It's BAAACK… Almost two years after the Vermont secession group Second Vermont Republic's cozy ties to racist neo-Confederate groups were publicized here, VT Secession, and Five Before Chaos, the premier organization for tracking hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has finally released its much-anticipated report about the group and its “sister organization,” the Vermont Commons newspaper.

Now, those of you who have been reading GMD for a while don't need a rehash of this fiasco, in which it got to the point where SVR's crazy guru Thomas Naylor engaged in a smear campaign which almost cost GMD founder John Odum his job. For the initial post, go here. There's also a ton of info at VT Secession, the blog that broke the story. To make a long story short, they dug in their heels, people involved with a conscience were either dismissed or left (that would not include VT Commons' Rob Williams, who up until then seemed like a genuine progressive), and SVR's pretty much a one man show now, where when not talking to his Neo-Confederate buddies about the good 'ol days, Thomas Naylor probably wanders his hallways at night in his fuzzy slippers and bathrobe speaking to the ghost of Ethan Allen about the coming revolution. Right.

The SPLC report is quite well-documented, from the nefarious ties, the relationships and trust that were broken, and most importantly, Thomas Naylor's crazy-man, unrepentant demeanor. It's really amazing how a person who repeated ad nauseum how he has fought and opposed racism his whole life (which of course, does not preclude going on a white-supremacist radio show recently, where he was called “obviously a good Confederate”) can compartmentalize his mind so masterfully:

“Naylor also is down on desegregation. In a 2007 essay, “Minority States NOT Minority Rights,” Naylor criticizes segregation but also “forced racial integration,” complaining that the federal government was in the 1950s and 1960s “ordering me to associate with minorities whether I like it or not.” Overall, Naylor can't abide by the idea that since civil rights legislation was passed in the 1960s, “minority rights always trump states' rights.” “

That's a pretty bold anti-segregationist statement, eh? And VT Commons (whose editor is Naylor's buddy Rob “I-don't know-if-they're-racist-and-frankly-don't-care'” Williams) as recently as Feb. 5th had this quote about freedom and unity from fringe-bat Carol Moore:

“Those “identity groups” of whatever identity who desire separation to preserve their culture or live out a vision or lifestyle should not have to waste time and resources in defending or fighting discrimination lawsuits and onerous zoning laws and can focus it on building community.”

But Naylor, in all his zany glory, is a unreconstructed rebel to the end: 

In the face of these criticisms, Naylor remains defiant. “I don't give a shit what you write,” he told the Report. “If someone tells me that I shouldn't associate with the League of the South, it guarantees that I will associate with the League of the South.”

That really says it all, doesn't it? A rebel to the bitter end in the truest sense. Heh.

UPDATE: VT Commons editor Rob Willams bobs and weaves around the issue in an interview with the SPLC here, including his “don't know, don't care” comment. Just to let me refresh your memory, here is the exact quote we allegedly took out of context:

 “some of our secession scholars – Don Livingston, for example – happen to be southerners. Anyone who has met and talked with Don knows the man is thoughtful and well-studied. Is he a racist? I don’t know. And frankly, it is none of my damn business, at a personal level.”

If you're curious about Livingston, this is a good place to start. And if you like him, you'll love his fellow SVR advisory board member, Thomas DiLorenzo.

Bill Clinton didn’t surprise many people with his (hopefully parting) words yesterday.  Bill demonstrated his “style”, when he described Dee Dee Myers husband and his recently penned Vanity Fair article (1).

Of more interest are the comments of Dee Dee Myers.  She tells us what might be on the Clinton’s political horizon in the next few days and weeks (2).

Here are Bill Clinton’s (hopefully) parting words to us all:  (loosely misquoted from page 8 of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair article) (1).

“So much of my life is characterized by stories of self-indulgence and self-destruction,” Clinton writes near the end of Giving, from which he earned $6.3 million and gave away $1 million (or 16 percent) to charity. “So much of my life is focused not on honest differences of policy but on personal attacks. So much of my life is dominated by people who earn fortunes by demeaning others, defining them by their worst moments, exploiting their agonies. Who’s happier? The uniters or the dividers? The builders or the breakers? The givers or the takers? I think you know the answer.”

