The Times Argus has a story on how the Hartford police are trying to stonewall an investigation into a recent racial profiling incident there.

According to today’s paper:

MONTPELIER – The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont filed a lawsuit against the Hartford Police Department Friday seeking the release of records pertaining to what appears to be the wrongful arrest of a man in his own home in late May.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

The story is that a local man was pepper-sprayed, handcuffed, and dragged out of his house naked (what, was their Taser broken?) while apparently suffering from a medical emergency. The news sounded a lot like the Henry Louis Gates “being in a house while black” incident last summer, but when local news sources tried to investigate they were stonewalled by police.

The Valley News has been unable to get the official reports, and now the Vermont ACLU is representing Anne Galloway over at www.Vtdigger.org in an effort to get to the bottom of what happened.

In a related story, the Department of Education is stonewalling the Times Argus in its efforts to get some important budget documents released.

MONTPELIER – In an apparent violation of the state’s open-records law, the Department of Education Monday denied public access to a document that may heavily influence the budgeting process at school districts around the state.

Legislative efforts to curb education spending culminated earlier this year in a bill that seeks voluntary budget reductions from every school district in Vermont. The legislation, which aims to achieve more than $23 million in cuts in fiscal year 2012, directs the commissioner of education to craft district-specific reduction targets.

http://www.timesargus.com/arti…

That story seems to be particularly egregious, as the Department apparently admits that the document, setting forth district-by-district budget cut targets, is a public document, but they just want to take their time in letting it out. They are promising to get the information out within 48 hours, which has led the Times Argus/Rutland Herald to decide not to sue for the information.

Deb Markowitz has made it clear that the decision by Vilaseca has no legal justification.

As part of the new media, we think it is vital to get at important stories that the government wants to cover up. I hope the ACLU and Vtdigger can get the racial profiling story out. I would also like to see some legal action taken against the Education Department. I can understand the fact that a civil action might not be any faster than just waiting for the Ed Department to decide to let the information out, but where is the sanction for such clearly illegal activity?

Political observers the last few days have been asking how a Democratic candidate for state Senate can justify supporting the candidacy of Brian Dubie for governor.

Our view is that you can't defend the indefensible.

Laura Day Moore, who was one of three Democratic candidates for Senate from Washington County in 2008, and is one of five candidates running for the nomination this year, has been the subject of questions and criticism ever since the latest campaign finance reports came out, showing that she has contributed $450.00 to Brian Dubie's campaign. (scroll down to page 40 of the report to see her listing.)

http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/71510dubieb.pdf

Moore is an articulate, energetic candidate with experience as a local school board member who has been active in the Washington County Democratic Committee. She also had a key role in organizing the gubernatorial candidates' forum at Barre Town Elementary School this spring. You know, the one that Dubie chickened out of attending at the last minute.

At GMD we don't generally endorse candidates in the primary. We do, though, seriously question how a Democratic candidate, running in a Democratic primary, can put money in the pocket of the Republican candidate for governor. What we know about Dubie indicates that he is, if anything, even more conservative than Douglas, even more beholden to the big-money interests who run the Republican Party, and way too conservative on social issues, like choice, even for many Republicans. 

In short, Dubie stands for everything that Democrats oppose, and opposes everything that Democrats stand for. In our view, and the view of most Democrats, a vote for Dubie would be a vote to extend the Douglas-Dubie policies of attacking social services, attacking and weakening our education system, attacking Vermont's workers, balancing the budget on the backs of the neediest Vermonters, neglecting the environment, and continuing the failed policy of economic growth by badmouthing Vermont and shoveling tax breaks to employers to create jobs they probably would have created anyway.  

So what's Laura Moore doing supporting him?

GMD asked her, and here's what she said:

Some voters are asking me why I made a campaign contribution to the lone Republican candidate for Governor, Brian Dubie.   Some of the voters who have asked me this question clearly see this as a ‘litmus test’ as to whether or not I am deserving of their vote on the Democratic primary ballot.  I disagree with this litmus-test way of thinking.

 The real reason I even found myself in a position to write a check to Brian Dubie has nothing to do with politics or my views on specific issues or my support (or lack of support) of Brian’s views on specific issues but everything to do with my personal life.  My partner is a long-time Republican who is a senior adviser on the Dubie campaign.   Because of his work, I have accompanied him to various events and gatherings.  Likewise, my partner has attended many Democratic events with me, and has made contributions to Democratic candidates.

