As a word junky, and most writers are, every day I receive the Dictionary.com word of the day via email.  Occasionally the words pile up and sit waiting for review, or like yesterday, they strike a chord in me worthy of shared reflection.

Sempiternal (sem-pih-TUR-nuhl), yesterday’s word of the day, is an adjective meaning “of never ending duration; having beginning but no end; everlasting; endless.”

For example:  The continual attack by Bush and his cronies upon our civil liberties is sempiternal, in other words, a never-ending nightmare.

Case in Point:  “Photo ID Hassle Puts One Mom’s Vote on Ice” also caught my eye yesterday.  Published in Monday’s Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC), it is an expose of how the new Georgia voter ID laws disenfranchise voters using the author’s mother as an example.

To quote author Ed Newbaum, from Marietta, GA:

Until I read her opinion column, I didn’t know Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel was looking for a voter harmed by the photo ID requirement (” ‘Partisan bullying’ unfounded in state photo ID requirement).

   My 73-year-old mother is one.

   After moving to Georgia from Florida, we attempted to obtain a Georgia ID. Based on the then-published requirements on the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) web site, we gathered proof of her new address (bank statement), birth certificate and valid Florida driver’s license.

At the DMV, we where told that as of May, the secretary of state required her marriage certificate because the name on her birth certificate did not match her driver’s license. They would accept a passport with her married name, something she has never applied for.

   The harm:

   Tracking down and paying $40 for a copy of her marriage certificate.

   Two trips to the DMV, time and gas.

   Missing the July 15 primary.

   Fortunately, Mom was savvy enough to track down the marriage certificate and had an extra $40. It is interesting to consider that the requirements for obtaining a U.S. passport are not as stringent for married women as the Georgia requirements for a photo ID.

   So, based on Handel’s column in the AJC, I know she will want to mitigate the harm done to my mother and me. Why doesn’t she drop a check in the mail for the cost of the marriage certificate (the process really does seem to discriminate against married women) and the time and gas I spent for the extra trip to the DMV.

   I think $75 should cover everything.

   Thanks so much. Apologies accepted.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/con…

In the original AJC commentary to which Newbaum was responding, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said,

The tirade cannot obscure one undeniable fact: Opponents of photo ID have failed to produce even one voter who has been harmed by the requirement, despite nearly three years of scouring the state in search of such an individual. Further, our state’s photo ID law allows voters who arrive at the polls without ID an extra 48 hours to obtain a free photo ID card, and return to their county registrar’s office to have their vote counted. Voters can also choose to cast an absentee ballot by mail without a photo ID.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/18/handeled.html

Handel went on to note that…

Even U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who dissented in the recent decision upholding Indiana’s photo ID law, hailed these positive differences in the Georgia law.

Positive Differences?

I don’t think so!  Instead, we are confronted with the sempiternal truth that there is a concerted effort across the country to systematically and endlessly demolish voting rights, and this effort is being aided and abetted by the Republican appointed and controlled US Supreme Court.  The same court that erroneously installed GW Bush as president in 2000.

Be on guard.  We in turn must be sempiternally vigilant in our protection of the Bill of Rights and US Constitution.

Finally, as I mull over these challenges to our very freedoms, I remain thankful for Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz’s continual efforts to protect and expand the voting rights of all Vermonters.  

According to the dictionary, voting and the right to vote represent the true meaning of democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives

.

The words in our constitution and the words in law are not static, and as such require action.  

Get out and vote, or you may no longer have the right to do so.

Today’s Burlington Free Press reports that Jim Douglas stopped by to say a few words about various issues.  Notably among them are the following, linked from Mike Townshend’s Blog.

On the budget:

“There will a further decline in the revenue forecast. We are prepared to tighten up.” Where I asked? “I have to figure that out. I do not know the cuts. I am not ready to say.” The numbers will be available next week.

What do you think the odds are that any of that tightening up will actually involve cuts to Douglas’ PR staff?

