Remember a ways back when I re-posted this dKos diary from Turkana which made the case that much of the real venom behind many of the right-wing attacks on Obama (as compared to, say, Clinton) was fueled by garden variety racism? It was a good conversation that evoked a range of responses – including this angry, hyperbolic, and completely dismissive reaction from Charity:

my dear left-wingers, you have yourselves to blame.

You know hatred, boy, do you ever.  You have hated for the past 8 years.  Some of you even forgot how not to hate and are still spewing hate on a daily basis toward anyone who dares disagree with you.

After Obama was elected, I read time after time on conservative blogs how we had to resist doing what the left did for the past 8 years.  The hate.  The screeching.  The inability to formulate coherent sentences.

Unfortunately, some of us can’t resist emulating what has become the standard in political thought.

So, if anyone on the left wonders why the level of discourse is so base, so visceral, compared to the past, it’s not because he’s black (with or without scare quotes), it’s because you lowered the bar.

(The party of “personal responsibility” heard from, yes I know.)

So imagine my surprise this week when I try checking out the right-wing sites she links to at She’s Right and right away find this gem entitled “Punk-Ass President” from Massachusetts blogger Hotspur at “New England Republican” (after the flip):

I can see him in baggy Jeans, with lipstick teardrops under both eyes, and his baseball cap on sideways.

Don’t ef with Streetdog B.  He’ll be President someday in a national flight from reality, but he’s still just a punk.

I’m sure he talks about Hillary and Ted Kennedy the same way. What were we thinking?

I would also note that this post came from Massachusetts, not Alabama. Yet another case-in-point that writing racism off as an exclusive problem of ignurnt sutherners is a dangerous canard.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

The 6th Annual DemocracyFest is coming soon! July 17th-19th in Burlington!

Full Event ticket price will increase to $65 on July 1st. Get yours today for only $55! http://www.DemocracyFest.net

DemocracyFest is a political festival for liberal/progressive activists which features trainings, speakers and entertainment; teaching people how to make a difference and have fun doing it! Prior DemocracyFests have been held in Massachusetts, Texas, California, New Hampshire and Virginia. Over 4,000 activists have been trained to help on campaigns and make a difference in their communities.

Speakers and trainers this year include Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Mike Gravel, Gov. Madeleine Kunin, Mayor Bob Kiss, Sen. Doug Racine, Sen. Hinda Miller, Rep. David Zuckerman, Rep. Sandy Haas, Rep. Michael Fisher and Dr. Deb Richter. Plus there will be entertainment by musicians Rebecca Padula, Emma’s Revolution, Bobby Kendes and Axiomatic, comedy by Rep. Jason Lorber, film screenings, book signings, many tabling organizations and vendors, silent auction, children’s’ activities area, and much more! Check out our schedule of events as it develops! http://www.DemocracyFest.net/S…

Full weekend tickets are only $55 until July 1st and include: – All trainings, entertainment, and speakers on Saturday and Sunday. – Dinner on Saturday. – Breakfast on Sunday. – Semi-Guided Tour of Burlington and Welcome Party on Friday. – Children under 14 free with adult ticket purchase. – Free parking, or transportation to and from Burlington Airport. – Priceless interaction with activists from across the nation.

Single day tickets are also available for $30 until July 1st when they will increase to $35. http://www.DemocracyFest.net

Hope to see you there!

It's great to see good, progressive legislators getting exposure. Sue Minter's been in the legislature for five years now and she has really distinguished herself. Here's a piece from the Waterbury Record about Sue and her work.

“Sue is a very passionate legislator,” said Tom Stevens, a Democrat elected to replace Dostis last fall. “She cares deeply about what she is working on, (and is) diligent in research and professional in demeanor. I know when I hear from Sue on news from her committee that the information is going to be good, well-thought-out and accurate.

Minter’s hard work has paid off, Stevens said. Her name has been floated for leadership positions in the House, and she is now on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, the key budget committee.

Follow the link for the rest of the story.

Good going, Sue. 

