From the True Majority email list:

I wanted to invite you to a concert with Mike Gordon (formerly of Phish) that our friends at the Progressive Voters of America are sponsoring on Burlington’s beautiful Waterfront Park.

It’s a free show and our ally on so many issues, Senator Bernie Sanders, will be there to talk about the importance of the November elections.

What: Free Concert with Mike Gordon (with special guest Bernie Sanders)

When: Friday, August 15th, 7:00 PM

Where: Waterfront Park (Downtown Burlington)

Hope to see you there!

Apologies to Jack, who just posted a diary on the Georgian conflict. I don’t mean to trump, but I’ve been putting this together for a while, and I think it’s important to put some information out there that can help folks contextualize just what is going on, as it is a very big deal. There are a few things that even the most casual observer should bear in mind. First, that, like so many conflicts in the modern era, fossil fuels very much complicate the dynamics of what can and should be done, and what is underway. Second, that distinguishing who the good guys are isn’t exactly as clean as the media might like to believe. Third, that something like this has been building for a while, and the Russians have been itching for an excuse. The following is from a piece by Richard Holbrooke in the WaPo going back to 2006: While the United States is otherwise preoccupied, this small former Soviet republic has become the stage for a blatant effort at regime change, Russian-style. Vladimir Putin is going all out to undermine and get rid of Georgia’s young, pro-American, pro-democracy president, Mikheil Saakashvili… …Putin’s methods are brutal. He has expelled at least 1,700 Georgians since October, cracked down on Georgian-owned businesses, made repeated statements about preserving the Russian market for real Russians and demonized Georgians as a criminal class. He has doubled natural gas prices two years running and cut off all direct rail, air, road, sea and postal links between the two countries. Russia has also waged an aggressive international disinformation campaign to raise doubts about Saakashvili And finally, that this should put to rest any pretense that Putin isn’t still very much the man in control in Russia, and that is not good news for Russia or the rest of the world. My own understanding of the situation is very very limited, so I turned for help to people far smarter than I. With their help – more often than not, through some good ol’ fashioned cutting-and-pasting (is it plagiarism if they say it’s okay?) – I’ve attempted to present a pretty comprehensive picture of what’s happening, it’s historical/cultural context, and what some of the implications are. Obviously, there’s a lot of interpretation involved, so many will disagree with some of the conclusions, but it will still hopefully help to fill in some of the gaps in understanding an issue that is very much below the radar screen to most US observers. Again, I wish I could take credit for this, but I really can’t…

First of all, to look at the situation from a strictly Ossetian-Georgian perspective, you do have to go back, despite the claims by many casual commenters in the blogosphere that this is a recently developed conflict. Compared to tensions in places like the Balkans, sure, but the root of this conflict can be traced back nearly a century to the early Soviet “Nationalities Policies” which are hard to pin down, and a point of great scholarly disagreement. Suffice to say that Leninist communism rhetorically aspired to elevate the many, many ethnic groups under the vast Russian Empire into rough equality with ethnic Russians. The policies changed over time, especially into the Stalin era (where there were, of course, large scale atrocities that may have been intentionally, or just incidentally genocidal, depending on which scholars you prefer), but in the end the Soviets made the place pretty ungovernable (without Moscow of course) by design. They instilled a fervent, territorial-based nationalism that made it quite clear that all ethnic groups had their ancestral land, where any other groups present (regardless of how many generations) were “outsiders”. That, combined with an intentionally problematic drawing of internal borders, which made certain that plenty of minority groups were always included, created the foundation for problems across the former Soviet Union.  

Having said that, there were issues between the Ossetes and Georgians around the time for the Russian Revolution, but for the most part, during the Soviet days and even well back into Tsarist days, they had amiable enough relations, with plenty of intermarriage and a fair amount of Orthodox brotherhood, given that they were (and are) the only majority Orthodox ethnic groups of the 100 or so groups native to the Caucasus region. Historically, the Ossetes have had more issues with their Muslim neighbors, who always viewed them (correctly, basically) as the Russian colonialists’ facilitators in the Caucasus. This favoritism continued in Soviet days, when Ossetes were granted land and houses of their Muslim Ingush neighbors after Stalin had the entire Ingush population deported to Central Asia. After Stalin died, and the Ingush and others who were still alive were allowed to return, they were not allowed to go to their occupied homes, and laws were passed actually forbidding Ingush from settling in North Ossetia.  

