is actually good for people.

Props to VPR for including the funding source in the story!

Raw Story has a big McCain headline that’s sure to shock some people … or make them spit their morning coffee out.

According to Nick Juliano, “a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.”

“‘The Real McCain’ by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop.”

Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain’s intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain’s hair and said, “You’re getting a little thin up there.” McCain’s face reddened, and he responded, “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you …

To read more click here.

There are three reasons that Madeleine Kunin’s continuing insistence in the news media and in her new book that opposition to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy equates to sexism does a dreadful disservice to any who give it audience. First it’s just doofy. Kunin’s willful blindness to the possibility that any might oppose Clinton on ideological grounds flies in the face of her own opposition to the candidacy of General Martha Rainville against Peter Welch. When Kunin supported Welch, she drew an implicit line of ideology that ultimately trumped gender. In Clinton’s case, Kunin now refuses to allow for others’ own similar, subjective, ideological lines (or is she somehow pretending she hasn’t done that herself?).

Second, it’s just insulting. Never mind the war vote. Never mind historical pandering to the right on issues like school prayer and flag burning. Never mind her association with the insider class and the anti-union likes of Mark Penn – you’re just some sort of misogynist if you oppose her candidacy – even if you’re a woman, apparently.

But the third reason is, if not the most infuriating, certainly the most damaging. Engaging in the kind of name-calling that Kunin is doing through every medium available to her makes it difficult to engage in a meaningful conversation about the very real knee-jerk sexism and misogyny that does come flowing out when a woman seeks elected office. It’s a conversation that needs to be held, but Kunin has provided another potential shorthand way for sexism deniers to dismiss any such discussions by tarring them all with her ridiculous charges and rejecting them outright in the process. And if you think crude sexist drivel isn’t alive and well, here’s a sample of the comments over at the Freeps blog here and here in response to a potential gubernatorial run by House Speaker Gaye Symington:

How much of a dowery[sic] did Gayes old man have to put up to get her a husband…or is Chuck visually impaired?

Will she break down and cry and throw one of her typical [hissy]-fits the first time that things don’t her way?

Gargoyle for Governor!!! Hoo-rah.

Now sure, the comments at vtbuzz are consistently the least pleasant reading in the entire Vermont blogosphere, bar none – but these comments didn’t arise from a vacuum. As her plans develop, expect to hear more criticism of Symington targeting her appearance and, what amounts to her “girliness.” The kind of crap that has nothing to do with her qualifications for office, that you’d never hear lobbed at men, and that is no different than schoolyard taunts from the worst kind of bullies.

We must confront this knuckle-dragging hate-talk head-on in the coming months. Kunin will do all of us a favor by not making the fight more difficult with frivolous, reckless charges. Her hyperbole may keep her book in the headlines, but it doesn’t help her cause.

Crossposted at Blue Hampshire.

New Hampshire state representative Betty Hall (D-Brookline) isn’t calculating the odds, nor is she questioning whether or not HR.24 can succeed. She’s standing up to President George W. Bush and Vice-president Dick Cheney because there’s no other alternative: U.S. Congress will not do stop the Bush Administration’s abuse of power. History may not look too kindly on our Congress but perhaps there will be a footnote for one New Hampshirite’s courageous stand. Blue Hampshire caught up with Betty Hall and discussed the myths of investigations into impeachment, HR.24 efforts, and why NH Democrats should support it. Enjoy!

Christian Avard, “NH Ex-pat”

NH Ex-pat: Tell me a little bit about why you did not support Nixon’s impeachment and why you’re supporting Bush & Cheney’s now. Are their actions more deserving of impeachment than Nixon’s and/or Clinton’s?

Betty Hall: They’re definitely worse than Nixon’s but that isn’t the reason why I didn’t support Nixon’s impeachment. NH state representative, Eugene Danielle of Franklin, introduced the Nixon resolution back then but did it very early in Nixon’s second term. The reason I didn’t vote for it was because I didn’t really understand about a lot about impeachment, at that particular point. I hadn’t been exposed to a lot of discussion about it, it was something that I didn’t understand, but I’m certainly learning a lot more than I did then, and I definitely believe that Bush and Cheney are much worse than Nixon was. This one is much more serious.