On Vermont Yankee and other energy:

Last week the governor again expressed concern about safety issues in a Free Press storying [sic]. Friday he said,  “They left me no choice.” It’s like “Homer Simpson is running the place.” Yet, he noted, “with the exception of missing rods, all safety issues have not related to radiation concerns. This is a management issue   … .   W e are past the point of telling Entergy, ‘You’re not doing yourself any favors’ ” with the continuation of public blunders. ”

The safety issues present an ironic possibility for Vermont, Gov . Douglas pointed out. “If we close Vermont Yankee ,   we will buy coal-fueled electricity from Midwest energy sources that we are suing to reduce pollution costs in Vermont.”

[…]

The governor also said, “We need to move away form oil and provide access to wood on state land.”  The state has legal and distribution issues to deal with. “We will decide in the  next  week or so.”

Hey, I have an idea:

Invest in renewable resources that don’t produce greenhouse gases.  Invest in wind and solar technologies.  Invest in moo power.  Invest in job programs which bring people who produce these things to our state.

Invest in Vermont rather than engage in practices likely to damage our forests, our wildlife and our economy.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Imagine for a moment (and maybe you don’t have to imagine it): your young children and you don’t live within 1000 feet of Barre City’s schools, parks, registered day care centers or other restricted location. Thanks to fearful reaction to a crime that wasn’t related to the ordinance passed, your children will now have a greater chance of being surrounded by individuals the Barre City council and apparently a great majority of city residents don’t think should be near children.

But so what? As Barre goes, apparently goes Rutland.

Cities such as Barre and Rutland are responding to the murder of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett and the arrest for kidnapping of her uncle, a convicted sex offender, by considering curbs on where sex offenders can live.

Rutland Mayor Christopher Louras said in an interview earlier this week that his proposal to restrict sex offenders might have the effect of driving them from his city into the surrounding communities. Louras said it was not the law’s intent, but a “byproduct.”

The city’s proposal would mirror curbs on convicted sex offenders just approved in Barre, forbidding them from living within 1,000 feet of a school, park or day-care center, a category that leaves little of the city uncovered. The law would not affect the 125 sex offenders already living in Rutland.

Said Rutland’s mayor, “Our concern is to protect the residents here,” noting he was not concerned with whether sex offenders would be pushed into the surrounding community.

(Rural officials wonder whether ordinances will drive sex offenders into their towns, Times Argus, 07/26/08)

Hell, you don’t have to be living outside of Barre or Rutland to feel the effects of this one.

But will it have the hoped for effect? No. A response to the TA article quoted above (same web page) says it better than I could ever have:

Laws such as this are rather useless. Restrictions on where sex offenders could live wouldn’t have protected the latest victims in the Randolph case for instance, as they were family members; only proactive family could have possibly prevented what occured. Within a short distance from my home have resided at least three sexual predators of the pedophile variety- only one was “registered” and he has subsequently been arrested for more offenses. The others were not known previously as offenders and preyed on their own family. None of these are/were living within a proscribed distance from a school, park or day-care facility, and none of their actions involved such entities. Proposed regulations such as these will not protect children but will in fact likely drive more offenders into rural locales without such laws. Instead of passing meaningless laws such as Barre and Rutland are considering, we need to confront how we as a society wish to deal with this matter and how best to protect our children. Laws such as this are just “window-dressing”.

Personally I would feel much more comfortable if we were dealing with: a) the reality of intra-family abuse sexual and otherwise; and b) violence as a way of life … after all “the uncle” had already been in prison for a violent kidnapping and rape. Why was he not either still in prison or very closely supervised?

And then there is the downstream demon making that occurs. Today it is this despicable group. Who knows who will be tomorrow’s despised?

Our governments have a truly nasty habit of taking extreme measures and applying them broadly. Take, for example, civil forfeiture. This was originally intended to make sure high level mobsters couldn’t make use of their unlawfully obtained millions to defend themselves in court. It worked so well by the end of the ’80s people were literally losing autos and boats over marijuana joints and seeds.