Peter Welch will be the primary guest on Vermont Public Radio on Friday, June 19, on the noontime show Vermont Edition, which will be hosted by Bob Kinzel. According to their site’s blurb (also heard on promos):

Congress is tackling a comprehensive health care reform bill. Congressman Peter Welch discusses the prospects for this legislation and his support of a climate change bill that includes the controversial cap-and-trade provision.

He’s been a busy guy. Wonder where Peter is vis a vis Howard Dean’s proposals.

No mention of the recent war supplemental vote. Perhaps someone from here would and could call in to ask about that, too.

NanuqFC

Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.  ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

For those who may have missed it, the Obama administration is in damage control mode after several significant Democrats have indicated they will be boycotting an upcoming GLBT-focused, $1000-a-person DNC fundraiser featuring Vice President Biden. The boycott (and rumored demonstration) is a result of the frustration felt by many gay activists who feel that Obama is breaking his campaign promises to them on a host of issues. That frustration turned to anger in the face of a recent brief from the Attorney General’s office supporting the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” – even going so far as to invoke incest (if not by name) to deliver its crude, plainly bigoted message. The timing of the fundraiser simply adds insult to injury, suggesting that Obama, AG Holder, and the DNC can denigrate the GLBT community but still expect to treat them as (as Kos put it) an ATM.

And now comes word that a prominent Vermonter, scheduled to be honored at the event, is joining the protest. From Newsweek’s “Gaggle” blog:

Gay rights activist David Mixner and HRC National Field Director Marty Rouse aren’t the only high profile names to register dismay over the Justice Department’s pro-DOMA legal brief by pulling out of a DNC fundraiser scheduled for next week. We’ve learned that Vermont Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, who shepherded the first marriage equality bill through the VT legislature and spent time stumping for Obama during the campaign’s fledgling days, also plans to boycott the event. Shumlin, who is not gay, had been scheduled to be one of the fundraiser’s honored guests but decided to drop out after last week’s DOJ memo

Some folks might recognize the name of the Human Rights Campaign Field Director, Marty Rouse. Rouse did a lot of consulting for Democratic candidates and caucuses in Vermont (including the Vermont Democratic Party proper) during the late 90s and into this decade. He worked closely with Shumlin during that period.

In Shumlin’s letter withrawing from the event, he writes:

By defending DOMA and making reference to horribly inaccurate and deeply hurtful stereotypes about gay and lesbian Americans, the Administration has chosen discriminate against a minority group that we all have a responsibility to be more courageous in defending. This action will only serve to sow the seeds for further hatred and division against the only minority group left in America that politicians can publicly discriminate against and see their approval ratings rise.

Some might be inclined to dismiss this move as grandstanding, but the realty is that Shumlin stands to build significant alliances and contacts at the event – particularly as an honoree – that he is taking a pass on by not attending (contacts that could be invaluable during a run for Governor). Of course, he’ll curry favor with others, but the point is, to simply write this move off as cynical would be… well, cynical. This is a big deal.

Shumlin’s complete letter is below the fold.

Dear Andy,

Further our recent telephone conversation, I was looking forward to seeing

you next week in DC for the DNC event with Vice President Joe Biden, but

after learning how the Administration and the Department of Justice is

choosing to defend DOMA, I am writing to let you know that I am canceling my

participation in the upcoming event.

As an early and strong supporter of Barack Obama I am shocked and

disappointed at the level of insensitivity that the Department of Justice

has shown towards gay and lesbian couples and their families.  By defending

DOMA and making reference to horribly inaccurate and deeply hurtful

stereotypes about gay and lesbian Americans, the Administration has chosen

discriminate against a minority group that we all have a responsibility to

be more courageous in defending. This action will only serve to sow the

seeds for further hatred and division against the only minority group left

in America that politicians can publicly discriminate against and see their

approval ratings rise.  My disappointment in this has led me to the

regrettable decision not to be a participant in the DNC event.

I am proud Vermont made history in how we enacted marriage equality – not

through a court order but through legislative action.  The tides of history,

love and justice came together in Vermont and I look forward to witnessing

this movement swell across the nation as all of America’s citizens are

granted equal rights.  It is my hope that the Obama Administration will

actively support what we did in Vermont – grant marriage equality to all

under the law – nothing more and nothing less.

