Good news from Oregon. The new Democratic Legislature (recently GOP-run) has passed a Domestic Partnerships bill. The governor signed the bill this morning.

This morning, in a public ceremony attended by well over 100 citizens and legislators, Governor Ted Kulongoski signed two bills into law ensuring that all Oregon families are treated with basic fairness and that all Oregonians can live and work free from the sting of discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender.

In a passionate speech at the signing ceremony, Basic Rights Oregon’s Executive Director John Hummel told the crowd, “Our hope is simple. It is for the day when Oregon families will no longer be forced into uncertainty in times of crisis, and when no Oregonian will be fired from their job, denied housing or denied an education–simply because of who they are or who they love. Today marks a moment in time when Oregonians proudly made hope a reality, and created a fairer, more equal Oregon.”

Like VT’s own civil unions bill, it’s not on equal footing with marriage, but undoubtedly it’s a step in the right direction. More on this here.

You know it’s a sign of progress when these things are passing without a court order(New Hampshire’s passed without a court order as well).

crossposted at the brand-spankin’-new five before chaos

I have to say, even though I still think it’s way too early to be focusing on the ’08 elections, and my biggest fear is probably a Hillary presidency, I am enjoying the hell out of watching the GOP continue to self-destruct at so many levels.

First, there’s the Congress and Senate. So many of them are digging in their heels on supporting Bush and the war, it’s making me seriously think that the conventional wisdom that politicians are only concerned about being reelected is very wrong. They’re setting themselves up for an electoral bloodbath in ’08. It really seems that the goal here, as some have already stated, is to keep the war going until Bush is out of office and let the next president clean up the mess. But you can tell they’re getting nervous when Foghorn Leghorn himself is starting to talk about timetables. But what makes it funny is they still have the wingnuts like this one leading them around like a bull with a nose ring.

But where the real humor is to be found is in the presidential race, as the top-tier candidates are finding how hard it is to try to appeal to mainstream voters yet not lose the batshit insane christofascists and warmongerers that make up the GOP base. That leads to things like Rudy Giuliani saying that it would be “okay” if Roe v Wade were repealed but it would be “okay” if it were upheld. Talk about noncommittal. And then the fun begins.  The Politico is reporting that it was just leaked from a rival GOP campaign that Giuliani gave money to Planned Parenthood at least six times in the ’90’s. Gotta laugh as they try to do each other in. It’s all the more satisfying when you consider how poor the ‘top-tier’ even is. It’s like the GOP is finally having their Dukkakis/Kerry moment.

Under every rock is mediocrity and a pander. Consider the sheer irony in Mitt Romney’s situation. The fundies have a real problem with his Mormonism, as though the crazy stuff that they believe, like this and this is any less ridiculous than what he does. And once again, he’s not free to even show any sort of independent thinking (authoritarian types which comprise the bulk of the base have a real problem with that). They’re already on his ass for not being one of the few people at the debate shameless enough to show how nutty they really are when he didn’t raise his hand when asked who didn’t believe in evolution.

So it’s time to sit back and watch the monkey show, as they slowly devour each other and any shred of credibility  as they pander to the worst elements in our nation, all so they can lose big in ’08. Go ahead and gloat. It’s been a long time coming and it’s only gonna get better. Mr. 28% is solidly wrapped around the neck of each and every one of these guys, and he’s not letting go. It’s hard work, right?

The L.A. Times is reporting that Senator Leahy, in anticipation of a possible Gonzales resignation and continued stonewalling in regards to the testimony of White House officials, is saying that his committee (judiciary) will not hold confirmation hearings for any potential future nominees unless Karl Rove and other White House aides testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys to clarify whether “the White House has interfered with prosecution.”

Of course, whether it be because of that special channel of communication he has with the Almighty, the years of coke and alcohol abuse, or just sheer stupidity/brain damage, Bush more than likely will dig in and keep Gonzales on. But as Elizabeth Holzmann reports, it very might well be in Bush’s own personal interest to not let Speedy Gonzales go:

All this is reminiscent of the Watergate scandal. In 1973, as the coverup was unraveling, the Senate imposed a condition on the confirmation of President Nixon’s nominee for attorney general, Elliot Richardson. Richardson’s predecessor had resigned because of Watergate troubles. Concerned that the Justice Department would not get at the truth, the Senate insisted that Richardson would name a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Richardson duly appointed Archibald Cox.

