“Pardon Me”

It’s the new game in town, brought to us by none other than the Deciderer, grand Inquisitor of the new crusade.

See, the President has spent the last 5 years promoting and ordering torture. Torture is immoral. That’s why 194 countries, led by the United States (back in the days when we actually held the moral high ground in the world), cobbled together the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions prevented thousands of our soldiers from torture in the dark days of WWII.

The Geneva Conventions were heralded as a sign of humanity’s commitment to true and lasting civilization. It was a commitment to the belief that as humans, we are better than frightened animals; a commitment to the belief that we are better than petty, cruel, murderous barbarians.

The Father of our country, George Washington, did not allow his troops to torture the British. Washington understood something that the stunted adolescents now occupying office in the city that bears his name don’t: torture is wrong, inhumane, immoral, and counterproductive.

“Always some dark spirits wished to visit the same cruelties on the British and Hessians that had been inflicted on American captives. But Washington’s example carried growing weight, more so than his written orders and prohibitions. He often reminded his men that they were an army of liberty and freedom, and that the rights of humanity for which they were fighting should extend even to their enemies. … Even in the most urgent moments of the war, these men were concerned about ethical questions in the Revolution.”

Now, in the city named after the man who started the uniquely American trend away from petty cruelty and vengence, the current President and his apologists are playing the game of “Pardon Me.”

[More after the jump…]

It goes something like this:

1. Do something so deeply immoral that all of the civilized world signed a treaty agreeing never to do it again.
2. Keep making excuses for this immoral behavior until it looks like you’re actually about to get caught red-handed, because some of your victims are about to be interviewed by a neutral international humanitarian organization.
3. Then, as the fan starts to spin and the manure pile starts to stink … grant yourself a pre-emptive pardon!

It’s easy: Just submit a bill (a kind of back-door Presidential Pardon – for yourself) that “clarifies” the wording of the treaty – wording that has saved countless numbers of our soldiers from inhumane treatment over the decades, through at least 4 wars and 8 presidents. Rewrite it to make it “clear” that you’re excusing yourself for your own immoral acts. It’s just like excusing yourself from going AWOL, or excusing yourself from illegal drug use, or heck, even from skipping school.

What’s one more excuse? So what if it hands our children over to cruel abusers beyond imagining? So what if it turns America from a shining beacon of morality into just another petty bully on the world stage? So what if it means lower-quality information from our prisoners, leading us to waste millions on wild goose chases and causing us to kill, maim, and torture innocents on the way?

So what?

Well, Pardon me, but I know we’re better than that.

For hundreds of years, from George Washington all the way through to Bill Clinton, we have been better than that. We must not let this petty President excuse himself for his behavior. He doesn’t get a “pass” just because he’s not used to taking responsibility for his actions. If anything, it’s high time someone taught him about the importance of personal responsibility – that there are consequences when you do something wrong.  It’s something most kids learn from an early age.

It’s time for those who are required to provide 2/3 of the Checks and Balances built into the Constitution to take their obligation seriously. Do not pass ANY of the laws that seek to change or reinterpret the wording of the Geneva Conventions – the treaty that brought a new level of hope and security to the civilized world.

Compromising our integrity and our morality is inexcusable.

Call or write your Representatives and Senators and tell them you won’t accept any more excuses. Tell them that you will accept neither the President’s Detainee Bill, nor any proposed compromise bill.

[cross-posted on my blog]

Some clever bloggers (alas, not me), have been tracking down where $40 million came from. That’s the cost of the ABC neo-con fantasy called Path to 9/11.

Who could have paid that much money? Why? Was it the American taxpayers? Was it someone else? Was it some combination or the two?

Details after the jump

Once upon a time there was a fundamentalist movie director. He had kids. His kids founded an organization for teen indoctination called “Youth with a Mission” (YWAM).

They got kids to pay them money to be allowed to go do missionary work. The groups for whom the work was being done ALSO paid YWAM. Not a bad deal – get ’em coming and going.