This all resulted in a brief Ossete-Ingush War in the early 90s, as the seriously marginalized Ingush tried to get their old homes and land back. Russia stepped in, on the Oesstian side by all accounts, and finally ended that war. But things are still quite dicey between those groups, especially as the Ingush (same linguistic group as their Chechen neighbors and therefore seen as little Chechens basically) made up most of the perpetrators during the Beslan school massacre a few years ago, while the victims were almost all Ossetian. (the whole world seem to think that was a strictly Russian-Chechen thing. It actually more of an Ossetian-Ingush thing) Meanwhile, Ingushetia today is a police state, with arrests and extrajudicial executions by the KGB a regular occurrence for the Ingush.  

Back to South Ossetia, things got nasty in the late Soviet days when arch Georgian nationalist Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to power, and tried to aggressively “Georgianize” every aspect of the country as Georgia pushed for independence. The more Russified Ossetes didn’t like this at all, which resulted in Gamsakhurdia eliminating the South Ossetian Autonomous District upon Georgian independence. By this time, Georgia was a complete mess with Abkhazia and South Ossetia declaring independence and Georgians fighting amongst themselves. Georgian forces eventually attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia, with the war in the former not lasting too long and resulting in several thousand Georgian refugees, and the latter lasting years and resulting in 100,000s of refugees. Russia supplied both the Abkhaz and Ossetes militarily.

When the less nationalistic Shevardnadze came to power (certainly a known quantity in Moscow), things calmed down in South Ossetia (in part because militarily the Georgians could barely supply their soldiers even clothes), but the Ossetes maintained their “independence” and had complete control (or at least Russia did). According to a peace deal, Russian “peace keepers” were stationed in most of South Ossetia (including Tskhinvali) with Georgian troops stationed in the ethnic Georgian villages dotted around of the region. That situation remains today. (Abkhazia has basically the same scenario, though only after a few more years of much more bloody fighting. Shevardnadze was preferable to Moscow, but he wasn’t a puppet) That’s basically how things stayed for years. In late 2001 there was an election (who knows how fair) that saw my contacts there removed from power. (They are mostly in North Ossetia now)  

And of course Kosovo recently getting independence (more or less) pretty much set the stage for what is happening now. Russia always insisted that whatever happened with Kosovo should happen with South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Trans-Dniestria (in Moldova) as well, so they have encouraged those folks to become increasingly aggressive.  

Now, how things played out in the few days leading up to all out mayhem is not entirely clear, with the Georgians saying the Ossetes started attacking Georgian villages first, and the Ossetes saying the opposite. The fact is, it may never really become clear. In any case, the Georgian attacks on Tskhinvali clearly raised the bar substantially on the violence (though the Russian/Ossetian claims of 1500-2000 civilian deaths should be viwed skeptically… that’s about as many civilians as could possibly have still been there when the city came under attack)

So the fact is, it’s a bit tricky to cleanly label good guys and bad guys between the two in the overall sense. It kind of depends on your view of ethnic separatism in general. In the Georgians favor, even taking into account the relatively brief period Gamsakhurdia was in power, the Ossetes were basically always running the show in their territory and were not particularly oppressed. While the start of the war in the 90s led to horrific atrocities (on both sides), up to then they were not like the Kosovar Albanians, who were truly oppressed. The Russians would be well-advised to take that into account in their comparisons. On the other hand, the US would be well advised not to jump on the Georgian bandwagon as if they were somehow the good guys in the two-way conflict.

Of course, US complaints are all about Russia, not the Ossetes. And as far as Russia is concerned, there is plenty to complain about. Even before Putin, Russia was intent on maintaining the uncertain status quo in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to maintain a degree of control over Georgia. With the paranoid Putin in power, this desire became even more strong. And then it went off the charts when people protested the rigged election that put Shevardnadze back in power, leading ultimately to the “Rose Revolution” that brought pro-American Saakashvili to power.