The rest is history. Cox’s aggressive investigations led to the prosecution of top administration officials and the naming of Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator in the coverup. When Cox sought White House tapes of Nixon’s conversations with his staff, the president had him fired, unleashing a firestorm of protests. Americans demanded that a previously reluctant Congress start impeachment proceedings against Nixon. Congress complied; the House Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member, voted for impeachment, and Nixon resigned.

Aspects of this history could easily repeat themselves. The Senate could demand, as it did in 1973, that a new attorney general appoint a special prosecutor, and this could again have dire consequences for the White House.

A new special prosecutor would have many questions to investigate.

With a new Bush/GOP related atrocity coming to light nearly every day, who knows where this one may go? Regardless, its reassuring to know that Bush isn’t going to have it easy either way on this particular matter.

crossposted at five before chaos.

By now, in our fifth year of Iraq war fatigue, no single term has been bandied about and abused as “Support the Troops”. Part of it has its origins in guilt about the way returning Vietnam Vets were treated by certain people. And naturally, no matter how much one may or may not support what the troops are actually doing, I hope it’s still safe to say that we support them as human beings in a difficult situation. And many of us reading this blog know that the best way to ‘support the troops’ is to remove them from harm’s way and bring them home as soon as humanly possible.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, as you all know, often views the troops as nothing more than props and political pawns. They talk about ‘supporting the troops’ every chance they get, yet their policies do anything but, whether it be the  Bush-McCain-Lieberman escalation, the atrocities at Walter Reed Hospital, cuts in Veteran’s services, insufficient body armor, you name it. I’m sure you’re well aware of them. Yes, it’s criminal.

So, today I was a bit stunned (but not surprised) to read in the Times Argus that the VT GOP is proposing a resolution that will declare “full support to our troops and their mission in conducting the War on Terror.” The TA reports that “The bill seeks to designate May 6 as “Vermont Vets for Victory Day” and coincides with a six-day support-the-troops rally beginning on May 1 through several communities, including Rutland, Chester and Bennington.” It’s not as simple as it sounds…

As it stands, this resolution is not a good one. First, there is the ever-so-subtle insinuation that only good Republicans “support the troops”. But the larger problem is it’s basically putting one of the biggest lies about the war into a public legislative record : that the Iraq War is part of the “War on Terror” (or more appropriately as Borat would have called it, the “War of Terror”), and it’s trying to get the Dems to sign off on that. Gotcha!

Many in the GOP are still obviously drinking the Bush Krazy Kool Aid:

David Ayer, a Republican activist from Barre who helped organize the upcoming support-the-troops tour, said Republicans may be open to some language changes, but insisted that the resolution is nonpolitical and has nothing to do with the Iraq War.

“I defer to the experienced veterans who have been on the ground and have been fighting the war,” he said. “They tell me that the war in Iraq is the war on terror. We are fighting terrorists there.”

He added that it is important for the troops to know that Vermonters support them.

“It’s demoralizing for them to hear some of the comments made concerning the war,” he said.

Yes, those comments demanding they be taken out of harm’s way are just so ‘demoralizing’, aren’t they? Maybe to those few who still love this war.  Only thing missing was the ‘so we don’t have to fight them here’ line.

But the absurdity doesn’t stop there.One of the propagandists leading the complementary ‘Vets for  Victory’ tour is none other than retired Lt. Col. Steve Russell…

an Oklahoma man who founded a pro-war organization of the same name. He travels the country now urging people to continue supporting the four-year-old conflict.

Russell, who traveled to Vermont earlier this year to speak opposite of peace mom Cindy Sheehan during the Senate Iraq War debate, was one of troop leaders who helped capture Saddam Hussein in December 2003.

In his speeches, Russell justifies the invasion of Iraq because he believes that Hussein was actively trying to make a nuclear bomb and ordered his military to smuggle other weapons into nearby Syria. (emphasis mine – JD)

That assessment puts Russell at odds with the Iraq Survey Group, the multinational fact-finding group that searched the country for weapons of mass destruction. The group’s 2004 report stated that Hussein had abandoned his nuclear program in the early 1990s and a 2005 revision declared it unlikely that officials moved weapons into Syria.