Not only have a number of friends and supporters inquired about my donation to the Lt. Governor but also a few have said that they question their support for me because of it.  I find this hyper-partisan attitude harmful to the political process and deserving of further comment.

It must not matter to these critics that in the past three years, I have made greater contributions to each of Deb Markowitz, Barack Obama, Peter Welch, Patrick Leahy, the Democratic National Committee, the Vermont Democratic Party and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee than I have contributed to the Dubie campaign.  In addition, I have donated significant amounts to Peter Shumlin, various down-ballot Democratic candidates, and politically active, left-leaning organizations.   The total of these contributions dwarfs the contribution that I made to Friends of Brian Dubie.  

Yet for some, my contribution to the Lt. Governor’s committee negates the relevance and importance of these other, very substantial financial commitments.  The simple fact is that these Democratic donations reflect my political beliefs.  However, can I say that all the candidates or organizations that have received my financial support met a 100% litmus test warranting my support?  The answer is clearly no.  In light of the serious issues and problems facing our communities, our state and our country, I find any sort of litmus test to be troubling and unproductive.  

 Do I consider myself a Democrat?  Yes, a life-long one.  Am I a strictly partisan Democrat?  No.  I remember well the first time I ever voted for a Republican:  1990 for Bill Weld when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts against John Silber.  I had very clear and strong reasons for casting that vote and can recall them clearly even now.  Since then, I have also voted for Jim Jeffords in 2000.  And, although we do not yet know who the Democratic nominee for Governor will be this year, I do not see any scenario under which I would vote for Brian Dubie.  

 I have equally strong memories of the first campaign I ever worked on:  George McGovern, even though I was not old enough to vote.  More recently, I worked tirelessly for Barack Obama.  I made my first donation to the then Senator Obama in April 2007 – long before there was any clear momentum toward his candidacy.   By September 6, 2007, I had donated the maximum allowed by law to Obama’s primary race. On numerous occasions, including primary day, I traveled to New Hampshire to work to get Obama elected.  

 

Yet, I had fellow Democrats – women – question my support.  They asked how I could, as a woman, support Obama instead of Hillary Clinton?  This blind litmus test was deeply offensive to me. 

 

Candidates very rarely, if ever, offer complete synchronicity with any particular voter’s views and beliefs.  Most often, responsible voters learn about a candidate’s views on a number of relevant issues and then make an informed judgment about who to support.  I do not believe that Democrats have the corner on all the right answers any more than I believe that every candidate who chooses to run for public office and calls himself or herself a Democrat is deserving of my vote.

 In reflecting further on my interaction with the Lt. Governor during this campaign, I will add that I enjoyed my conversations with the Lt. Governor and found his aspirations for public service to be genuine.  We engaged in respectful, detailed and thoughtful conversations on a number of issues, including the environment and women’s issues.  Clearly the Lt. Governor and I do not agree on all issues.  However, I appreciate and value the belief in treating each other with respect even in areas of difference.

 I grew up in the home of a minister/civil-rights activist and pubic schoolteacher.  My father worked with Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Jesse Jackson and Cesar Chavez and many others to guarantee civil and human rights for everyone.  Some of my earliest memories of my community service involve working in California as my parents assisted Cesar Chavez in organizing grape and lettuce boycotts to firmly establish the United Farm Workers Union.  My Democratic roots (and my commitment to equality) run deep.  So too, do my roots run deep in cherishing the value and importance of how we treat one another – even when we disagree.  I believe I have modeled my life – personally, professionally and in my public service – as a reflection of this framework. 

 I regret that anyone may choose not to support my candidacy for the Vermont State Senate because of how I have chosen to live my life. But I do not regret how I have chosen to live it.  

The Washington Post reports today that the House passed another appropriation for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, this time for $37 billion.

The House on Tuesday approved spending an additional $37 billion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, overcoming the opposition of some Democrats who have concluded that the Afghan conflict is unwinnable.   

We've noted Peter's war votes before, but I think it's important to note that, once again, Peter Welch has voted against continuing the funding for the wars.

You can see the roll-call vote results here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll474.xml

To Representative Welch: thanks for keeping the faith with your Vermont voters! 