NH Ex-pat: It seems that the more people learn about investigations into impeachment, the more likely they are to support it. Do you believe that?

Betty Hall: I believe that. John Nichols, author of “The Genius of Impeachment” is going to be at our event April 14 and when you read it, you come to a very different view of impeachment. You think positively about it rather than negatively. Bill Clinton’s impeachment left a sour taste in everybody’s mouth.

NH Ex-pat: Right and that leads into my next question. It seems that there’s this big stigma attached to investigations into impeachment. Why is that and what do you think is the most misunderstood aspect about investigations into impeachment?

Betty Hall: Many people think this is taking vengeance on someone you don’t like in power. Many were upset that Clinton’s impeachment was a vengeful act by the Republicans and the crime did not rise to crimes and misdemeanors. So people on each side of that issue were emotionally charged. I think that any time we consider impeachment, it is going to be emotionally charged because your dealing with potential abuses of power that’s difficult to face.  

A lot of people are saying that this is not important enough but after a lot of discussion, I’ve come to the conclusion that this is not an option. It’s a duty. It is important because the Constitution mentions it six times and sets up the process for it to happen.

NH Ex-pat: Critics may say this is only symbolic and it will never get anywhere. Aside from sending a strong message, what else could this resolution do to augment investigations into impeachment?

Betty Hall: It has to be an expression of the will of the people the Legislature represents. It’s a process whereby Congress can know what the people are thinking and it’s very clear to me that if the people are thinking that Congress is not doing its job, that’s going to affect how they vote, how elections are conducted, and what kinds of things are candidates have to talk to us about. So there are very powerful implications when the people speak.

NH Ex-pat: One of the amazing things I’ve encountered in the Vermont impeachment movement is the diversity of people involved, not lefty-loonies. You have democrats, republicans, old and young, evangelicals, and much more. How would you describe those in New Hampshire pushing for impeachment? Is the diversity just the same in New Hampshire?

Betty Hall: It is across the board. We had a public hearing where over a 100 people showed up and they were all across the spectrum. There were people from the John Birch Society; there were people on the left and others in between. If you go to my Web site www.hall4impeachment.com, we had a recording from the House I.D. system, split the speeches, and put them on YouTube. You can hear what people at the public hearing said and I tried hard to make sure there were people across the board. I think I got the whole range of people on there. I think if you listen you’ll get a really good picture of how ordinary people feel about it and it’s not just limited to Democrats and Republicans.

NH Ex-pat: I take it you are receiving a lot of support from around the country? Where else have you heard from? What has stood out?

Betty Hall: We’ve had over 3,000 letters from all over the country and the letters are tremendous. They are so impressive it almost makes me want to cry. They’re overwhelmingly in support of our efforts; they have come from all over and I’ve had a couple from overseas and Canada too.

NH Ex-pat: Now you need 202 votes to pass HR.24. What have been some of the biggest obstacles in garnering support for passage?

Betty Hall: Many are taking the position of the National Democratic Party leaderhship, that they don’t want to divert attention to (the 2008 election). My position is (and you can quote me) all our candidates and leaders need to know the truth that’s being hidden by Bush and Cheney now so they can make an intelligent judgments and turn (this country) around. How are they going to turn things around if they don’t know what’s actually happening and what is being conceived by people like Hariet Miers and Josh Bolten at the behest of the White House They won’t honor the subpoenas issued to them by Congress. That’s an impeachable offense in my opinion and only impeachment driven subpoenas are going to get this thing turned around.

Another obstacle is people think is ‘why should we do this today?’ A representative from Londonderry (Al Baldasaro) wanted to add a floor amendment to my resolution. It was in the seat pockets of all the representatives when HR.24 was scheduled to come on the floor and was subsequently put over until April 16. Baldasaro’s amendment was a list of reasons why Carol Shea-Porter should be impeached and it disturbed everybody there. I’m sure that was one of the reasons why it wasn’t taken up then and postponed until April 16. Among other things, it was late in the day and we had a long day getting bills out to go to the Senate. This bill didn’t have to go to the Senate, so it got pushed to the end of the calendar. Everybody was exhausted by the end of the day. So that was another good reason for postponing. There were four others that were postponed too.