Anyway, they apparently got bored convincing people to pay them money so that they could kick back in Hawaii while others did all the charity work. So they decided to branch out and into film making. They created or teamed up with (it’s unclear at this point) a group called The Film Institute, which they call an “auxilliary arm” of YWAM.

Our next big project is to assist in the development of the new YWAM auxiliary – The Film Institute (TFI). The Film Institute is dedicated to a Godly transformation and
revolution TO and THROUGH the Film and Television industry;

TO it, by serving, living humbly with integrity in what is often a world driven by selfish ambition, power an money – transforming lives from within,

and THROUGH it, by creating relevant and evocative content which promotes Godly principles of Truth married with Love.

[note: I pasted the whole thing here, because all that’s left (besides the copy I downloaded for posterity) is the Google cache, which will likely be wiped now that its existence has become public.

Mission: Indocrination

Their very first film sounds pretty innocuous. It’s working title:

The Untitled History Project Begins Production July 25th. Please pray for the Executive Team, the Director’s Team, Department Heads, Actors, Crew and Interns. Also please ask that the project would reach its target budget and schedule objectives.  – and don’t forget to pray for us!

The Untitled History Project. Sounds kinda bland, really, but an interesting thing happened on the way through the marketing process, it’s real name emerged: “Path to 9/11.”

So a couple of kids running a youth missionary program suddenly become movie-makers of a $40 million dollar movie that will take over the prime time slot of a major network for 2 nights in a row, and be accompanied by an indoctrination guide published by one of the most trusted sources of study information in schools across the nation. “Poof,” like magic!

Erm, well, they had help.

( – promoted by mataliandy)

To survive people conformed. They kept silent. And the continuous propaganda worked.

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

In the USSR, Lenin and Stalin cultivated their power with the aid of the media. Sure, media was less sophisticated in those days: radio, newspapers, and the movies were pretty much it. But with willing propagandists at the media helm, tyranny was certainly an easier ride – for the tyrants.

Propaganda
Function: noun
Definition:
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Propaganda was the pretty face painted on brutality. It was able to whip up boogey men in an instant, regularly trumpeting the latest “enemy of the state,” as if the poor victim was the political equivalent of the day’s biggest fashion faux-pas.

But propaganda laid out in sheets of a newspaper or floating freely across the radio waves could only carry them so far.

Follow me below the fold…

What was needed?

Well-indoctrinated kids brimming full of propaganda could be mustered to help the Bolshevik leaders deal with their fundamental problem-that the masses, the older generations, remained backwards.

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

They needed to cultivate crops of believers. They needed indoctrination.

To survive people conformed. They kept silent. And the continuous propaganda worked.

As a schoolgirl in the 1950s Tatiana Vorontsova remembers she learned the Morozov lesson in the fourth grade. “… We, of course, would also have liked to be heroes and at that time if I had been in the same situation, and my father had done something against the Soviet state, of course, I would simply have gone and reported him, just like that.”

(from Propaganda in the Propaganda State)

And this brings us to a modern tale of propaganda.

Next Monday, is the 5th anniversary of 9/11, the day thousands of Americans were murdered in cold blood by fundamentalist religious zealots. Our President says they did it because they hate America, they hate our freedoms. He says we should: …uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here.  We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

Next Monday, ABC plans to show a fictionalized “docudrama,” written by Rush Limbaugh’s friend Cyrus Nowrasteh, with the help of the Thomas Kean, appointed by the President to be the figurehead at the helm of the 9-11 Commission (which Bush didn’t … want to happen … at all).

ABC claims that the movie is “a dramatization of the events detailed in The 9/11 Commission Report and other sources,” implying that if it’s in the movie, it’s real, and came from a credible source. That claim is a lie of omission, because it leaves out vital information that, if known, would drastically change the perspective of the viewer. 