When Obama was running for president there were people saying that he needed to stand up to his attackers. Others, like my friend, fellow blogger, and state Senate candidate Phillip Baruth, said that he knew what he was doing, he'd lived in the country and dealt with racism all his life, and that we should have confidence in him.I wasn't necessarily sold, but it seemed to be working for him so I didn't complain too much.

But after this Shirley Sherrod fiasco I have to ask, “Can't anyone here play this game?”

The basic outlines of the story are clear: Serial liar and right-wing scaremonger Andrew Breitbart published a heavily edited video of two minutes of a speech by Shirley Sherrod, an official at the US Department of Agriculture. Breitbart's claim was that Sherrod is a racist and that she is using her position with the USDA to screw white people. Within seconds the Obama administration leapt into action and fired her without even finding out the truth of the story.

Things have been changing so fast that when I walked out to the end of my driveway this morning the headline on the front page was that Thomas Vilsack was sticking to her firing, even though by now it was clear that the whole thing was built on a lie, but by the time I got back to the house and turned on the radio the same Secretary of Agriculture was considering reconsidering his decision. You can almost picture people running up and down the halls at the White House, bumping into each other, throwing files in the air, and tripping over their own ties.

By the end of the day the White House and Vilsack were apologizing to her, practically begging her to take her job back, and that might happen. Even Breitbart, that lying sack of shit, was pretending to feel sorry for her.

So why is the Obama administration rolling over for a lying, right-wing hit man like Breitbart? What is he really afraid of? There were a lot of people who didn't like it when Obama appointed Rahm Emmanuel his chief of staff, but I kind of liked it because he is a fighter. The problem is, there's no fighting. Just when is this administration going to decide that it's not going to play dead for every right-wing attack?

What's next? Is Obama going to invite Sherrod and Breitbart to the White House for another beer fucking summit?

It is time to fight.

VtDigger has a story about Challenges for Change. According to a new report, the state is already $10 million in the hole.

 You remember Challenges for Change, right? That's the bill of goods the Douglas-Dubie administration sold the legislature (or the legislative leadership eagerly bought) to enable them to pretend that they could save $38 million in this year's budget, thereby saving everybody the pain of raising that amount in real dollars, like program cuts or revenue increases.

We're now on Day 20 of the fiscal year, and we have already lost $10-15 million of that $38 million in savings.

Two questions:

1. Does anyone have a plan for what to do next?

2. Is anyone surprised?

You know that lifeline program that helps poor people pay their electric bills if they can't afford them?

News flash: in Vermont, it doesn't exist.

This is a surprise to a lot of people, but unlike every other New England state, Vermont doesn't have a program like that. The Public Service Board is holding a proceeding right now to consider whether and how to create such a program. It's been a long struggle by a lot of low-income advocates, and thanks to the AARP and the Vermont legislature there is now a chance that it will actually happen.

But guess who doesn't like the idea: the electric companies and the Douglas-Dubie administration. In fact, the utilities and the Douglas-Dubie administration are so chummy that the Public Service Department has taken to lifting passages wholesale from the utilities' filings. Two whole pages from a six-page brief filed by the Publilc Service Department were lifted right out of a brief from the Vermont Electric Co-Op and a group of municipal utilities.

According to the Free Press, Vermont Law School professor Brian Porto calls that plagiarism.

I'm not that concerned about plagiarism. I'm much more concerned about the fact that the agency charged with representing the public appears to be lining up against the public and with the electric companies.

In my years litigating major cases in the Public Service Board, I was involved in at least one case in which the state had to hire a private advocate for the public to avoid any conflict of interest.

Maybe it's time to consider that again. With all the money the utilities pour into these cases, shouldn't someone be speaking for the people?

I haven't read them yet, but there are two new District Court decisions invalidating provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act. From Talking Points Memo:

Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.

“This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status,” Tauro wrote in the decision for Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” he wrote.

In the other case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled that DOMA violates the equal protection principles in the Fifth Amendment

Taken together with the decision this week of the governor of Hawaii to veto civil unions, this seems to be another very important step in the direction of marriage equality. (What's the connection? The decision in Hawaii suggests that civil unions are not a sufficient alternative.)

Of course, there are many months and many hundreds of pages of briefing before these cases are resolved, but it sounds like a big step.

It's also a response to people who are opposing state marriage laws because they won't have any effect on federal benefits.

At last! Thanks to the Supreme Court we now have a tool to prosecute people in the United States who are financing terrorism in the Middle East.