Now civil forfeiture has become a major funding source for police around our nation.

“The first thing I think about – is it constitutional to tell people they can’t live there?” said Bill Bonsignore, who lives in a Pittsford apartment complex. “I’m not condoning what they’ve done. You just start thinking, so they do that to that group, what individuals might be the next group who can’t be there.”

(ibid)

(I was just about to write this up, but apparently someone beat me too it.  Good work. – promoted by JulieWaters)

Entergy’s Vermont Yankee continues to radiate bad headlines for Gov.Douglas’s favorite out of State corporation.Power up 20% radiation up 30%.The levels could appear worse if the method of measuring hadn’t been recalculated .I am really weary of Entergy …but ,but  our electric rates are so low ,and ,and it’s one third of our power and it’s cleaner than coal and ……….What is the condition of this aging plant going to be like in 20 yrs. with dry cask storage on site and Entergy’s “crack” maintenance style ?

BRATTLEBORO – Vermont Yankee nuclear plant is releasing 30 percent more radiation into the environment since it boosted power production by 20 percent two years ago, according to a study from the Department of Health released Friday.

The increase in radiation is larger than what was expected, according to William Irwin, radiological health safety chief for the health department, but is still within state limits.

Irwin said Entergy Nuclear would have been in violation of the state regulation if the state hadn’t adopted a new way of calculating radiation exposure, which in effect reduces the levels by 40 percent.

Irwin said the increase to 18 millirems is within 10 percent of its state limit of 20 millirems per year. But he said the rate is expected to go slightly higher because Friday’s report doesn’t include expected increases in radiation from Vermont Yankee’s decision to store high-level radioactive waste outside the reactor building in air-cooled concrete and steel casks, as well as a decision to store low-level waste on site as well.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps…

Remarks of Gov Jim Douglas to Burlington Free Press Friday  

“They left me no choice.”

It’s like “Homer Simpson is running the place.” Yet, he noted, “with the exception of missing rods, all safety issues have not related to radiation concerns.

This is a management issue

… We are past the point of telling Entergy, ‘You’re not doing yourself any favors’ ” with the continuation of public blunders. ”

Are these the remarks of someone that has anything but a cozy relationship with this company? He is disappointed in a dear friend.It is the public aspect of the blunders not the blunders themselves he comments on ! The entire emphasis is on the position he has been left in ,not the safety concerns or the future of the plant.

edit from Julie Waters: the link to the Governor’s comments about VY can be found here

Once again, another U.S. leader snubs Palestine on his trip to the Mideast. Barack Obama’s trip was all about Israel, “its needs” and “its security.” He even made a trip to the Western Wall that’s making headlines around the world. Except he forgot to visit the other one. One that symbolizes oppression and a violation of human rights.

Someone told me today, “Yo Christian… Jewish voters are another important bloc in American voting just like Latino voters, Asian American voters, union voters, anti-war voters, etc. politicians do what they feel is in the best interest of the groups whose support they are seeking.” Well then Arab Americans should be treated just as important. But more importantly, leader after leader makes this about Israel and their security needs. I didn’t see Obama talk about Palestine’s needs to the press. He didn’t talk about the refugee crisis. He didn’t talk about the “security fence” that violates human rights and the ICJ ruling. He didn’t say Jerusalem also belongs to the Arabs but maintained it should all belong to Israel. If he goes to the Western Wall, then shouldn’t he also go to a mosque or another sacred worshipping place? Why didn’t he? There’s a lot more but the point is Palestine’s needs should be put on the same level as Israel’s and he should emphasize that in public, not leave it behind closed doors. That’s the bold change we need in the Mideast.  

I caught this video today on Huffington Post. It pretty much sums up my feelings about Obama’s trip to the Mideast. Sorry y’all, but I had to get this off my chest. Palestine always touches a nerve in me.