The most popular scene in right-wing blog land is one in which (try to follow me here, it’s a bit convoluted) the Northern Alliance, which doesn’t have bin Laden surrounded, doesn’t have a CIA official ask a White House official for permission to bomb the not-surrounded bin Laden. The call was never made, but in the non-call, the CIA official is told by the administration official whom he didn’t call, that they can’t bomb the bad guy they don’t have surrounded.

But of course the scene replaces all the parts that didn’t happen in real life, with stuff that does happen in Disney life.

And that’s not the only scene that pushes history through the looking glass.

Remember the definition of propaganda?  That whole thing about furthering your own cause while hurting your opponent’s?

It sure sounds like this movie uses a whole bucket of paint in a flimsy attempt to blot out the truth of Democratic [.wav sound file] competence, while tossing a big ol’ throw-rug over the Republican incompetence.

One of the biggest roadblocks to actually protecting us against terrorists was the Republican Congress, which was so obsessed by the trivial matter of two consenting adults “diddling,” that they refused to see terrorism as the crucial life-and-death issue it was. In fact, they seemed to relish using a movie title as a metaphor to imply fighting terrorism was a diversion from  the real business of hanky panky in the oval office: 

“Look at the movie ‘Wag the Dog.’ I think this has all the elements of that movie,” Rep. Jim Gibbons said. “Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems.”

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: “It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that’s not the situation and I trust that it isn’t.”

One of the first questions asked of [Clinton’s] Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon [briefing] was how he would respond to people who think the military action “bears a striking resemblance to ‘Wag the Dog.”‘

“The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities,” Cohen said. “That is the sole motivation.”
(from: http://www.cnn.com/A…)

Anything Can Come True, If You Wish it Hard Enough

They believe they can wipe the slate clean, perhaps?  They know the short attention span of the American public. Maybe, if they can tell big enough lies on the TV, they can fool enough people to bring them to victory in November.

They don’t want people to remember their failure to protect us. They want people to forget that President Bush, the man who did a little landscaping while terrorists prepared to kill thousands, the man they have supported in every failed policy, every bungled action, every stupid move, let 9/11 happen on his watch, then promptly ran the ship of state aground in the desert of the Middle East, without any strategy, without caring enough about the lives of our sons and daughters to have devised a definition of success. So now our kids and those of all the innocent civilians in a country that posed no threat, have merged into an endless stream of blood and death half a world away.

But Wait! There’s More!

Remember that propaganda through the media can only be “so” effective. The “masses” tend to be too cynical to buy it all (except that inexplicable 35% Bush base). But there is a way to cultivate a crop of true believers. To grow a corps of followers who won’t know any better.

Send the Propaganda to School via Indoctri-Cation[tm] Now with Leave no Truth Behind!.

When ABC decided to make this propaganda piece, they also partnered with Scholastic to make a curriculum that requires students to watch the movie and answer “discussion” questions, which are not at all misleading or propagandistic (yeah, that’s the ticket!).

Samples (from Gerogia 10):

• Accompanied by a Bush 9/11 Bullhorn Picture, states that Afghanistan is “increasingly stable and independent”
  

  Timeout for Truth:

  Friday September 8, 2006

  Nato’s top commander appealed yesterday for helicopters, planes and hundreds of extra troops to reinforce the alliance’s Afghan force against the Taliban. Returning from a visit to Afghanistan, General James Jones admitted he had been taken aback by the ferocity of violence in the south of the country.
  (from Guardian UK)

• encourages students to debate “whether the media helps or hurts our national security.”
  

  Hmmm… debate whether the media is a threat. I can just hear whoever cobbled this dreck together: “Does it get kids to question the Constitutional right to freedom of the press? Yessir! Check. Next…”

• Lists all the pertinent government agencies, stating that the CIA and FBI were accused of not doing enough to prevent the attacks. No such reference is included in the “National Security Council” section or the “NSA” section.
  