You may have heard of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.

Under the law, 

It is a federal crime to “knowingly provid[e] material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1). The authority to designate an entity a “foreign terrorist organization” rests with the Secretary of State, and is subject to judicial review. “[T]he term 'material support or resources' means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials.” §2339A(b)(1).

The Supreme Court, in one of its last decisions this term, held that Americans who provide aid to organizations that engage in terrorist activities can be criminally prosecuted for violating this law, even if the assistance they provide is designated to support humanitarian, not terrorist, activities.

This week the Times published an investigation of American assistance to terrorist activities in the Middle East, but I suspect we won't be seeing prosecutions any time soon. 

As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.

A New York Times examination of public records in the United States and Israel identified at least 40 American groups that have collected more than $200 million in tax-deductible gifts for Jewish settlement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem over the last decade. The money goes mostly to schools, synagogues, recreation centers and the like, legitimate expenditures under the tax law. But it has also paid for more legally questionable commodities: housing as well as guard dogs, bulletproof vests, rifle scopes and vehicles to secure outposts deep in occupied areas.

That's right: Americans are getting tax deductions for giving money to support the terrorist activities of the Israeli government: building settlements in occupied territories and maintaining what Jimmy Carter has rightly characterized as a system of apartheid in the occupied territories.

The outposts receiving tax-deductible donations — distinct from established settlements financed by Israel’s government — are illegal under Israeli law. And a decade ago, Israel ended tax breaks for contributions to groups devoted exclusively to settlement-building in the West Bank.

So tell me: Is the United States really opposed to terrorism, or do our allies get a break on that?

We know who's making the contributions because they're claiming an income tax deduction. Somehow, though, I suspect we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the first prosecution.

UPDATE: According to the Times Argus, he is planning on suing the city.

We know what to expect, don't we?

Once again, the Barre Police have assaulted a harmless, unarmed person with their Tasers, this time in the context of what they referred to, apparently without embarrassment, as a “welfare check”.

I guess they determined that the welfare of a human being is adversely affected by the introduction of 50,000 volts.

Then, once they took the guy down using their Tasers they did what any self-respecting police department would do: they arrested him and charged him with disorderly conduct. After all, the police would never let someone get away with being assaulted and injured by the police without charging him with something, right?

This time the judge wouldn't hear of it. At a preliminary hearing this week district Judge Brian Grearson threw out the charges, concluding that there was no evidence that the injured victim's behavior amounted to disorderly conduct, even though State's Attorney Tom Kelly argued valiantly that yelling was enough.

Grearson listened carefully as States Attorney Tom Kelly repeatedly attempted to make the case that Magoon engaged in either “violent, threatening, or tumultuous behavior” during a brief confrontation that stemmed from a report he was carrying a knife and might be suicidal.

Although Kelly conceded that Magoon complied with a police request that he drop the backpack he was carrying at the time and never actually threatened any of the three officers on the scene, he insisted there were grounds for the criminal charge

“At the very least his behavior was tumultuous,” Kelly said, suggesting Magoon's alleged shouting in a public place was enough to clear that bar.

Not according to Grearson.

“Anything other than yelling?” the judge asked.

 What comes next? Well, now that the charges have been dismissed the victim's lawyer indicates that he is likely to sue the Barre police.

In addition, as with the incident earlier this year, we can expect that the Barre Police Department will conduct an investigation and conclude that its officers were blameless and acted in conformity with the Taser policy.

But what about this: How about taking these deadly weapons away from the police? they've already shown that they can't be trusted with them.

Jim Leddy has a great op-ed piece in today's Free Press about Vermont's neglect of the State Hospital. As Leddy points out, when there is a problem with something really important, like the Lake Champlain Bridge, Vermont takes action.

Six years later: no new hospital, several failed efforts to regain federal approval and still no federal funds. In these dire times with many cuts in state programs and services, the continuing loss of these funds will cost the state of Vermont an additional $9.7 million in the next fiscal year, on top of the millions lost over the past six years.

It is hard to imagine that seriously ill patients with any other illnesses would have, as their only option, care in a dilapidated facility that does not meet federal standards. It is unfathomable to imagine that these patients and their families, not to mention their communities, would tolerate, much less accept, such conditions in any other Vermont hospital.

So what about the State Hospital? After six years, two suicides, and repeated failed inspections, does Vermont really give a rat's ass?