Andy, I appreciate your hard work on behalf of the DNC and I make this

decision with regret.

My Best,

Peter Shumlin

{Cross-posted to Broadsides

All the organizations that claim to contest the present order themselves have all the puppetry of the form, morals and language of miniature States about them. None of the old lies about “doing politics differently” have ever contributed to anything but the indefinite extension of Statist pseudopodia.

                                                    — From “The Invisible Committee”

Beware of the professional activist, my friends. For they will lead you to policy slaughter and barely bother to conceal their complicity. Winning doesn’t matter to them. Change doesn’t either. Because the paycheck (plus benefits!) is what makes their slumbering efforts feel good.

Their “cause” is just another minor bump in their daily road: take out trash, pay bills, shop for groceries, feign outrage over [insert issue] and then go to sleep. Risk nothing. Quit when it gets hard or uncomfortable. Passion is sanded down to dull edge, whereby simply showing up rings their bell of attainment. Check it off.

When a doctor sleeps through surgery we call it malpractice. But when a professional activist sleeps through an action and misleads a movement we applaud their “effort.” Worse, we marvel at the failure of the professional: “Wow, that took courage.”

Sorry, but losing doesn’t take courage. It only requires not winning. And that’s easy.

The professional activist is hardwired to lose because losing keeps them in business. They celebrate the longevity of their involvement and the age of their organizations as if to spotlight their ineffectiveness: 10 years! 20 years! Send more money! Keep it going! Why? Because they haven’t accomplished anything yet. And it’s a good “job.”

Many years ago I coined the term “Activist Malpractice” in an essay of the same name. I wrote it to put a spotlight on professional activist organizations who would whip up the necessary fear and loathing toward dangers like toxic pesticides and rBGH and then settle for “solutions” like labeling the products that contained these toxins and/or agreeing to 20-year (and toothless) “phase-outs” of carcinogenic pesticides.

But wait, didn’t they say these things were killing animals and people and destroying the environment? Yes, they did. And just as quickly they turned the page and “celebrated” the mere introduction of legislation that they knew wouldn’t pass, ever be enforced and/or save one of the lives they told us these products were claiming.

But they kept their jobs. Got applauded from their largely-disengaged membership. Kept getting their phone calls returned from Capitol Hill. And sent out a new round of fundraising letters for the “next” not-so-great “effort.” We called it “doing bad and feeling good about it.”

This cycle of activist malpractice works most perfectly when it exists within the paradigm of our modern culture’s manufactured disengagement. You know, the one that says: You are helpless without an expert. Or, in the case of the professional class of activists, the one that says: Send us your money and we will solve the issue that we just scared you about. Who knew $25 could solve global warming!?

Because the professional activist needs its followers to be disengaged so that their charades can continue unabated.

Thoreau once counseled his fellow citizens in this manner: “Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.” Today’s professional activists have changed that around a bit: “Let your checkbook help us lubricate the machine.”

And around and around we go, resulting in global warming activists cheering the changing of your light bulbs, health care activists cheering “the public option,” anti-war activists cheering “timetables,” and so on. The only true “winners” in any of these “causes” are the professional classes of activists, lobbyists, legislatures and regulators who’ve found that their own personal economic stimulus is based on your fears and lack of true engagement and expectation. Sucker.

Which brings me to the issue of the week (for me, at least) and a current case of activist malpractice: All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs). As readers will know from my two previous posts (here and here), the State of Vermont is now proposing that ATV riders have access to state lands, including our forests. It’s an absurd idea that is certainly opposed by a vast majority of Vermonters, not least of which are the hikers, birders and campers who enjoy the non-motorized nature of – well – nature. Imagine that.

But the professional organization that is claiming to lead the grassroots charge against the new ruling is the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), a group that claims to be the state’s “largest, most effective” environmental group. Oh yeah, it also claims to be the “oldest” such group, too (see above reference to age and effectiveness).