  Note: NSA was run by Condoleeza Rice when 9/11 occurred, and she insisted that she ignored the plan to prevent terrorist attacks, which had been provided by the Clinton transition team, because it was an “historic” document. As if having been written in the past magically removes its value. Hint for Condoleeza: all documents were written in the past.

• Gives a rundown of each country involved in the movie, no mention is made of Clinton’s attempts to get bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather, it states that “after 9/11”, we asked the Taliban to hand him over.
  

  Leaves out Saudi Arabia, which provided 15 of the 19 hijackers. Also includes Iraq as a country that was part of 9/11. Also ignores Taliban offer to hand over bin Laden pre-war.

• Under “Iraq”, the document states that the U.S. “believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against Americans and other targets.”  But, conveniently, there is NO mention that WMD were never found, leaving students with the impression that the war was justified.
  

  See here for a discussion of Just War Principles v. Iraq

• Also under “Iraq”, the document states that the US is still in Iraq, “battling insurgents who want the United States to pull out.”  No mention of civil war, no mention of how Iraqis want us out, no mention of anything but a phrase which leaves students thinking that if someone suggests a pull out, they are siding with the insurgents.
  

  I don’t really need to comment here, the original says it all.

• Under “Pakistan,” you’ll find glowing praise for Pervez Musharraf.
  

  The Musharraf dictatorship doles out ostensible support in the war on terror to keep it in the good graces of Washington, while it presides over a society that fuels and empowers militants at the expense of moderates. And the political madrasas, which I spent years as prime minister dismantling, flourish and grow under the military dictatorship. Why is it that the terrorist trail always seems to lead back to Pakistan? Why are second-generation Pakistani emigres far more attracted by this pattern of terrorism than other disillusioned Muslims in the west? What is it about Islamabad that puts it at the centre of terrorist plots?

  – former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

The curriculum has reportedly already been shipped to 100,000 teachers around the country.

What Can We Do?
Propagandizing is bad enough, but indoctrinating our kids with it is beyond the pale. Making their class grades depend on learning the propaganda is abhorrent.

Cheating our children out of the truth and betraying their trust is not an American value. Covering up failure makes it impossible to prevent a repeat. This dishonors all who have died, it is  not an American value.

If you’re as pissed off about this as I am, there are a bunch of easy steps you can take. Please see this diary on Daily Kos for a zillion bits of contact info. It’ll take just a couple of minutes to write an email or make a phone call.

Be sure to be polite!  The people answering the phone or reading the email are not the people who are trying to promote blatant propaganda and force feed it to our children, plus you “attract more flies with honey” and all that…

If You Are a Parent with Kids in the Public Schools – A Special Task

Please contact your school board, the school principle, your child’s history and reading teachers, and your PTA. Let them know you do not want your child to be subject to this propaganda.

Ask the school to contact their Scholastic sales representative to discuss changing distributors unless this is corrected.

I know this is a VERY long post, but it only scratches the surface and barely sketches out a hint of the outright falsehoods in this movie. Please see here for a list of articles debunking the movie’s claims.

Well, it looks like the war in Iraq may not be going so well, at least according to those “in the know” about the forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). It’s a report comprising input from all the intelligence and military organizations in the US. Alas, they think that things could go from bad to worse:

The Pentagon’s intelligence arm painted a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together. One official familiar with the briefing, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive subject matter, said that the picture it painted was dire, although another official–who requested anonymity for the same reason–insisted it was not entirely despairing, since Iraqi security forces were beginning to improve.

More after the jump…

Did anyone catch the not-even-remotely subtle framing:

…if Iraqi security forces don’t soon get their act together

But, wait! The Iraqi security forces have their act together, according to our very own President, way back in Nov. 2005:

To strengthen security, the Coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive – clearing out areas controlled by the enemy, holding that territory using Iraqi forces, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

And again in Mar., 2006:

We saw the leadership of Sunni and Shia clerics, the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces, and the determination of many of Iraq’s leaders to come together and act decisively to diffuse the crisis.