This was the point at which Putin established himself quite definitively as the most destructive influence on democracy and human rights in the former Soviet Union since 1991 – and maybe earlier. Here’s the weird-paranoia equation: Saakashvili, educated in the US with Soros funds, was clearly put in power as part of some Soros-Bush-CIA conspiracy (yes, you read that correctly) aimed at Russia. (If you suggest to many in Russia and its neighbors that Soros and Bush are not exactly pals you’ll get a roll of the eyes and be dismissed as naive. Never underestimate the degree to which the various powers that be in the countries of the former Soviet Union – including Putin himself – are utterly delusional about American politics.)

The Central Asian countries and Azerbaijan bought into this thinking 100 percent, and began harassing and kicking out local and international NGOs at a rapid rate, particularly those with anything in their missions about democracy and human rights. Putin also has an intense hatred for environmental groups, which he’s quite openly called bastions of spy activity. Then came Ukraine and to a lesser extent Kyrgyzstan, and these feelings simply grew. That both of those elections were also clearly rigged was deemed irrelevant. Then came the massacre in Uzbekistan, which was not election related, though the same folks tried to pin that on the West as well, though that was even more of a stretch.

The bottom line is that Putin is virulently against democracy in the former Soviet Union because he knows that ultimately he can’t rely on controlling democratic governments.

But with all of this, Saakashvili has always remained Putin’s enemy number one, more so even then Yukashenko. By all accounts, his hatred of Saakashvili is pathological. Saakashvili better have good body guards – with good radiation detectors. Seriously. I don’t think anyone seriously doubts that Putin’s primary obsession in all of this is overthrowing Saakashvili.

As for the US, South Ossetia aside, the US support for Georgia (and Ukraine) is certainly warranted. As we all know, it’s far too often that the US gets way too cozy with nasty governments due to “strategic” reasons. And while Georgia is a strategically located country, with the Caspian-Turkey pipeline running through it and all, right next door you have far more resource rich, far more strategic, and also Russia-wary Azerbaijan. But the US has considerably more touchy relations with Azerbaijan, for the single reason that the US, and the West, complain about the lack of democracy and human rights in Azerbaijan. Now, ultimately those criticisms get fairly muted, but they infuriate the President of Azerbaijan, nonetheless. (He just went on an anti-Western tirade a couple weeks ago due to such criticism.) So, with Georgia and Ukraine being clearly the most democratic, open countries in the former Soviet Union (outside of the Baltics of course), the US has, in the big picture, actually got the right idea in this case.

And Saakashvili’s friends in the US are certainly diverse. No world leader has better relations with Bush. Or McCain. At the same time, Soros paid, out of his own pocket, the salaries of Georgian civil servants when Saakashvili came to power as a favor. One wonders what Soros’ take on things is right now, but Georgia has always been considered the model political transformation in the eyes of folks at his flagship Open Societies Institute. Saakashvili’s administration is filled with others who studied in the US through Soros sponsored programs. And to Saakashvili’s credit, he’s done by all accounts a remarkable job reducing corruption. And the economy has picked up as well. And unfortunately, South Ossetia (like Abkhazia and Trans-Dniestria) is very much a land of old-school political thought. That Stalin still enjoys tremendous popularity, even among the young, shows that it’s not exactly a land of progressive thought.  

So it’s a mess. And a complicated mess at that. Coming to the defense of Tskhinvali is by no means one of the more objectionable things the Russians have done in the former Soviet Union in recent times. And like I said before, it may not be clear who started it, but the Georgians clearly escalated it, raising the bar on civilian casualties. It’s hard to defend that.  

But the way the Russians recently gave ethnic Ossetes new Russian passports, basically to serve as a pretext for invading, is pretty disingenuous at best.  Due to the war in Chechnya, and the fear of other Chechnya’s elsewhere in Russia, Russia has always been (officially) adamantly opposed to separatist movements, and ardent supporters of governments’ right to do anything they want to anyone within their sovereign borders. So the Russian passports gave the Russians the excuse to invade without really violating Georgian sovereignty, as they had to “defend their citizens” – as well as their peace keepers. Moreover, the Russians appear to moving troops out of Abkhazia and out of South Ossetia well into Georgia proper. If they’d left it at defending South Ossetia, they would be in a much more defensible political position.  