Lastly, here is an amazing audio/video of Clinton’s remarks about Purdum and Obama (3)!  He actually says the article is part of an Obama campaign conspiracy to smear Hillary.

Good Night Bill…

(1)http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=8

(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlrWnz8ALNw

(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html

Last night, MSNBC and CNN were reporting (at length) that Hillary Clinton has a scheduled speaking event in her (adoptive) home state of New York following today’s final two State primaries.  She has reportedly gone out of her way to invite all of her major donors and supporters, and there is nothing on her official schedule for the days or even weeks afterwards.  The reasonable speculation, of course, is that she’s done with.  This is countered, however, by the fact that all the cable news channels were still swarming with representative’s from her campaign who continue to insist “she’s in this race to win”.  It would seems though that the end is finally near.  Having nothing on her campaign schedule pretty well shows her hand.

Kudos to John for earning us a place at the Democratic Convention; and as Jack already posted, you can hear a podcast from his whirlwind plublicity tour here.

So much for sucking up to the boss, here is where I go out on a limb, attack and publicly critique him by saying that I agree with everything said in the interview except the opening premise as quoted in the podcast.

Brace yourselves. 

At the beginning of the podcast, John is quoted as saying bloggers are not going to be “objective” in sending posts from the Convention. I understand the meaning of that statement, but I believe the point is that bloggers such as John who are posting from the Convention will not be “neutral.”

For a long time now, I have been attacking the mainstream press for not covering this administration properly, for being intimidated and cowered into a submissive neutrality. They are so wrong they have forgotten who they are.

The job of the press is not to be neutral, it is to be objective. There is an enormous difference.

Here's neutral: The Jedi rebels say the Death Star is a peril to the universe, but Darth Vader assures the universe that the empire is trying to protect us from the insurgent terrorists that seek to do us harm.

Here's objective: It's called the Death Star. Its objective is complete control. Darth Vader's tactics are brutal and dictatorial.

But, of course, it's even worse. The headline today would read: Vader Says He Will Keep Us Safe.

That's no joke. Watch me flipping out over a USA Today headline that says almost exactly that here.

He also makes a brilliant argument here, which should be journalism 101 for any reporter (and “Understanding The Press 101” for every consumer of information). His observation demonstrates what has become the complete flip-side to the diet served by each of the major networks and virtually every national broadcaster. 

If the media reports on a story objectively and it does damage to the Republicans, that is not a bias. That is a sad day for the Republican Party. The truth hurts. Of course, the same is true of the Democratic Party.

So, if people weren't rescued for five days in New Orleans, it is not biased to report the Bush administration didn't show up. They didn't. It would be folly to report that some say the administration did a terrific job in rescuing people in an effort to appear neutral. . .

It is not biased to say that Iraq is undergoing tremendous civil strife. It is not biased to say the administration claimed the Iraqis would throw roses at our feet. . . .  Though reporting these facts might not be neutral to the administration, it certainly is objective.

Conservatives often complain that liberals want equality of results rather than equality of opportunity in social programs. They say . . . the best we can do is equality of opportunity for everyone in society [but] when it comes to the press, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of results. They don't want fair coverage, they want coverage which shows two equal sides no matter what actually happened.

I fully trust that GMD's Denver posts will be “objective.” I fully expect that they will also be partisan and that there will be no pretense of neutrality in anything coming down from on mile-high Denver.

I know John Odum is being too modest to post this, so I will.

 (Host) Internet blogs have become nearly indispensable to American politics, as they dish up news and rumors even while events unfold.

And, as VPR's Ross Sneyd reports, they've become so integral to politics that bloggers will be given unprecedented access to the Democratic National Convention.

Listen to the podcast. 

They edited the story severely, so John's mention of other bloggers and blogs didn't get on the air, but I think it's great both that we're getting the exposure and that we'll be covering the story live from Denver.