I know a lot of people who want to vote for it. I don’t think that Democratic caucus is against it as a whole but someone could table it from both sides too. So that’s another obstacle.  

NH Ex-pat: It seems seems that Democrats think if they pursue this, it will hurt their chances in the next election. Why is that incorrect?

Betty Hall: I don’t think it’s whether or not it’s correct or incorrect it is but I do think across the country there are so many Democrats (and some Republicans) that worked so hard to bring change in the 2006 election and nothing has happened! The changes we worked for hasn’t been made! So I definitely think that will be an issue in this coming election.

I’m hearing there are a number of candidates that will run in the state primary on the impeachment issues. So it will come into the campaign. Cindy Sheehan is going run against Nancy Pelosi in California and there are other people who have announced their run for Congress based on their disagreement with the Democratic leadership to keep impeachment off the table.

NH Ex-pat: Critics say why bother when Bush & Cheney are a lame duck administration that’s going to be gone in less than a year? Why should that not be an excuse not to support HR24?

Betty Hall: If we start now we will get the necessary information to ensure that justice and accountability for the crimes that have been committed, we need to put them in motion. Why should we wait until the next president gets elected and then have to find out what kind of justice will be given for these two guys?

NH Ex-pat: Critics also say it will take too much time. Why is this not true?

Betty Hall: It shouldn’t take long because there’s certainly a lot of evidence already to conduct investigations. There is plenty of stuff out there that we don’t know that needs to be exposed too.

***Note: The Vermont House of Representatives spent a half an hour debating their own impeachment resolution in April 2007.***

NH Ex-pat: Should HR.24 not get enough votes to pass, what’s next?

Betty Hall: We’ll keep working! Other Legislatures are considering similar resolutions and every day the more people that haven’t reached their tipping point, including Senators and Representatives in all Legislatures, I hope that our representatives in New Hampshire will reach the tipping point by April 16 but the tipping point will be reached after April 16 and justice and accountability need to happen. I think demand is going to continue for it. As for me, I will not quit!

NH Ex-pat: There has been lots of discussion at Blue Hampshire over whether this resolution is worth it.

Betty Hall: I know I’ve been following that poll you put up there!

NH Ex-pat: Why should we care and why is investigations into impeachment in the Democratic Party’s and (Blue Hampshire bloggers) best interests?

Betty Hall: Is our country worth it? Is our Constitution worth it? Why is it important to set a precedent of doing the right thing and not just sweep it under the rug? No matter who gets elected president, all of these crimes that Bush and Cheney have committed are still available to use, and no one will be penalized! To me what’s worth it is, following your oath of office and doing what you’re supposed to. It’s certainly going to be worth it if we can get our representatives to do their jobs. Everything we’re doing is worth it and to find the support that’s there is more than I ever would have dreamed of. That helps me very much.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

– Arthur Schopenhauer

HR.24 will come to a vote on Wednesday April 16. Call your representatives today and ask them to support HR.24. To find out who your representatives are click here.

IT’S OUR STATE AND IT’S OUR COUNTRY! TAKE IT BACK!

One of the first things he told me when we met was that he had been in the Hitler youth.  

The oddest thing about this was how casually he mentioned it.  My first week in College and all the 1st-year students were expected to meet with their advisers for an introductory lunch.

And here I was, face to face with a man who was part of an organization which would have willingly and obediently murdered half my extended family line.

I didn’t understand why he did this at the time.  I did understand that he wasn’t proud of it.  He wasn’t telling me this to promote himself or to show me what it meant.

I knew that he had been a child at the time, and likely had little choice in the matter, but even so, I found it odd that he began a conversation with this, as though it weren’t something to be ashamed of, as though it weren’t something to hide from, to run from.

It was a few years before I really understood what was going on, and it took another story for it to make sense to me.