The Aftermath Of The Samarra Mosque Attack Shows The Progress Made By The Iraqi Security Forces. After the Samarra bombing, Iraqi Security Forces – not Coalition forces – restored order. Iraqi leaders put the Iraqi Security Forces on alert – canceling leaves and heightening security around mosques and critical sites. In Baghdad and other trouble spots, Iraqi police manned checkpoints, increased patrols, ensured peaceful demonstrators were protected, and arrested those who turned to violence. Public Order Brigades deployed rapidly to areas where violence was reported. During the past two weeks, Iraqi Security Forces have conducted more than 200 independent operations.

Having Iraqi Forces In The Lead Has Been Critical Because They Can Do Things That Coalition Forces Could Not. For example, on the day of the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi National Police responded to an armed demonstration where an angry Shia crowd had surrounded the Sunni Al Quds Mosque. The Iraqi Brigade Commander placed his troops – who were largely Shia – between the crowd and the mosque, and called for calm and urged the crowd to disperse. After a two-hour standoff, the crowd eventually left without incident, and the National Police remained in position overnight to guard the Mosque until the threat was over. The fact that Iraqis were in the lead and negotiating with their own countrymen helped diffuse a potential confrontation and prevented an escalation of violence.

Iraqi Security Forces Are Making Progress Against the Enemy, And They Are Gaining The Confidence Of The Iraqi People. Last fall, there were over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions fighting against the terrorists – and 40 of these were taking the lead in the fight. Today, there are more than 130 battalions in the fight – and more than 60 are taking the lead. As more Iraqi battalions come online, these forces are assuming responsibility for more territory. Iraqi forces now conduct more independent operations throughout the country than do Coalition forces.

[emphasis in the original White House document]

But wait! There’s more! Apparently, the administration was given carte-blanche to spend whatever was needed in order to accelerate Iraqi troop training back in June, 2005.

House Passes Inslee Amendment to Lift Funding Limit on Iraqi Troop Training

Accelerates Replacement of American Troops with Iraqi Security Forces

20 June 2005

In an effort to bring American troops home sooner, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee offered and successfully passed an amendment today to help fully fund the training and equipping of Iraqi and Afghan troops. Inslee’s amendment removes the $500 million cap that had been placed in the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act to train, equip and provide assistance to security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD bill includes $45.3 billion for military operations in Iraq, yet placed limitations on the amount of money that could be spent on training a viable Iraqi security force. The House passed Inslee’s amendment by a voice vote, without any objections.

Said Inslee, “This amendment is a significant step forward in accelerating our efforts to train and equip Iraqi security forces to replace American troops. The Administration should be called upon to hasten this process so we can bring our troops home earlier and with dignity. Despite Secretary Rumsfeld and the Vice President’s rose-colored optimism, we have a long ways to go to establish a viable Iraqi security force that will allow Iraqis to control their own destiny. My amendment keeps us focused on an exit strategy by removing the handcuffs that have been placed on the funding our military can spend on training Iraqi security forces and interpreters.” Inslee continued, “We hope that the Administration listens to the voices in Congress that have said, ‘If we can train and equip Iraqis one day earlier we should do so. If this training brings Americans home one day earlier we should make this a priority.’”

If sufficient troops still aren’t trained after all that time, where did all the training money go?

Did the responsibility for training Iraqi troops really shift from the US to the Iraqis themselves? If so, when? And if so, why weren’t the unused training funds returned to the budget?

Gosh, where’s a real journalist when you need one? Apparently not on MSNBC…

[thsi post has been edited: fixed a typo in the 1st paragraph]

By Meteor Blades
[crossposted with permission from DailyKos]

I sure wish I were in Vermont this week. I could join writer/environmentalist/deep thinker Bill McKibben and whoever else shows up for a four-day walk seeking to kindle federal action against global warming.