Like any good activist organization, VNRC does an admirable job of describing the dangers and problems of the issue at hand. ATVs, they report, are loud, smelly, destructive to the environment and dangerous to both the riders and those who are forced to encounter such machines in the so-called wild. As a result of these clear and present dangers of ATVs, VNRC issues an alert to its members: Danger, danger, they declare, the big-bad Republican Governor (Jim Douglas) and his Agency of Natural Resources are threatening our public lands! And I’m sure the fundraising solicitations went out with even greater haste.

But then comes the activism. And down go the expectations.

First, the VNRC’s Jamey Fidel told the Vermont Press Bureau on the day of the public hearings on the issue that his group was “not necessarily” opposed to the first new ATV trail on public lands that was being proposed. But what about all the death and destruction they whipped us up about? Nevermind. Because they’re now being professional. But keep sending those checks!

Worse, when the hearing finally happened, VNRC showed just how atrophied its grassroots muscles have become: Out of 250 people in the room, an estimated 15 were opposed to the new rule – and probably about two were associated with VNRC (both employees). Nice showing. But keep sending those checks!

Unfortunately, it gets worse. At the hearing, the VNRC’s Fidel got his chance to testify and he more than blandly reads and otherwise mumbled through a thoroughly passion-less recitation of the documented problems with ATVs and the hurried “process” by which the ANR has reached its decision (read: give me more time to raise money!).

Next up to testify: Fidel’s VNRC colleague, Jake Brown, the group’s communications director. And he begins with this: “I’ve owned an ATV for eight years and I ride it as much as I can on the weekends.” Sorry, but you can’t make this stuff up.

Memo to the VNRC staff: Have your “communications director” read your documentation on the environmental threats of ATV use, please.

And what’s that feeling I’m having: Oh, that’s the grassroots rug being pulled out from under me. Thanks, VNRC. Where do I send my check?

It’s called “activist malpractice.” Pure and simple. They raise money to protect the environment and they cower like scared sheep when the opportunity to truly protect it arises. They scare the public with the facts and then they fold like a cheap suit when it comes to the solutions. They scare the public enough to raise some cash about the dangers of ATV riding by day, and then mount an ATV by night and the weekends to frolic in the benefits of their “labor.” Shameless.

Ironically, I approached Fidel at the hearing to ask him a few questions. Specifically, I asked him if he thought Brown’s boasting of riding an ATV on weekends undercut his testimony about the environmental destruction of the so-called sport. His reply: “Not at all.” Of course not – just keep sending the checks!

But Fidel wouldn’t allow me to ask any more questions because he was “busy.”

“Call me at my office and I’d be happy to talk with you about it,” he told me.

“Tomorrow?” I inquired.

“No, I’m going on vacation tomorrow. Call me the week after next when I get back.”

The public comment period for the new ATV rule ends on June 22nd. Don’t count on the VNRC to be generating oppositional comments because its point-person on the issue is on vacation. But keep sending those checks!

Activist malpractice, indeed.

I know its been commented on below, but I wanted to mention it again with particular emphasis: Peter Welch voted against the war funding supplemental, which was another such demand from the Presidency without a timetable for withdrawal (possibly in face of this criticism, however, the administration is reaffirming its August 2010 global deadline for its mostly-withdrawal, after officials had been sounding increasingly soft on it…we’ll see. Cross your fingers.). Given that it was a popular Democratic president pushing for it this time, the pressure was reportedly intense, with Rahm Emanuel furiously bargaining and pressuring (of course, he was reportedly back to working with his favorite partners, the blue dogs and Republicans) and Nancy Pelosi herself whipping members to get behind the vote.

But Welch, despite rumors to the contrary, held firm, and we thank him for that. For my part, its nice to, once again, have my faith in him re-confirmed. We may not agree on everything every single time, but its good to know he continues to stand by his word to Vermonters.

Thanks also to folks like Robert Greenwald, Digby, and especially Jane Hamsher who really latched onto this and almost achieved an amazing political coup under the media radar.