Meanwhile, when things started, the US was way too uncritical of Georgia. Saakashvili’s good points are all well and good, but they really had nothing to do with the actions against South Ossetia. As such, the US should really have looked at that situation in the more immediate, narrow context. As for Saakashvili, who knows what the hell he was thinking.

So ultimately, Putin (or uh….I mean Medvedev…..ha-ha) will likely come out stronger still. If there’s any room for his popularity to rise, it probably will. And unfortunately, a stronger Putin is always a bad thing for democracy and human rights across the former Soviet Union. And I shudder every time Bush opens his mouth on the topic. (Hearing Bush talk about anything I might agree with is far more sickening than listening to him talk about things I don’t agree with) And the Europeans, as usual, are useless. They basically live in fear of offending Russia (who can turn off Europe’s gas at any moment) and therefore will only timidly criticize, with the exception of course of the British, who get rather uppity about Russian government officials running around London with highly radioactive material.

One region of a country rebels against the central government, and establishes its own independent rule. They manage to maintain their independence from the central government for ten or fifteen years, and they argue that if the central government tries to reassert control the people in the breakaway region will be subjected to reprisals and oppression. Is a bigger, more powerful country with ties to the breakaway region entitled to invade to protect the regional inhabitants?

Does it make a difference if the country is Iraq and the region is Kurdistan, or the country is Georgia and the region is Ossetia?

Apparently. Georgia is a sovereign nation and its territorial integrity must be respected.

I don't know enough about the situation in Georgia to pick sides. It's always natural to side with the little guy, especially when it's a democratic country. Still, from what little I know about it, it seems that the “breakaway” status of Ossetia was well-established, and that the government of Georgia was acting precipitously by invading. On the other hand, if Russia was justified in invading Georgia, would they be any less justified in invading other neighboring countries with Russian minorities who are ready and willing to make the same claims of oppression?

One thing is clear, though. The United States, and George Bush in particular, have forfeited the moral high ground. There is no way the community of nations will take what we say seriously after the invasion of Iraq.

One more reason that Bush has weakened our ability to defend our national interest.

I am so sick of these stories of taser abuses by police. I am even more sick of Attorney General Sorrell’s complete indifference to them. With clear standards and an enforcement regime, he could shut this nonsense down virtually singlehandedly, but he continues to give Vermont police a virtual blank check for the casual deployment of a device which should only be used as an alternative to deadly force. In fact, if it were only used as an alternative to deadly force, you’d be hard pressed to find any Vermonter who would oppose their deployment.

But in Vermont, with the AG’s blessing, they continue to be used as high-tech cattle prods. There’s a word for the use of pain to coerce behavior, but this is the era of looking the other way, isn’t it?

Put another way:

Guess what?  It hasn’t gone away.  We’ve just had record rainfall, and it was all acid rain.  Nope, they haven’t stopped using coal-fired plants in the Midwest to generate electricity.   Yup, we haven’t solved this yet, but we’re already forgotten about it and moved on to Global Warming.  

That’s what I hate about causes, once one becomes boring and passé people move on to some cause that’s new, exciting, and getting all the press.  There’s no success story here like gaining in the war on water chestnuts here in Lake Champlain.  It’s not like personal choices affect acid rain either, like reducing your carbon footprint.  There is nothing individuals can really do to make a difference with acid rain other than try to mitigate its affects.  What’s a person to do?  Walk around with pieces of limestone tossing them here and there?

If acid rain had a headstone it’d read “RIP Acid Rain, There’s Nothing Any Of Us Can Do, So There’s Nothing Any Of Us Did.”

I worry about stuff like this.  Will people get exasperated and give up on global warming too?  Plant trees people!  Global warming and carbon emissions are a much easier problem to keep up with.  Just think, if people plant a dozen trees a year, and increase garden space in their yards (instead of mowing), you’re actually making a difference.  Ride your bike instead of taking your can a few short trips a week and you’re a carbon footprint hero.