Billed as “The Road Less Traveled, Vermonters Walking Toward a Clean Energy Future,” the march will begin Thursday noon at Robert Frost’s old writing cabin near Ripton, stop in cities along the way for Conversations on the Green, and end 43 miles up the road in Burlington. Knowing McKibben’s work and the kind of people he attracts, I imagine those are going to be eye-opening conversations for participants and bystanders alike, a traveling teach-in, if you will. You can get a taste of this in my five-question interview with McKibben below.

Many here, I know, downplay the value of a public demonstration, even public action of any kind outside the realm of lawsuits and legislation. Sooooo ’60s, they say. Doesn’t work anymore. If it ever really did. I couldn’t disagree more. Perhaps the reason people say this comes from their being so comprehensively saturated with a megamedia caricature of the era. They don’t believe most or any of what the megamedia tells them about the times they themselves live in, but they accept as gospel what’s been told them regarding one of the periods of greatest social change since the Civil War.

The public intellectuals and other activists who spurred that change worked inside and outside the governing system, using whatever megaphone seemed proper at the moment to capture public attention and increase the pressure on public policy. What you mostly hear about that era today is the media-mediated version, a distorted fraction of the story. That’s not my way of trying to sanctify the “protest” movements or say that we made no mistakes, no strategic blunders, or engaged in no counterproductive activism. Surely, we did more than enough of that and were paid for it with half-victories and outright defeats, some of them long-lasting. But, please, most of the focus, even most of the public events, had nothing to do grubby street demonstrations.

Rather, in every case, the change process began with bits of information transmitted among family, neighbors, classmates and work peers. These conversations led to little groups which made phone calls, worked for candidates, vigiled, lobbied, wrote, did research, and organized public events dedicated to spreading the message of change to others who would themselves spread the message. The organizing got bigger, the conversation wider, the building of political clout more coherent and powerful. Then came the changes … or not.

That is what the Vermont march is about. Talking forcefully in public with an eye toward changing public policy. An  essential catalyst. As McKibben notes in my interview with him, he’s thinking the noise from the “The Road Less Traveled” – along with Al Gore’s film and other actions – will spread nationwide, virally, and “assemble a crowd under the noses of the media.” In the old days, this depended on word-of-mouth. It still does. But now it’s word-of-mouth amplified with broadband and other accouterments of wwwLand that neither the government nor the megamedia have (so far) reined in.

It was 16 years ago that I read McKibben’s The End of Nature. Together that year with the resurrection of Earth Day on its 20th anniversary, his book spurred me to – as Mister Bush would say – spend some political capital and pressure my bosses at the Los Angeles Times to underwrite a syndicated weekly package of environmental articles called Earth Matters. It lasted at the Times as long as I did, 12 years.

Enhanced with McKibben’s signature eloquence, The End of Nature  was the first popular book to demonstrate that one species, allegedly the smartest species ever to appear on Earth, had reached a critical threshold, a point of irrevocably changing the planet’s environment, including its atmosphere. A decade and a half later, more people are paying attention, but, as McKibben points out in his invitation to join the walk:

…leadership has been sorely lacking: even as the science around global warming has grown steadily darker, the political appointees at the head of the Environmental Protection Agency have declared that in their eyes carbon dioxide is “not a pollutant.” The Congress has decided that all legislation addressing this issue must pass through a committee chaired by a man, James Imhofe, who calls global warming “a hoax.” And so–in this warmest year on record across the United States–we walk to ask that this logjam be broken. Our hope is that just as in the past Vermont has spurred action on other issues, so too this example will lead others across the country to increase the pressure.

Here are McKibben’s answers to my five questions:

Meteor Blades: Why Vermont? Wouldn’t a walk and talk along the route from Baltimore to DC have more impact?

  McKibben: Well, the short answer is that Vermont is where I live, and so, where I can organize. But the great hope is precisely that if we can make some noise up here the idea will spread quickly to other spots.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s yet to be a real large-scale protest movement that gets spread virally in the Internet age (although the Seattle WTO protests owed part of their potency to the fact that this then-little-understood medium helped organizers assemble a crowd under the noses of the media). In fact, even in the last few weeks I’ve had emails from around the country asking for advice.

