(This diary’s getting interesting and the discussion has drawn in someone you’re all familiar with. Sweet! – promoted by Brattlerouser)

Those  of you following SPS' “The Importance of Growth” and its excellent discussion might find this interesting. Now, admittedly, I know very little of economic theory; my forte is moreso social science and history. And so I was intrigued by Tom Flynn's Op-ed about growth in the latest issue of Free Inquiry, called “Beyond Ponzi Economics”. Now, Flynn is no economist either, but he brings up a point that is something I'm sure many of us have reflected upon:

One sign that the social sciences are not yet mature is that human beings still don’t know how to create establishments that can excel without growing a percent or so each year. Idealists say “Small is beautiful,” but we haven’t figured out how to achieve “Small is workable.” This would pose no problem if limitless growth were possible. But it’s not, at least while humans remain constrained by the finite resources of planet Earth.

I tend to agree with Flynn. Even the most progressive, socially responsible societies still frame their progress as 'smart growth”, as if they are unwilling or unable to even conceptualize the possibility of success without growing. Of course, an environmental sensiblilty needs to be at the heart of this kind of planning and thinking.  But when I hear “sustainablity” mentioned in many of these discussions, how long are we talking about? A generation? 500 years? Is it possible to have an economic model in which a society can be in stasis or even shrink and still be a successful one?

Flynn believes that our current models of growth are inextricably linked to our environmental problems in large regards because of population (and overpopulation) growth:

There’s just one little problem: nobody knows how to make a shrinking polity run smoothly. The large political, economic, and social establishments we’re familiar with are Ponzic to the core.

Instead, panicky governments perpetuate overpopulation so the wheels won’t fall off of their growth-dependent eco­nomies. Faced with the prospect of population decline several years ago, Australia started paying bounties, now $3,000 per child, tragically sparking a new baby boom. European countries that had offered tax incentives for larger families are experimenting with bounties too. Spain plans to offer $3,400 per child and Germany $2,530. The Euro­pean Parlia­ment has called for measures to expand immigration throughout the EU. If overpopulation activists are right, such policies are shortsighted and de­struc­tive. But you can’t really blame to­day’s political leaders, who know they lack the tools to manage shrinking societies in ways that discourage social dislocation and unrest.

In my view, we desperately need to re­­place today’s outmoded, growth-de­pend­ent economic and political structures with shrinkage-friendly, non-Ponzic successors. Yet, I’ve seen little evidence that the social sciences are rising to this challenge. Can we develop alternative structures that don’t de­mand the lubrication of continual growth but can flourish even while contracting? Can we create them in time? Is anybody working on this?

My question is one of the age-old variety in that if what Flynn discusses is possible, how would the change come? Gradually? Cataclysmically? Is it even possible? It seems like a major paradigm shift would be in order. Here's to hoping there's time for that.

Seven Days actually gets a second mention today. The new issue has an article by Patrick Ripley that covers the recent iBrattleboro libel story  that's been all the buzz lately. The coverage is a bit different from the others in that it also discusses the some of the VT blogosphere's reaction to the suit, which was decidedly different from that of the Reformer and the Argus. The newspaperrs were quite supportive of the claim against IBrattleboro. And of course, there's that “old media vs. new media” vibe that runs through the whole discussion at length in the pice. And it mentions a few familiar names, as well. Have a read.

Deja vu? The Washington Post is now reporting:

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested, emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington Post editorial board.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to reject.

Getting tired of this yet? More below the jump. 

Mitch McConnell is behind the deal, in which there wil be 20 billion more dollars than the Dems initially agreed to in their latest short-term funding bill. The article goes on to mention that both Reid and Pelosi have vowed to oppose any additional money for the Iraq war that does not come with a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. So who's calling the shots here, Pelosi or Hoyer?

Apparently, this one's a bit different, because along with the Iraq money, Dems have included $11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush requested, which is sure to raise the ire of certain conservatives who, now that they're no longer in power, want to come acros as so-called “fiscal conservatives”, except of course, when it comes to the war.

This one's a rather convoluted deal, and its passage is far from certain. It says that certain House members will not vote for any Iraq spending without a change in policy? Will Congressman Welch be one of them?

The worst thing about this is that through all this, with his about as popular-as-Vanilla-Ice approval ratings, Bush is still calling the shots, and he knows it. It' sreally fantastic how House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is all but telling the Dems what they will do, and why bother even putting those domestic spending things in there? (emphasis mine):

Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with or without additional money for domestic programs. “There's no reason to make a bad bargain,” he said. “The president holds all the cards.”