Yet another war hawk completely unhinged from reality. VT Democrats have already raised concerns about some of the language in the bill, and I’m sure some of them also smell the ‘gotcha!’ in this resolution. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with passing a resolution simply thanking the troops for their service and sacrifice. It is just imperative that it’s wording doesn’t include something proliferating well-discredited ideas, something the GOP has mastered until recently.

Some good news… the Times-Argus is reporting that the Instant Runoff Voting bill has passed the Vermont Senate, 16-12. It is uncertain whether it will make it to the House this session.

Welch and Sanders both support IRV, and Burlington used it for its most recent mayoral race. Gov. Douglas is opposed, not surprising because if IRV were in place earlier, Brian Dubie most certainly would not be in the LT. Governor’s office.

I’ll be following this, and will post more information as it becomes available. Thank you to all who contacted your Senators about this important issue.

I had to meet a friend for lunch to day in Montpelier, and then sauntered over to the Statehouse to catch the impeachment proceedings in the House. It was defeated, 87-60. I’d like to offer a big thanks to those who stood up for accountability and voted for the resolution. Odum has the roll call here.

Yes, as others have noted, it was inspiring, and it truly was a case of democracy in action. But I left rather angry. And disappointed.

The VT blogosphere was on hand… from who I could see, Norsehorse, Snarky Boy, GMD, Carpetbagger Report and yours truly were all there to report on the carnival. The house was packed, as you can see from the photo I took.

There were people of all kinds in the crowd on hand (over 300) to do that ‘democracy’ thing that seems to be in short supply lately.  The Republican speeches were pretty pathetic, ranging from Tom Koch (Barre Town) keeping consistent and speaking out against it on procedural grounds, partisanship and everything but the kitchen sink. Not surprising, because that guy, when not trying to pass laws forbidding driving-while-flute-playing pretty much opposes anything good that ever gets presented, regardless of the issue. Another Repub whose name I didn’t catch acted as though the various misdeeds of Bushco were somehow still in doubt, then rehashed a bunch of statements from prominent Dems from almost ten years ago. Others just looked annoyed.

But the one that got me pissed more than anything was from a Democrat (once again, I didn’t get a name-if someone has these names please put something in the comments and I’ll revise) who gave the tired excuse of how the legislature had many other areas of important business to address, and didn’t have time for this. Wrong on two accounts…first off, the only ‘time’ taken was already in progress. Second, this has been one of the least productive legislatures that I can remember in recent memory. Other than avoiding confrontation with Douglas on issue after issue, I’m hard pressed to think of anything substantial to come out of the Statehouse this year, short of the resolution to end the war. Nothing substantial involving healthcare that I’m aware of. A meager proposal on property taxes. What are they spending so much time on? The bill to help small farmers process meat on site so they can sell at markets and restaurants is a great bill, but is it a real time-stealer?

Although I was a bit disappointed, I didn’t think this was going to pass. House Speaker Gaye Symington, one of the more spineless speakers in recent memory (someone quipped ‘bad as he was, at least Walter Freed (R) got some things passed, fer Crissake’) has shown an astounding lack of leadership on the issue, as with most issues. She finally caved on this one, and some of you find that commendable. This is the only explanation that makes sense, because it’s not like these people were going to face some harsh electoral consequences back home for supporting it. It’s not an election-buster like civil unions were. And I suspect they’re not going to face anything harsh for not supporting it either.  Real leadership would have enabled it to happen beyond just the traditional lefty Dems, same with the “Death With Dignity” bill.

Admittedly, although I support it wholeheartedly, I’m not as impassioned as some are in regards to the impeachment thing, probably because I know better than to hope that Congressman Welch is going to ride in on his white horse and actually do something about it. Perhaps he’s too preoccupied with making friends in Washington and not making waves with Pelosi.

The larger issue here for me is the astounding lack of leadership from the Democrats in the Statehouse. They have the numbers to go on the offensive against Douglas, and don’t. Instead, we hear Ann Cummings talk about “sending the governor something he can sign.” Perhaps I wouldn’t be so astounded if they had a supermajority for 20 years and were just getting complacent and lazy. But that’s not the case. There is a serious leadership vaccuum in the  Statehouse right now. it’s my humble opinion that Symington needs to go. The question is, who in the Dem party machine is going to be courageous enough to take that step and point it out?

 Loading ...