  Anyway, though I suspect our [Vermont] legislators would mostly vote the right way anyway on global warming, we want them to understand that their constituents need them to be champions on this issue.

  Meteor Blades: I know you were an early adopter of hybrid car technology. And I suspect your house is heavily insulated and the refrigerator filled with locally grown food. But one attitude I’ve encountered time and again is that solving global warming is such a huge issue that nothing individuals can do will make a difference, so why bother?  Any advice on how to break through the stubbornness?

  McKibben: It’s hard to break through that idea because, frankly, there’s a deep mathematical logic to it. Individual action is a kind of calisthenics before the big event, which must be political. Only the kind of massive change that can be brought about through national (and, even harder, international) policy will really suffice to reduce the flow of carbon into the atmosphere. So the key is summoning political will – and the very act of coming together in a march, say, to demand that kind of action will help us to start feeling politically powerful again.

  I wrote the very first general book about global warming, way back in 1989, and I’ve been working on it ever since. The science has grown grimmer in the past few years as we understand just how fast we’re unhinging the Earth’s system. There remains time to do something about global warming (not avert it, but keep it from getting any worse than it has to be), but we need very quickly to seize that moment. And I think that right now – because of Katrina, because of Gore’s movie, because of our hot summer – is the best opening we’ve had in two decades.

  Meteor Blades: If you rubbed a compact fluorescent bulb and the Eco-Genie popped out to offer you one wish – passage of a single piece of narrowly focused global warming legislation – what would you ask for?

  McKibben: I think the rapid phase-in of a 40 mpg average for new cars. Because the technology is there to do it easily, because it would demonstrate to us that the change in our sacred lifestyles will be very small at first – and because it will give everyone the added benefit of saving some money on gas. Unless you drive a hybrid, you can’t believe the number of people who sidle up to you at a gas station and ask some longing questions about exactly how far it goes on a tank of gas.

  And after that I’d work my way down Energize America 2020‘s list of policies. I just wrote an overview article for Sierra magazine on our energy situation, and described that joint effort as the single most impressive package of energy policy anyone has yet concocted.

  Meteor Blades: Some people, including long-time environmental critics, are saying that nuclear power can, at the very least, provide a transition that will buy us time to come up with other technologies to reduce or eliminate human-made greenhouse gases. Do you agree? 

  McKibben: Here’s what I think: nuclear power is a potential safety threat, if something goes wrong. Coal-fired power is guaranteed destruction, filling the atmosphere with planet-heating carbon when it operates the way it’s supposed to. I don’t mean to minimize the danger of a reactor; I do mean to use that danger to highlight the awesome peril posed by our conventional means of generating electricity. (And there are 150 new coal plants on the books in some stage or another).

  That said, nuclear power is not where I’d turn first, or second, or even third. The reason is economics – without massive government subsidy it doesn’t work because it’s an inherently expensive technology, rather like burning twenty-dollar bills to generate electricity. All the econometric modeling not paid for by the nuclear industry itself makes clear that if you spent a billion dollars on a nuclear plant and a billion dollars on some conservation program, you’d get three or four or five times the carbon bang for your buck. So – before nuclear power, efficient appliances, heavy-duty insulation, real attention to mass transit, and also an all-out commitment to renewables, especially wind, which are much closer to cost-competitive. And no one ever spent the night worrying that a terrorist was about to smash their wind tower, spreading dangerous wind particles in every direction.

  Meteor Blades: What kind of useful advice does a small-town/rural family like yours have for us urban dwellers?

  McKibben: City dwellers, depending on how they live, are already the greenest Americans. New York City, because it’s the least car-dependent city in the country, is our environmental champion in many ways. I think the biggest changes are needed where the majority of Americans live – i.e., the suburbs, a landscape that only sprung up because of cheap energy, and which will take real work to transform. The kind of semi-intact small towns and local economies that Vermont and some other rural places still possess are useful models – at least, that’s one of the theses of my next book.