But what are we going to do about Acid Rain?

Okay, I’m going to make this simple:

Per The Rutland Herald:

What started as a medical call to assist a man having an asthma attack on Prospect Street last week ended with police using a Taser and physical restraints to subdue the patient.

The whole story is a bit complicated and I will not go into the full details here, because there is one simple fact at work: the man in question had suffered multiple seizures in the presence of the police before they chose to taser him.

Seizures can be caused by a disruption in the electric activity in the brain.  

So yeah, including a large external electric charge?  That’s a great idea!

The man in question was extremely drunk, had suffered an asthma attack, and had been talked into going to the hospital.  After a seizure, he changed his mind, and tried to go back to his house.  

The police tasered him as part of the process to subdue him while trying to force him to go to the hospital against his wishes.

I am so far beyond angry over this.  Doesn’t anyone train these officers?

We've always been big admirers of Peter Freyne around here. He's been the foremost political commentator in Vermont for years. Standing above the rest of us, Peter got the Daysie this year for the best print journalist in Vermont.

Also, to celebrate his work, Eva Sollberger did a Stuck in Vermont on him. You should go over and take a look.

As a public service, I’d like to provide a preview of the speeches and some of the floor activity that will occur at the upcoming conventions.

First, let me note that I won’t be focusing much on the Obama and McCain speeches; those are already going to get plenty of attention.  Obama will give a stirring, inspiring speech, and John McCain will fall asleep at the podium.  Instead, I’m going to focus on some of what you can expect from the other speeches.

I will begin this story by noting that I have never been to a convention, Democratic or Republican, though I have watched both on multiple occasions, and have, believe it or not, sat through entire convention speeches more than once, so I am a bit familiar with their style and approach, and have some passing familiarity with the cult-like mindset of those who attend.

So, I present to you, a brief summary of what you can expect at the conventions.

Hillary Clinton

I think Clinton will give a great speech.  My one concern is that of who gets to introduce her.  If Terry McAuliffe gets the task, we may have a problem, as he’s been thoroughly conditioned to say the words “the next president of the united states” every time he mentions her name.  Unless we can deprogram him in time, this could be awkward.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney, I’m certain, will do a fine job with his speech. But the most important thing will be to investigate what his hair tells you.  If it’s his usual perfect coif, it imparts a sign of calm assurance.  If even a single hair is misplaced, it could mean any number of bad portents, from him having forgotten to pack enough magic underwear to a sudden crisis of conscience or, as the GOP puts it, realization that he’s not getting paid for his speech.

Elliot Spitzer

Elliot Spitzer has a prior commitment and will be unable to attend the convention.

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson’s speech will be repeatedly interrupted by awkward pauses, followed by him looking offstage and shouting “line?”

Joe Biden

Biden is in his strongest element talking about himself.  His speech will go twenty minutes over and will, in fact, be lifted wholesale from a New York Times review of his bestselling autobiography, “Biden on Biden”

Jesse Jackson

See Elliot Spitzer

Tom Tancredo & Duncan Hunter

Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter will give a joint speech in which they illustrate the various ways people can tell them apart.  

It will not work.

Mike Gravel

Mike Gravel will do a performance art piece in which he shoves Denis Kucinich, who is dressed as a mime, into an imaginary pool.

Jim Gilmore

Jim Gilmore’s invitation was lost in the mail

Bill Richardson

Richardson will be body-slammed by Bill Clinton on the convention floor.  He will remain in traction for the rest of the week.

John Edwards

See Elliot Spitzer

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani’s speech at the convention will be interrupted by a call form his bookie.

Al Gore

Al Gore will arrive on horseback, wearing a suit of carbon-neutral armor.  He will refer to his mode of transportation as being “biofueled.”  His boots will leave no carbon footprint and his helmet will be solar-powered.  

He will make no references to a lockbox.

Larry Craig

Expect Larry Craig’s speech to be replaced at the last minute by a Gilbert and Sullivan Medley.