And Hoyer, showing the steely resolve and determination we've come to expect from him:

“Everybody knows he has no intention of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result.”

I've seen this so many times, I'm running out of things to say. Perhaps that's what they want to happen.What do we do now?

(Moving it ahead of the diary I just posted because this is so important and local. – promoted by JulieWaters)

with a big hat tip to wdh3  for assistance.

Well, then. Today, I was witness to a truly inspiring day of direct action. With results, as you can see from the sign that was on the recruiter's office in Williston, today. All of you old coots who grumble about the youth of today, it's time to listen up. More below the jump…

As you might have read in that action alert I posted yesterday, students from the Mount Mansfield Union High School Peace Club, in conjunction with Iraq Veterans Against he War and a bunch of others in solidarity staged an action today at the Military Recruitment Office in Williston today, with the intent of shutting it down so that no one could go in and sign up to be cannon fodder. The students are also trying to draw attention to the presence of military recruiters in the schools, as well as to inspire and teach high school students about the importance speaking out and acting. From the press release earlier:

On the heels of a campaign launched earlier this week from the halls of MMU, the crowd on Friday will unite under the banner, “Out of Our Schools – Out of Iraq,” which in part “calls upon high school students to learn about and use non-violent civil disobedience to intervene directly in all institutions that are waging this war. Now is the time for students to do this as it becomes increasingly obvious our government, our parents and our teachers will not do it for us,” MMU student Phoebe Pritchett explains.

 

“Military recruiters have had unfettered access to our schools and our personal, private information for too long. We demand an immediate end to this war based on lies and deception, and that our schools shut their doors permanently to the military. We are done doing push-ups in the hallway for a free t-shirt today, and a flag sent home to our parents tomorrow,” says Emily Coon of the MMU Peace Club.

Some of the outrage also stems from a provision in Bush's No Child Left Behind Act that requires schools to hand over student names and phone numbers to recruiters, unless the children's parents opt out.  Interestingly enough, as I was standing outside the Army/National Guard office, I had the privilege of conversing with Dottye Ricks, the woman from Military Families Speak Out who gave that powerful speech at the beginning of the controversial meeting with Peter Welch a few weeks ago. She told me how today she heard Welch on VPR and called in and asked him something to the extent of what he would do about the NCLB/recruiter problem and she told me that he got rather testy and didn't seem to know much about what she was talking about.

Anyways, I arrived about 3pm in the parking lot of that fake town/altar of excess known as Maple Tree Place, met a few other participants, ad proceeded to head down to the recruiters' office, where I was told we'd be meeting another group of marchers. I'd also heard that there was going to be a counter-demonstration led by radio blowhard Paul Beaudry and a group of Others Who Crap Their Pants On A Daily Basis Since 9-11, but that turned out to be a false one. Perhaps there  was a toilet stall somewhere that needed his attention.  Anyways, the group coalesced around the outside of the office, only to find that it was already closed and locked. Jeez. That was easy.

Soon, the other group had met up with us, there was some chanting, a general great buzz and excitement in the air. There was press, both mainstream and indy, as well as a subdued police presence. Some of the demonstrators taped various signs to the windows, as well as pictures of injured soldiers and dead Iraqis.

It didn't seem like there was going to be an opportunity  for civil disobedience, as it's rather difficult to  block entry to a closed, locked office with no one entering. I was chatting with a few people when I noticed on the other side of the green, next to the movie theater, an office that said "Army National Guard" above it. I went over to have a look, and it was open, so I reported back to some others, and off we all went.

At that point, some of us went in to the office. There was one guy sitting at a desk who pretty much ignored everybody, and the military guys were all in back behind some closed door. More chanting and happy ruckus abounds. Someone with a bullhorn began to read off the name of Iraqis killed. Eventually, more police showed up (eventually it was the Williston, South Burlington, and Essex Police, the State Troopers, and the Chittenden County Sheriff). The group was asked to leave, and many did. About 10 or 15 stayed behind and sat down. The cops then blocked the entrance, and the group inside, which consisted of students and older folks, were then  issued citations.

The chanting and revelry continued for about an hour. The mood was actually quite good. Although there was a definitive police presence,  there wasn't really much tension in the air, and there was no violence or escalated confrontation to speak of. Eventually, those inside were taken into a back room where they were put into a Sheriff's van, taken to the South Burlington police station, cited fro trespassing, and released.

All in all, a great day. But the success of the office shutting down for the day is really only a small part of the picture. The real story is the fact that a bunch of high school students coordinated this thing, put it together, and it worked. From what I gathered, they were focussed, on message, and well-organized, which is a lot more than you can say for a lot of other actions that devolve in chaos or a bunch of people sitting around holding hands and singing Imagine.  Go look at this excellent slide show of the event over at the Free Press site. You'll see what I mean. No, it's not Chicago or Paris '68. But it wasn't supposed to be. It's something to look forward to.

I've been quite jaded these last few years. The Bush years have definitely taken their toll on me, as they have on many of you, I'm sure. But I think that many of us who were there today who have our high school years well behind us left there just a little less jaded today. I know I did.

These young people aren't stupid. They've spent almost half their years under Bush in this America that I sometimes hardly recognize any more.  They're sick of being lied to, by the government, by military recruiters. Maybe they're getting as mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. Good.

As more coverage of this rolls in, I'll update this post, so if you're following it, check in every now and then.

Excellent prelim coverage by NTodd at Pax Americana here, with some fantastic photos here. I finally got to meet him today.

Full press release here.

Burlington Free Press article here. More to come.

UPDATE: Another press release, post event, says:

Jaz Whitney was one of 3 minors cited with trespassing at the office inn act of civil disobedience and explains, “Not one but two recruiting offices were shut down for the day, we gained great visibility, and our voices and messages were loud and clear. The situation inside the recruitment office was nerve-racking, but I wasn’t going to back down from something I believe in. This is a great segue into other actions, we will stop this war and get the military our of our schools.”

Those of you that are blog addicts are well aware of the issue of a blog’s liability as well as “ownership” of comments, whether it be if a blog’s owner is legally responsible for the content in the comments section, or it be Bill O’Reilly bloviating about the worst comments in a section and trying to paint the whole blog as extreme as those comments. Apparently, the concept of trying to silence a blog by going after the owners is still a fresh one, as the owners of the community blog iBrattleboro (Brattleboro, VT) are now being sued for libel, over some comments that someone posted there. Go below the jump for more.

iBrattleboro is one of those great community blogs. It’s not just politics by any stretch of the imagination. It covers many aspects of the small city in southern Vermont: town news, arts and culture, business, education – the whole gamut of that vibrant community.

Apparently the libel hubbub stems from an allegation by a former executive director of Rescue, Inc. and organization that provides rescue services to the area’s communities. As the Brattleboro Reformer is reporting:

In the suit, which was filed in Windham County Superior Court Nov. 16, Rescue volunteer Effie Mayhew alleges that David Dunn, who served as executive director until resigning earlier this month, and ibrattleboro owners Chris Grotke and Lise LePage committed libel and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

The suit pertains to a Sept. 30 comment posted to the site by Dunn, who was responding both to a previous anonymous critique of his leadership style and a column Mayhew wrote in the Reformer. In the comment, Dunn accused Mayhew of conducting an adulterous affair on Rescue premises and said that others who had signed a petition requesting his resignation had engaged in similar behavior.

Did you get that? “The suit pertains to a Sept. 30 comment posted to the site by Dunn, who was responding both to a previous anonymous critique of his leadership style and a column Mayhew wrote in the Reformer.” So based on one man’s comment on the blog, the owners, Chris Grotke and Lise LePage now have to spend their time and money fighting off this lawsuit. Perhaps Dunn’s comments could indeed make him responsible for libel. But to hold the blog’s owners responsible is absolutely ridiculous.

It’s really maddening, especially because at the bottom of the iBrattleboro site, there’s this…

Apparently, that last part wasn’t read by Mayhew. Her lawyer somehow thinks that Grotke and Page should have known better and taken the comments down on their own.

“They should have edited it out or e-mailed (Dunn) and said ‘we can’t publish it as it stands,'” Stone said. “I think their defense will be that they don’t read prior to publishing, but I’m not sure that will be enough to avoid some degree of liability.”

Smells funny to me. How about you? One thing that complicates this matter is that the legal matters regarding “new media and journalism” are still wading into uncharted territory in regards to liability, but the Communications Decency Act of 1996 seems to be pretty clear on this: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Regardless of how the suit goes against Dunn, the one against iBrattleboro is the essence of vindictive frivolity. Please stop by iBrattleboro and offer some kind words of support to Grotke and Page, should you feel so inclined.

crossposted at Daily Kos and five before chaos, because the word needs to spread about this. A rec over at Kos would be helpful and appreciated.

The first videos of last Sunday's controversial meeting with Peter Welch have been put up on YouTube.  Go below the jump for more…

The first three videos are up, they are videos of the three speakers that opened the meeting. The first is from Dottye Ricks of Military Families Speak Out. For me, her angry, moving speech was the high point of the meeting for me:

The next is from Judy Sargent of Marshfield:

Finally, Will Allen from Thetford, of Farms, Not Arms.

I am hoping that more videos will be posted shortly, in particular the confrontation with Welch. With all the various takes on what happened and who antagonized who, it is important that those who were not there will get to see and decide for themselves. Thank you to whoever posted these.

Congressman Peter Welch met today with a group of some 100-120 Vermonters to discuss the war in the Aldrich Library in Barre today. Hoo boy, where to begin… Let's just say that it was the most heated confrontation that I've ever personally witnessed between constituents and a politician. Much more below the jump, it's a long one…

Continue reading Welch meets with anti-war constituents, gets quite the earful →

Yep, there's still an election going on… some of the latest from the tubes:

TPM has the Ultimate Kerik Scandal List, because there's just so many to keep track of. Rudy's boy is in some deep water. 

And speaking of Mr. “A Noun, a Verb, and 9-11”, Rudy's come up with a surefire method of explaining the reason the military is stretched to the brink… it's Bill Clinton's fault! Can you believe they're still using that one?

Barack Obama has a soft spot in his heart for mining companies. Apparently the 4 percent royalties they currently pay to extract from our public lands is good enough, and he's opposing a recently passed House bill that reforms the Mining Act of 1872 that would raise royalties for new operations to 8 percent.

In other Dem news, Obama and Edwards have cut into Clinton's poll numbers in NH. 

The GOP wedge issue of immigration didn't treat them as well as they thought it would in VA elections last week. As the Right's Field points out, Giuliani thinks that nativism is still a winning strategy.

The man who has been and continues to be wrong about everything in the universe, chickenhawk Bill Kristol, knows who he'd like to see in the GOP VP slot. Can you guess who it is? Hint: he's already run for VP once this century…

And finally, Dave Johnson over at Smirking Chimp lays out the various scenarios that the GOP will try to lay out for the 2008 elections, and why it's important that progressives get their act together now to counter the messages.

HAve a good week, and don't forget to make it to the meeting with Peter Welch about the war, today (Sunday) at the Aldrich Public Lirary in Barre at 1:30 if you can.

Well, for better or worse, Anthony Pollina announced at the Progressive Party convention today in Royalton that he “expects and intends” to run for governor. From WCAX:

Pollina, a Progressive, made the widely anticipated announcement this afternoon at the Progressive's annual convention. He is the first candidate so far to unofficially challenge incumbent Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican. 

Pollina made the announcement before an enthusiastic gathering of over 100 supporters at the Progressive Party's annual convention in South Royalton at the Vermont Law School.

  He also said he is actively seeking the support of Democrats and would accept the nomination of the Democratic party.

  “I would accept the Democratic nomination and I would be pleased to run as a Democrat-slash-Progressive because I think that's what it's going to take to bring people together to make sure we can defeat Jim Douglas,” said Pollina, who says Douglas would undoubtedly easily win a fourth-consecutive term if Democrats and Progressives each run a challenger.

At the very least, it's good to know somebody is running against Douglas, and it's also good to finally hear an acknowledgement that a three-way race mans 2 more years of Whinin' Jim. Whether Pollina's got what it takes this time remains to be seen, but at least there's now a race to talk about. More to come… Poll below the jump.

 Loading ...

Well, then. Turning up the heat does seem to work sometimes. Peter Welch has agreed to have a meeting to discuss the war, this Sunday, November 11th at the Old Labor Hall Aldrich Public Library in Barre. The meeting is open to the public, so I'm hoping you'll attend if possible, and more importantly, spread the word to anyone you know who would be interested. As Odum pointed out earlier, the next few votes on Iraq funding will be here shortly, and Welch is definitely running out of chances to back up his words with action and refuse to sign on to anymore war funding. As you probably know, patience is starting to run rather thin lately. Hope you can make it.