This is not a story about history, though it is tied to it.  It is a story about today, and what comes next.  It is a story about what we do when we finally acknowledge what we’ve been part of, what it says about our humanity and how we chose to respond to it.

My social psychology instructor, in a class I took some time later, told us a story.  I’m going to render it in first person for dramatic effect, and I’m telling it from memory, so I probably don’t have the details down, so this is the basic gist:

A few decades ago, I took a job on a fishing boat off of British Columbia.  It was difficult work and we were pretty isolated.  We’d spend most of our time out in sea, and most of that time was spent fishing.  

We would joke a lot and socialize, because there was nothing else to do.  There was only one man on that boat that I ever thought of as a friend, and he didn’t speak to me other than to give one- or two -word instructions for the first five months of this work.

When we finally did have a conversation, he told me about his history.  He’d been a soldier in Hitler’s army: a foot soldier; a grunt.  He didn’t understand the bigger picture.  He just knew that he was a soldier and it was his job to fight for his country.  He didn’t know about the concentration camps, the ovens, etc.

When he finally did realize what he’d been part of, it was just before the war had ended.  And he just walked away: he threw down his gun and left his army and left his country and just kept leaving it.  He took job after job, saying as little as possible to avoid having to discuss his German accent.

By the time I’d met him, he’d managed to make it across the Ocean and across Canada.  We didn’t talk about him having been a Nazi much.  It was clear that he was ashamed of it.  It was clear that he didn’t think there was redemption for it.  So he just hid: from himself, his history, the first twenty-five years of his life.  I don’t know why he told me.  He hadn’t told anyone else.  For whatever reason, I think he just knew I was someone who wouldn’t judge him.  

He never left fishing after that.  We continued to write from time to time, and eventually the letter stopped coming.  I heard later that he had died doing that work.  I don’t know whether it was suicide or an accident, but I don’t think he expected to ever do anything but die on that boat.  He never did learn to face what he’d been involved in and that fear of his own past pushed him to become a shadow of a man, someone who could never move beyond it.

It was then that I finally understood my adviser: he knew that what he had been involved in was horrendous and that it was largely viewed as mass inhumanity, the worst of his generation.  And he knew that there was no easy path to redemption from that.

But one way of dealing with it, for him, was to be unflinchingly honest about it: never let anyone know him without knowing what he was part of first.  Never let anyone even get to know him without first knowing who he was and some of what he had done.  For him, he chose not to run or to hide, but he chose to never allow him the simple pleasure of meeting someone new without being seen through a specific filter, one connected with unrelenting evil and horror.

One man chose to flee from his past, separating himself from almost all social interaction, retreating into himself, and having few human contacts.  Another chose to face his past, looking directly at it and not giving others the choice but to face it as well.  

So what are our own soldiers going to chose?  When those who engaged in atrocities come home, what are they going to do?  Hide?  Retreat?

While there are over 4,000 soldiers dead from that event, I’m a lot more concerned about the ones who have been left behind.  What sort of psychological damage will it do to them, long term, to have been put through this?  If they had a clear mission with a moral clarity behind it, it would be different, but they have no clear idea as to what their mission is.

I read GregMitch’s Kos diary, Why did soldier kill herself,  after refusing to torture? and one passage sticks out, with one woman talking about her experience after witnessing torture on the part of her fellow soldiers:

“It also made me think,” Williams says, “what are we as humans, that we do this to each other? It made me question my humanity and the humanity of all Americans. It was difficult, and to this day I can no longer think I am a really good person and will do the right thing in the right situation.”

Imagine this: being put through something that not only challenges your sense of morality, but places you in the position of not being convinced about your own humanity.

What do you think that does to a person?

When our soldiers finally do start to come home, will we have a way of helping them deal with this?  Will we help them know what is and is not right and good?  

Will we help them face their past and learn to acknowledge it and move forward, or will they just retreat out of fear, living a life of quiet desperation, retreating from their friends, their families and their lives?  Will we embrace them and give them the opportunity to heal or will we just see the emptiness in their eyes and turn away, afraid of what it reflects in us?

I don’t have good answers to any of these questions.

Does anyone?