As for the bill, it passed 226-202 – interesting enough, with virtually no Republican support. Republicans objected to $108 billion appropriated in loan guarantees as part of an agreement to help shore up the International Monetary Fund. It’s more base-fodder masquerading as fiscal responsibility, as the anti-everybody-but-America wing of the right sees the IMF as part of its dreaded new world order, even though the Republican caucus has had no problems with supporting it in the past (of course, a lot of us on the left aren’t thrilled with the IMF either – and that’s an understatement – but probably a story for another diary). It is interesting, though, that the sort of bill Republicans have bullied Democrats with, as being a with-the-troops-or-against-them vote has a different flavor without George Bush pushing for it. Call it political relativism, if you want to be diplomatic. The good news is that this GOP hypocrisy seems to be the emerging media narrative in the wake of this vote.

In the meantime, we’ve clearly got a long way to go as a nation on the “better” part of this “more and better Democrats” plan.

But, as Hamsher said in the linked diary above:

Just remember:

They had to hold it open 10 extra minutes and after the Dems hit 218 and there were five GOP votes that scurried in under the wire.

We made the President of the United States himself whip to get the votes.

We tried to make the Dems fight like this when Bush was in office to stop funding the war, but they wouldn’t–so we did it ourselves.

I’m very proud to have worked with every single one of you. This was going to be a rout. They had to work for it.

Let’s do it again.

So say we all, eh?

Me from June 8th:

The following rhetoric from a campaign email (dated the Sunday before the override session) is typical:

As I criss-crossed the state people voiced their concern about the budget stand-off between the Governor and legislature.  Vermonters know that these are challenging times for the state and that some combination of spending cuts and tax increases will be required to balance the state budget.

Instead of gamesmanship, Vermonters want real leadership in Montpelier.   They want the Governor and legislative leaders to have an honest dialogue and work out their differences.  The budget is not a political football to pass back and forth – we are talking about the lives of ordinary Vermonters and the future of our state.

Although the bulk of the email focuses on Governor Douglas, this is another case where Markowitz has been positioning herself to run against the Governor and the legislature (trying to grab the grownup-among-the-children meme… In light of current events (specifically the real leadership that has been shown by legislative Democrats) this might seem to come off as a bit out-of-touch (or worse) to primary voters, who are unaccustomed to feeling so proud of – and empowered by – their state Representatives and Senators…

Contrast this with the lead paragraph of this week’s fundraising letter from Markowitz, dated June 11th (emphasis added):

Governor Douglas made history twice this spring – first when he vetoed the same sex marriage bill, and again when he vetoed the state’s budget for the first time in our history. I am certain that this isn’t the kind of history-making Vermonters are looking for in a governor. We need a governor who will work with the legislature to get things done.

There ya go.

All the candidates should keep their eyes on GMD. We’ll work all your kinks out between now and primary day, so whichever one of you goes on to face Big Jimbo will be in full, fighting trim.

On May 21, I posted a diary about Natalie Jones and her, ahem, overzealous principal and superintendent. The school officials had prevented her from presenting her independent project report on the the life of assassinated San Francisco Supervisor and gay rights activist Harvey Milk. They seemed to think that the district’s policy covering sex education and requiring written permission from her classmate’s parents for them to witness the presentation somehow applied to anything mentioning someone who was gay.

Well huzzah! The school officials have come to their senses (no doubt influenced by the intervention of the San Diego ACLU), and allowed Natalie to present her report, as reported by the San Diego Union-Tribune, “In the last few hours of the last day of school at Mount Woodson Elementary.”

The Union Tribune has furnished links to the letter the school district sent to Natalie to apologize for preventing her presentation, and to the parents of her classmates to ‘explain’ their mistaken judgment, and to Natalie’s own PowerPoint presentation.

That last one really brings home the homophobia the school’s officials operated from. Sensitivity training anyone?

( – promoted by odum)

Item from today’s Herald/Times Argus…

Entergy Nuclear has asked state regulators to approve a plan that would change the regulatory boundary surrounding Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which would move the spot where radiation doses are measured further away from the reactor.

Excellent, as Montgomery Burns would say. Entergy helpfully explains that it is seeking greater “regulatory clarity.” It has asked the Vermont Public Service Board for permission to make the change.

I say we let them do it with the following conditions: That they rename the territory inside the boundary “The Kill Zone,” and post huge skull-and-crossbones signs around the perimeter. What say you, Mr. O’brien?