You might remember a while ago that the VT delegation had a hearing on the new Federal Farm Bill that is currently up for reauthorization. I’d like to point you now to this piece in the NYT by Michael Pollan, author of the bestselling ‘The Omnivore’s Dilemma’, that lays out in no uncertain terms how important the farm bill really is. It affects many levels: public health, nutrition programs, many aspects of the farming industry, and the environment.

Some of you might remember back during the so-called ‘Republican Revolution’, as they began to wage their war on the poor, then Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX and T&A movies) made a comment along the lines that ‘America is the only country where our poor people are fat’. Now, insensitive as it was for Gramm to say so, in a sense he did have a point. As you’ve heard me lament before, there’s something really wrong with the system where only the rich can afford to eat healthy. As Pollan writes:

  A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person’s wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

  Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. … he found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice…he concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly – and get fat.

So how does this tie into the farm bill? Subsidies, baby. Subsidies, proving once again the idea of a ‘free’ market is nothing but a myth:

  [The farm bill] which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system – indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat – three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades … U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy…The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

Pollan then goes on to show how the needs of big agribusiness are often contradictory to the needs of public health. It even determines what foods your kids will eat for lunch at school (ever wonder why there’s always Tater Tots? – certainly not because of all the nutrition they don’t have). It also affects world poverty, as well, for when we are able to sell crops for less than it costs to grow them, that often can determine the fate of Mexican corn farmers and Nigerian cotton growers, and whether they lose their farms and move to the city, exacerbating the poverty already rampant there.

You’d think something this important would be something to rally around, but due to the technical jargon and back room deals, it usually passes, unnoticed except by the few that stand to benefit the most from it (certainly not you or I).

Pollan is optimistic, however, that change may finally be around the corner, due to the increasing awareness of the environmental community, the development community, and the public health community. But most importantly, he insists that real change is not just going to come from changing our eating habits; we need to get our hands dirty and start taking notice of agricultural policies, and concentrate our activism there:

  A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is – it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer’s markets in the last few years – voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well – which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.

I’ve mentioned it before.. for truly radical change to happen, we need to not just ‘practice’ democracy, we need to start living it.

My apologies for getting this to you last minute, but those of you who are in support of Instant Runoff Voting (the voting system in which you mark off your candidates in order of preference instead of just one) are probably well aware of it never seeming to get out of committee in the VT legislature. Well, tomorrow (4/20) it is getting a vote in the full Senate.

If you are indeed in support if this bill, it is important for you to get in touch with your Senators tonight and tomorrow morning and ask them to support this bill.

The full text of the bill can be found here. It’s S.0108. You can find the contact information for your Senators here.

From a different perspective than Brattlerouser’s excellent commentary on the broad gender perspective of this tragedy, I’d like to offer my take on this, as well.

Now, not trying to diminish this tragedy of immense proportions because of the loss of so many innocent human lives, but as this tragedy unfolds, I wanna ask our readers to witness the other tragedy here – exploitation from all sides of the political spectrum.

First, there’s the obvious – the news networks running this 24-7 for the next few weeks, as they put all sorts of sensationalist spin on it and rake in the bucks, while failing to ask even one important question. Bush will use this one to try to curry favor for him and his sinking ship, and quite possibly use it as an excuse for more infringements on civil liberties. And of course, the media will not even question how a few contrived words from a president who is knee-deep in the blood of innocents in violence and is less popular than dogshit will somehow make anything better.  The gun-control crowd will once again use it to advance their agenda (which IMO, the problem lies with our fetish-like obsession with guns and violence more than the guns themselves) and some jerk in the NRA will talk about how this might have been prevented if some of the students were packing heat (they can’t use the ‘stop illegal gun sales’ angle because it seems at this point they were obtained legally). The racists will obsess over the fact that the shooter was an Asian (while conveniently overlooking the fact that he was a legal immigrant). We’ll hear tons of talk about ‘prayer’ in the media, yet not one person will question either if perhaps this was ‘God’s will’ or the wisdom in praying to a God who enabled it to happen in the first place (kind of like asking your dad to forgive you after he beat the living hell out of you for no reason). And of course, the Religious Right will once again blame this on our increasingly secular culture, perhaps throwing another dig at the gay community, like they did on 9-11.