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman’s primary role at the Republican convention will be to stand beneath John McCain and catch him whenever he falls, and serve as his personal masculinity assurance agent and food taster.  He is unlikely to perform the full Zell, as Lieberman does not understand the concept of a duel.  

Denis Kucinich

Kucinich, still dressed as a mime, will attempt to promote his resolution mandating that house elves get equal rights.

George H. W. Bush

Bush will appear side by side with McCain in order to make McCain look younger.  

It will not work.

William Jefferson Clinton

President Clinton will “accidentally” call Barack Obama “boy.”

He will blame the media.

George W. Bush

Bush will, not necessarily in this order:

Promote a cogent comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gases by 80% over the next five years, but threaten to veto its funding.

He will also crack at least five different jokes, insulting at least seven ethnic groups, women, gays and the mentally disadvantaged.  He will not get the irony.

Dick Cheney

Of course, the most anticipated speech of either convention will be that of Dick Cheney.  Not because of what he might say, but instead, what he might do.  There are several theories about Cheney:

• that he is a Cyborg;


• that he is the antichrist (false: the antichrist is supposed to be popular);


• that he is a minion of Satan (false: he is a minion of Haiburton, which is a subsidiary of Satan);


• that he is a homunculus;


• that he is simply evil;

But the most important thing to remember is not that Cheney shot a guy in the face, but that the man apologized to Cheney for the incident.

So, in short, whatever Cheney does at the convention will either very tragic, very funny, or both.  Me, I’m hoping he “accidentally” swallows a congressional page.

John Kerry

John Kerry… will give… a speech.  It will… be… a good speech… it will… contain… facts… that… might… be… interesting.  It… will… contain… half… the words… of most… other speeches… and take… three times… as long.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich will threaten to shut down the convention if he’s not nominated Vice President.

Chris Dodd

Chris Dodd, having gnawed his own leg off to survive Kerry’s speech, will be unavailable for the remainder of the convention.

Ron Paul

Ron Paul will meet with an unfortunate “accident” that prevents him from giving his speech.  His supporters will be beaten back with tear gas.

Bloggers

All bloggers in attendance will be restricted to a special “free speech” zone.   It will not have wifi access.

Recent tragedies from the Bennett case to yesterday's news about the alleged murder of a women in Wells by her 14 year-old son has revealed the unthinkable reality of what is legally called, “Domestic Violence.”  In the wake of these events I have been considering the reference, abbreviated “DV,” as almost a trite euphemism which over time has lost meaning.  If memory serves, the phrase, “Domestic Violence,” became the legal definition of what we used to call wife beating or spousal abuse.  My sense is that the “Domestic Violence” became the legal phrase in part because it suggests that violence in the household includes what we used to call “Child Abuse” as well as violence between non-married couples.

But the recent tragedies reveal a stark reality that deserves a more stark legal reference.  It may be that what I am about to suggest is a subset of “Domestic Violence,” but at this time it may be worth consideration as a policy level reference in Vermont's criminal, civil and family courts.

Below the fold I propose a new legal definition of these unthinkable crimes.

“Family Rape and Violence”

The reality of rape and violence in both nuclear, extended and step family is something is uncomfortable to consider.  Too often when rape occurs the inter-family response is self-blinding denial.  Too often the conversation only rises to the leve of, “We don't talk about it.” 

Family rape and violence is rarely exposed.  Shame is severe; parental denial is rampant; older sibling authority demands secrecy; pre-teen and teen judgement remains in formative, impressionable stage of development.   

The number of 911 calls and court dockets in Vermont court systems represent only the tip of the iceberg of what can best be described as part of a tragic human epidemic.  Vermont is not alone in this global phenomenon, yet as a sometimes leading state in public policy, we have an opportunity to raise the bar in how we address the issue and call family rape and violence by its real name.  Rape.  Beating.  Murder.

The problem with the the current legal definition, “Domestic Violence,” derives from its common definitions.  Looking up the word “domestic” in standard dictionaries does not convey any sense of rape or violence.   

In closing, the definition of “domestic” from the online Princeton dictionary: