A little humor to start your Thursday… According to the WaPo, Bush has finally answered his question,”Is our children learning?:

“Childrens do learn,” he said Wednesday.

  The setting was, yes, an education event where the president was taking credit for rising test scores and promoting congressional renewal of his signature education law.

Come to think of it, maybe it's not so funny after all. I should have said “pathetic”. Won't someone please think of the childrens!?!  Happy Thursday, everybody! 

Am I being harsh? Perhaps. Maybe it's just the first expression that came to mind. 

If you're a Vermonter, you probably already know about Sen. Leahy caving in to the right-wing noise machine's phony righteous indignation and voting to condemn MoveOn.org's NYT ad that (perish the thought!) General Westmoreland Petraeus might not actually be so on  the level in regards to Iraq.

Well, as you now know, the Continuing Resolution that would extend fiscal year 2007 spending at the same levels for 7 weeks into fiscal year 2008 has just passed. And yes, there is Iraq money in there. The MoveOn condemnation was an amendment to that bill. So they stuck it on a must-pass bill, and sadly, Welch and many others didn't attempt to kill the amendment as far as I know. Not good. Welch voted for the bill.

But there's something else at stake here. You might have remembered not too long ago, Mr. Welch signing on to a letter to Bush written by the Congressional Progressive Caucus that stated, among other things…

We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.

Ok, am I nitpicking because we're only talking about 7 weeks in 2008? Perhaps. But interestingly enough, as AfterDowningStreet reports, Tuesday the caucus also released a press statement similar to the letter to Bush, with this particular statement:

“We will oppose any bills or amendments brought to the House floor henceforth that pertain specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors home, but do not include in their text a clear timeline and date certain for the redeployment of U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq.”

And as ADS points out:

This new version adds contractors but deletes “all.” No longer must it be all troops, but it must include (some) contractors. No longer is the deadline January 2009; it could be any deadline as long as there is one. It still says “redeploy” although it also says “bringing…home”. But the major change is this one: the new statement SAYS NOTHING ABOUT OPPOSING BILLS TO FUND THE OCCUPATION. As long as such bills do not “pertain specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors home” (and what are the chances of that?) members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who have not signed the letter above are free, under this new policy position, to vote money for genocide.

Now, I haven't been as much of a hardass on Welch as others have been, probably because I didn't have very high expectations to begin with, coupled with a 'wait-and-see' approach. But I don't like what I'm seeing here. 

So is the caucus now blinking? And what does Congressman Welch feel about this? What about “No more blank checks. We must end this war.” (Welch Press Release, 2/13/2007). Welch has played it safe for too long, and I've told him so, at the BBQ this summer.  He knows damn well that he would not feel the repercussions in VT if he had joined his other courageous colleagues (Blumenauer, Clay, Ellison, Filner, Frank (MA), Hinchey, Kucinich, Lee, McDermott, Paul, Payne, Waters, Watson, Woolsey) in voting against this bill. What he fails to realize is that we're not looking for safety; now more than ever we need someone to, as Putney Swope once said, “Don't rock the boat, sink it!”

Now, I'm still not in the “crucify Welch” camp just yet, and I've never been a fanboy, either. But this kind of thing is not exactly going to get me looking unfavorably at the “primary challenge” if it indeed rears it's head. I don't know, maybe Welch needs just a little more prodding. Something else to remember, from the article:

Let's be clear with the 83 Congress Members who have signed the letter: a new position does not release you from existing commitments. If you have signed this letter, you cannot vote for a bill that funds the occupation without ending it, whether or not that bill pertains specifically to anything at all or doesn't. Most of the signers have already gone back on their word and need to hear from us right away.

Welch needs to hear from you right away, too. Drop him a note and tell him to step it up, and to stick with what he signed onto in that letter. Vermonters should expect more from their leaders.

You know, I couldn't have picked a worse time to cut back on the blogging (not like I have much of a choice right now). Let's see, coulda done a million posts on Larry Craig and his “wide stance”, there's the next round of capitulation from the Dems on the war  (we're watching, Mr. Welch), Grampa Fred Thompson adds “yet another Republican hack who will never be president” to his resume, Obama's “Audacity of Hype” rolls on, etc. There's so much going on, and so little time to report it.

So I thought I'd take the time and just throw this juicy little nugget from Pensito Review out there. Now, those of you reading this are, by now, not shocked by the almost daily hypocrisies that entail being a modern Republican. Were you really surprised about Larry Craig? Well, apparently four more self-proclaimed “social conservatives” are quite possibly the next to come out of the GOP's closet of hypocrisy:

In the wake of closeted Sen. Larry Craig's self-outing in an airport men's room this summer, Mike Rogers, the Washington-based publisher of blogActive who outed Craig, is threatening to reveal the secret sexual identities of two leading GOP senators, while two allegedly gay Republican congressmen are making headlines and drawing unwelcome attention to themselves, the timing of which could not be worse.

The senators are Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, from Kentucky. More about them below but first let's look at two allegedly closeted members of the House, representatives Patrick McHenry and David Drier, who have been in the news lately.

Yep. Mitch McConnell. How's that going to play in the bluegrass state? But apparently, it's not just the hypocrisy angle that could very well get Mitch in deep doo-doo. Word is out that McConnell got booted out of the Army in 1967 after only 10 days, for fondling another private's privates, according to Mike Rogers, the blogger doing the outing. 

Now, the issue isn't and shouldn't be whether or not these men are gay (and there is no way in hell McConnell or Graham could be elected in the Bible Belt if they were out). As we've discussed before, it's the hypocrisy of being leaders of the anti-gay faction in Washington. And it's a price they'll need to pay. 

As an added bonus, this could really be the undoing of the GOP, when the country club Republicans and anti-taxers that made up much of their ranks got in bed with the intellectually and reality-challenged Christian Right, back in '79. And as the Review points out, if the Christianists jump ship, there ain't “enough country clubbers and anti-taxers out there to win a national election”. And the GOPwill find itself where it was, post-Watergate. Screwed. Now if we could just do something to fix those Dems….

In my post a few days ago, one of the things that I touched upon was how people are waking up to the fact that in the conservatives' mad rush to privatize just about every aspect of our economy, that when profit is the ultimate motive, often human needs are pushed to the side with disastrous results, and that when you combine that with having people who are anti-government in power, the problem is compounded to epic proportions. Nowhere was this more apparent than the government's inept handling of the Katrina disaster. And even more infuriating is the mindset that was all too apparent by those on the right as to how to benefit from the tragedy, as Rick Perlstein's article over at TomPaine.com clearly illustrates. Jump below the fold for your morning outrage. Don't spill your coffee…

It's amazing how hypercapitalists see a silver lining in every cloud. You may remember a few years ago in Michael Moore's  “Fahrenheit 9-11” when there was a convention of sorts that was presenting all sorts of new business opportunities from the Iraq invasion, with businessmen openly declaring that the debacle was going to make a lot of people rich. In the Katrina debacle, not only were the vultures circling for economic opportunities, many saw it as a great opportunity to push through the other demented right-wing policies that had nothing to do witth the hurricane. As Perlstein points out:

Tod Linberg, editor of the right-wing flagship “intellectual” journal Policy Review rejoiced. “Bush has what Social Security and tax reform lacked: a real sense of crisis that places his political opponents in an awkward position,” he wrote on September 20, 2005 in the Washington Times. “He can make demands in the name of New Orleans, including demands for substantive policy changes that he could never obtain in the absence of a crisis.”…

Disgraced/corrupt-as-hell former Texas congressman Tom Delay could barely contain himself at the prospect:

Tom DeLay wrote that Katrina “has introduced a valuable forum to promote the triumph of our ideas and solutions for government over the crumbling and outdated policies of the Democrat-controlled Congresses of past decades.”

Yeah, the New Deal was in part responsible for the mess. Riiii-ght. And former senator Jack Kemp was practically drooling:

He called Katrina a golden opportunity on September 6—a “golden opportunity to 'green line' the Delta and Gulf Coast with government policies that facilitate and empower the private sector.”

What did he have in mind? Suspending those horrible regulations, such as the Davis-Bacon act, which requires the government to pay the prevailing local wage in construction projects. Kemp also said that “onerous regulations imposed by the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communication Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency could be suspended.” Kemp also called for the suspension of numerous taxes, becuse you just know that in the wake of a disaster of this magnitude, the best thing to do is starve the public coffers even more. To add insult to injury, Kemp, who as of late has worked hard to help asbestos companies wrangle through litigation, quotes, of all people, Bobby Kennedy, in a thoroughly inappropriate context.

Other conservatives saw equally as ridiculous and unrelated opportunities here, such as reintroducing the effort to privatize Social Security and to cut the funding for public broadcasting even more than it already has been.

This is living proof of the fact that there is no tragedy too horrible for the right-wing in power to exploit for personal or political gain. They did it with 9-11, the Iraq War, and Katrina, and you can be damn sure should another tragic opportunity present itself, they'll be lining up at the trough to benefit their business buddies in any way possible. 

(crossposted on five before chaos)

It's not easy being a right-winger in Vermont. They're a real minority,  especially the far right-wing variety, such as WDEV's blowhard crybaby  hatemonger Paul Beaudry, or corporate apologist “anything for the almighty  dollar” John McLaughry, both great cases of “reality-challenged” people if I've  ever seen any.

And that's not likely to change anytime soon. The neo-con agenda is about as  popular as spring-thaw dogshit, as is its President, the healthcare crisis is  getting out-of-hand, there's that disastrous war of choice, and many people are  slowly waking up to the fact that the private sector doesn't always do certain  things better than the public sector (yeah, I know, there's a million other  things, but if youre' reading a political blog you know about them already). And  it's becoming very apparent that when you have people in charge who feel that  the government should be doing as little as possible, well, that's what  happens. They do as little as possible, not a good thing when  you have disasters such as Katrina or ever-increasing numbers of children who  don't have access to quality healthcare. You can only sing the praises of “the  market” so much before people start figuring out that “the market' could really  care less about them in any way except as a dollar sign, and the hell with their  well-being if it doesn't make someone some money somewhere.

But that's not stopping the downtrodden few in Vermont who like to think of  themselves as the “right-wing intellectuals” of the state. C'mon, don't laugh,  that's mean. There's a new Vermont right-wing think tank out there, the Lyceum Society of  Vermont. What's this all about? Jump below the fold for more.

From the front page of the Lyceum Society:

The Lyceum Society of Vermont is an intellectual forum founded in  2007 which  is dedicated to providing an exchange of ideas among  traditionalists,  paleoconservatives, classical liberals, libertarians,  neoconservatives, the New  Right, and others devoted to a philosophy of ordered  liberty…

The mission of the Lyceum Society is to promote the intellectual  discussion  of principles and ideas essential to the preservation of traditional  culture and  human liberty, the creation of abundance, and achieving a good and  just society. 

So it seems like it's trying to unite conservatives of all stripes together.  This is even more clear in their links page, where you can see a rogues' gallery  of the various stripes of what is known as conservatism, in all its shades of  turd-brown. There's everything from the well-known libertarian Cato  Institute, chickenhawk and perpetual liar Bill Kristol's The Weekly  Standard, and a host of other known and not-so well known organizations.  I'm having a really hard time seeing how the society's aim of a “good  and just society” fits in with groups like The Christian  Coalition and hate groups such as  Tony Perkins' American Family  Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition, which boasts  such headlines as Pro-Homosexual/Drag  Queen Bills Coming Back In  September! and Planned Parenthood’s Child Molester Cover Up  EXPOSED!  What? No link to Worldnut Daily? There's even VT  Commons on there, those people who didn't know about the racists in the  secession movement, and quite frankly, didn't care, according to VTC's Rob  Williams.

It's a really big tent, I guess. Even though the various factions are really  diametrically opposed to each other in many ways (like how the corporatist wing  exploits of the oft-poorer and less educated theocratic wing) you gotta give 'em  props for trying. 

Now, I'm not judging it soley on the content of its links page. Its intention  is to bring together cons of all stripes, and it shows in the links page, so I  can't fault them for that. But who's behind all this, you ask? Again, from the  Lyceum site:

In 2007 John McClaughry of the Ethan Allen Institute and former congressional  campaign staffer N. P. West envisioned the creation of a forum for the  intellectual Right in Vermont and the Lyceum Society of Vermont was  born.

Ah, shoulda known. We all know John McLaughry, from his curmudgeonly op-eds  praising the virtues of the mythical “free-market” in local newspapers and VPR,  where he rails against anything that might keep someone, somewhere,  from making a buck. In the last year or so, he's been on this big global warming  denial kick (because, you know, certain people might make less money if  we had to do something about it), where he often quotes  questionable and/or thoroughly discredited scientific reports to make his  case. 

Having one think tank that nobody listens to or takes seriously wasn't enough  for John, so one night, after his eighth snifter of Hennessy, instead of  rambling for the umpteenth time to the portrait of Ethan Allen hanging over the  fireplace in his den about how wealthy businessmen just can't ever seem to get a  fair shake, he got a brilliant idea: form another think tank that  nobody cares about or takes seriously.

And who's the new sidekick, this N.P. West?

He was a volunteer for the gubernatorial campaigns of former State Rep. Ruth  Dwyer (Ret.) (1998, 2000) and has served on the congressional campaigns of  attorney Bill Meub (2002), Lt. Col. Greg Parke, USAF (Ret.) (2004), and former  State Sen. Mark Shepard (Ret.) (2006).  His writings have appeared on  TrueNorthRadio.com and he maintains a web log, the Vermont  Traditionalist.  

Whoa, that's quite the resume, eh? Ruthless Ruth Dwyer? The gay-obsessed Mark  Shepard? Bill Meub? I'd completely forgotten about that guy. It's like a who's  who of Vermont political losers. He's quite the poli-sci wonk too, not a bad  thing by any means, but it might be a problem when reaching out to some of those  on the right who speak in monosyllabic words or consider the writings of Ann  Coulter as an example of literary genius. Or the majority of people on all sides  who could care less about the nuances of agrarian distributism and just want you  to tell them what you're going to do and what you stand for in less than a  book-length diatribe.

So we now have another right-wing think tank, heavily involved with the guy  who has the other right-wing think tank. And if you sign up and pay  your dues to the Lyceum Society, you get a complimentary membership to  that other think tank, the Ethan Allen Institute. McLaughry's so desperate, he's  giving them away! Like the EAI, its real effects will be hardly noticed in the  political landscape, but now when VPR or the Times Argus needs a token  conservative to write an op-ed, at least they have another choice.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the cast of the remake of “Outland”

In the latest shift in developments regarding Iran, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced today that he is commencing filming on a remake of the classic 1981 science-fiction film “Outland”, starring Sean Connery. In the original film, often dubbed “High Noon in space”, Connery plays a law enforcement guy trying to get to the bottom of who's passing out some psychosis-inducing drug to the space workers. Ahmadinejad himself, realizing the increasing public scrutiny he is under in recent days, has opted to play the role of Sheppard, the drug dealer played by Peter Boyle in the original:

At the press conference announcing the film, Ahmadinejad stated, “I don't want the recent negative publicity about me in the U.S. to affect the success of this film, so I've given the lead role of O'Neil (originally portrayed by Connery) to my Assistant Deputy Minister of Culture, Razbek Uzmikistani (pictured right, in top picture). He has quite a background in Iranian dinner theater, and has seen Connery's “From Russia With Love” eighteen times, so he is undoubtedly one of Iran's master thespians.”  He then continued, “I have always been a fan of the original, I'm quite the sci-fi nut, actually. Filmaking has always been my first love, I just happened upon this oppressive leader thing on a lark, to be quite honest. Film is my true calling, and remaking Outland is a fulfilment of a lifelong dream for me.” 

Not one to miss a moment to beat the drums of war, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney commented on the news: “This so-called “Outland remake” is just the latest in the long line of deceptions from Mr. Ahmadinejad, as he continues to fund our enemies in the War on Terror and flaunt world opinion by developing nuclear arms. Independent of the fact that only a Westerner should consider remaking a classic such as “Outland”,  our intelligence is also reporting that the futuristic movie sets could quite possibly be concealing a complex network of nuclear missile silos. We need to bomb the shit out of them as soon as possible.” 

Ahmadinejad is hoping to release the movie for the upcoming Ramadan movie season, so look for it then. I hope it's at least as good as the original.

Homespun's diary from a few days ago, called “Terri Hallenbeck must go” brought to our attention, among other things, Peter Welch talking of a particular “earmark” (federal money allocated for a specific homestate project). Now, earmarks, also commonly derided as “pork”, generate a lot of controversy, such as AK Senator Ted Stevens infamous “bridge to nowhere”. Without a doubt there is much waste and abuse, but can one honestly find a problem when federal dollars go to expand a rural health center or another beneficial thing? And can you guess where Vermont stands in all of this? Go below the jump to find out… 

Regardless, my point is not to decry or defend earmarks at this particular juncture, more to point your attention to the fact that Vermont is one of the top receivers of earmark money, as illustrated in this picture, courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation, by way of Talking Points Memo. The size of the circles indicates earmarked federal dollars on a per capita basis by state (the green circle is Vermont, at $215.7:

Not too shabby, eh? As TPM points out, the smaller states tend to do really well, due to the influence in the Senate. And it doesn't hurt that most of the Senators from those states have some serious longevity:

Another interesting way to look at this is, look at the top three states: Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia. All smallish states but each also have senators that have been in office, respectively from 1968 (Stevens), 1963 (Inouye) and 1959 (Byrd).

And don't forget, Pat Leahy has been in there since 1974, as he rode the Dem wave in the wake of Watergate.

All in all, earmarks will remain a controversial topic for the time being, as talk of reform gathers some steam. They tend to be more controversial when other states get them. For the time being, Vermont is doing pretty good with them, and it's better to see the money coming here than going to, let's say, West Virginia, isn't it?

This one seems to have come in under the radar, but apparently the Oscar-winning actor Christopher Walken (The Deer Hunter, Pulp Fiction, True Romance) is going to run for president in '08, as an independent. From the Walken 2008 website:

“Our great country is in a terrible downward spiral. We're outsourcing jobs, bankrupting social security, and losing lives at war. We need to focus on what's important– paying attention to our children, our citizens, our future. We need to think about improving our failing educational system, making better use of our resources, and helping to promote a stable, safe, and tolerant global society. It's time to be smart about our politics. It's time to get America back on track.”

It's not a joke, but it seems that he should have gotten the ball rolling a bit earler if he hopes to get any sort of visibility at all, if for no other reason than to press the issues. It'll be interesting to see if this is able to make a ripple at all in the campaign. At the very least, it might make it a bit more interesting. And he's a hell of a lot better actor than Reagan was.

As an interesting side note, his parents had  a summer home next door to my grandmother's house in Florida. I used to stay  there every now and then and used to party my teen years away with his nephew,  Jesse, too.

UPDATED: Well, shame on me. Hat tip to kestrel… it IS a joke, easily debunked on Snopes.com. Perhaps there is a future for me at the op-ed pages of the Caledonian Record. 

Over at the Rude Pundit, he has guest bloggers filling in for him this week, while he's on vacation. Have a look at guest blogger African American Political Pundit's latest rumination on Hillary, white bloggers at YKos, and Obama's Pakistan blunder.  Happy Saturday, everyone.

Things aren't looking so hot for Bush consigliere and attorney general Alberto Gonzales lately, even worse after last week's perjury and evasion testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even many Republicans can't seem to ignore the stench of Gonzales, and aren't jumping in to support him.

The good news is that there was a resolution sumitted today by Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington's 1st congressional district, that is calling for an investigation into the possibility of impeaching the Attorney General:

Specifically, the resolution would require the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The resolution would need to win approval by a majority of the House for the panel to start investigating. If after an investigation the Judiciary Committee, by majority vote, determines that grounds for impeachment exist, a resolution impeaching the attorney general and setting forth specific allegations of misconduct, in one or more articles of impeachment, would be reported to the full House.

I couldn't find the number of the resolution, but you can read its full text here. More below the jump.

Now, as you all well know, many of us are frustrated with the lack of action on impeaching Bush and Cheney. However, as high-profile as it has been lately, and with Gonzales stepping further and further in the poop everytime he opens his mouth, I think this one, should it come to fruition, won't be as much of an uphill climb as getting the guys at the top. Of courese, some will make a stink about it, as the Seattle Times reports:

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, denounced the resolution Monday night.

“The call by Democrats to impeach Attorney General Gonzales is a misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American public's money and time,” Smith said in a statement.

He said Democrats have chosen “to engage in a politically motivated campaign to slander the Justice Department and undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement.”

 J'ever notice how, even still, after all of these years. the typical GOP repsonse to criticism is “the Democrats are just playing politics“? How original. What the hell is that supposed to mean? They're politicians fer Crissake, playing politics is part of their job, isn't it? Inlsee, interestingly enough, took some criticism earlier in the year, when he asked state senators in Olympia to drop a resolution asking Congress to impeach President Bush, saying at the time that promoting impeachment was “grandstanding.” Maybe this is different to him somehow, it doesn't really matter, it's a step in the right direction.

Now,  Texan GOP Blowhard notwithstanding, this is something that, with a groundswell of support, is within reach. It's time to call Peter Welch, and ask him to sign on as a co-sponsor to Inslee's resolution calling for an impeachment investigation into Alberto Gonzales.  You can reach his VT office at (888) 605-7270 (toll free in Vermont), or the DC office at (202) 225-4115. The “I” word elicits some pretty strong emotional responses in some people; it's important to keep it focused on this impeachment, as to not mix the two issues up. I'll have more on this when I get some more information. Please feel free to share some of your responses from Welch's office in the comments section.