And very few  Americans will even bother to ask why this kind of thing seems to happen so much here. Our culture is sick, and there doesn’t seem to be a doctor who wants to look at  the illness itself… they can’t seem to see past the symptoms.

crossposted at five before chaos.

There was another great article today by the NYT’s voice of reason, Paul Krugman, called ‘Way Off Base’. It’s basically addressing something that’s been on our minds for quite a while, the notion that the public is way ahead of the curve on the issues that Dems are cautiously supporting, yet the Dems still fail to get that, as if they’re really afraid of some political liability in challenging a president less popular than recently thawed dog-poop in the snowmelt on a Hubbard Park trail.

Democrats don’t have the same problem. There’s no conflict between catering to the Democratic base and staking out positions that can win in the 2008 election, because the things the base wants – an end to the Iraq war, a guarantee of health insurance for all – are also things that the country as a whole supports. The only risk the party now faces is excessive caution on the part of its politicians. Or, to coin a phrase, the only thing Democrats have to fear is fear itself.

Exactly. I’ve said this before, especially when dealing with DLC types who preach moderation and accomplish nothing but enabling the president and his allies. They need to stop behaving like it’s October of 2001. The GOP has nowhere to go but backwards:

Normally, politicians face a difficult tradeoff between taking positions that satisfy their party’s base and appealing to the broader public. You can see that happening right now to the Republicans: to have a chance of winning the party’s nomination, Republican presidential hopefuls have to take far-right positions on Iraq and social issues that will cost them a lot of votes in the general election…

Republicans will, for a while at least, be trapped in unpopular positions by a base that’s living in the past. Rudy Giuliani’s surge into front-runner status for the Republican nomination says more about the party than about the candidate. As The Onion put it with deadly accuracy, Mr. Giuliani is running for “President of 9/11.”

And that brings me to my second part. The stunning lack of any accomplishment from this veto-proof Democratic VT legislature. Impeachment gets scuttled. Nothing but a meager proposal for property tax reform. We were lucky to get the anti-war resolution. Last session’s Catamount healthcare was like a band-aid that still fails to address the larger problem. What the hell are they doing up there?

Is it laziness? Timidity? Do some Democrats apparently not realize what having a large majority means? Apparently Washington County Senator Anne Cummings doesn’t have a clue. When not busy knitting in committee meetings, she shared this nugget (on VPR) in regards to the greenhouse gas tax bill that would put a surcharge on fuel oil:

(Dillon) Cummings says the goal is two-fold: First get something the governor can sign.

(Cummings) “There’s a great deal of concern that a tax of that kind would be vetoed, and we would then end up with nothing.”

First, get something the governor can sign. Great place to start the negotiation, huh? What exactly does Douglas have to concede when presented with that sort of position?

Now, personally I think this particular bill, although well-intentioned, was a bad idea and should not have been introduced in the first place, considering how many Vermonters are already struggling to pay their fuel bill. But I use it because Cummings’ response is really emblematic of the problem, most notably in regards to some of the other matters in the legislature.

Considering the current makeup of the legislature, it’s Governor Douglas who is the one that should be asking for concessions here, not the other way around. Regardless of the issue, the Dems should be forceful and put forth the best possible legislation, and then have the Governor do the negotiating so he won’t have his veto overridden. Not the other way around. It’s all about the positioning, and to get back to Krugman’s point, if the Dems decided to push through a BOLD proposal for universal healthcare, for example, and they just might find that they’re not really being extreme at all. Sure, they’re going to piss off corporate apologists like John McLaughry, Big Insurance/Pharma and a few conservatives, but by and large they’d be lauded for the courage and as an added  bonus, if they frame it correctly, could paint the gov as a tool for corporate interests, which he most certainly is. Most importantly, they’ll have taken action on an important issue and worked towards a solution instead of just perpetual hand-wringing.

And the Dems’ inaction does not let you or I off of the hook, either. So many of us talk a good game when it comes to democracy, but we need to not just ‘practice’ it, we need to get good at it. Go to these committee meetings. Talk to your legislator and look him/her in the eye and tell them to show some courage and that you will support them strongly when they do. And that you will make a stink when they don’t.

Having a supermajority shouldn’t mean sitting on one’s ass and not doing anything. It doesn’t mean being drunk with power either, as the national nightmare of Republican rule exemplified. It means taking action. It’s time to start putting Douglas on the ropes. Now.