  But the real lesson, and the one I hope this march will highlight, is that the technology we need above all is the technology of community. Vermont still has town meeting government – we’re reasonably good at talking with each other. It’s one reason lots of experiments have come out of this state: the nuclear freeze movement of the 1980s, for instance, or for that matter, the Dean campaign. It’s not that we’re so liberal (we have a conservative governor; we’ve lost more people per capita in Iraq than any other state). But I think we’re still pretty good at community, which is the underlying necessity for a more efficient and happier country. At root, dealing with global warming will mean sanding the edges off of some of America’s hyperindividualism – and perhaps that will be just a little easier out in the country.

Most of us can’t be in Vermont over the Labor Day Weekend. Right now, many are desperately ensconced in getting more Democrats into Congress and getting rid of the likes of California Representative Richard Pombo and Montana Senator Conrad Burns. But, as McKibben points out in his August 24 Op-Ed, Finally, fired up over global warming:

We’ve lobbied hard in state houses and city halls to get local action for change. But it’s not adding up to anywhere near enough – and the reason is clear. Washington, unlike every other capital in the developed world, simply won’t do anything.

  {snip}

  It’s not as if changing the party in power will automatically change the outcome, either. The Clinton administration did little to tackle climate change; most Democrats would probably be all too willing to sign onto some limp compromise like the bill introduced in 2003 by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, even though the march of science in the years since it was introduced makes clear the inadequacy of its minuscule cuts in carbon. If we lock into some weak regimen now, it may be years before Congress will take up the issue again.

In other words, once we get those new Democrats elected, we need to make them pay attention and do something – soon – about what could be the most transformative issue of our age. That will take a lot more leg work.

If you’re in the neighborhood, stop by and walk with the Vermonters for a while. If you can’t, < a href="http://vtwalc.org/">click on the donation tab at their Web site and send them some sugar. Whether you can or can’t do either of those, send an e-mail to your family and friends with a link to McKibben’s Op-Ed or to this Diary.

[crossposted on DailyKos and Rhetoric101]

A few days ago, nyceve wrote an excellent diary on the sad fact that it’s now economically more feasible for a person in the US to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country for medical care than to receive that care in this country.

We all know that this is because of a simple lack of leadership from those who feel none of the consequences from their lack of spine, or worse, from certain industries being treated as “more equal” than “we the people” when it comes to legislative representation.

So, perhaps the best way to stiffen some spines is to give them a taste of their own (lack of) medicine. Join me after the jump…

In the interest of fairness for all Americans, I present the:

Health Care Equity Act of 2006

  Whereas the members of the United States House and Senate have repeatedly proclaimed government-paid health care coverage to be an inefficient waste of taxpayer money, and

  Whereas the members of the United States House and Senate currently receive such inefficent and wasteful government-paid health care coverage, and

  Whereas the United States has incurred a budget deficit of [current $amount here], and

  Whereas in light of such a deficit, it would be irresponsible to continue to waste tax-payer money to continue to pay for such inefficient health care coverage, and

  Whereas it is unfair to continue to force the members of the US House and Senate to settle for such subordinate care when their health care interests will be better served by the free market,

  Therefore it is resolved that government-paid health care coverage be ended for all members of the US House and Senate beginning no later than 12:01 am, January 1, 2007.

While this is designed for the federal legislature, there’s no reason it couldn’t be tweaked for one’s state legislature and/or to include the “executive” and administration at each level.

Thoughts?

(Forgot to front-page when publishing it. – promoted by mataliandy)

The time has come to thank those who have worked so hard  to protect the powder. For those who don’t know, powder is a special legislative element, and must be kept as dry as possible. Wet powder can be a very unstable and hard to work with.

Now, the fruits of carefully tended powder are ripening into big, juicy delicacies for us all.

Let’ take a look at a particularly luscious piece of low hanging fruit after the jump:

[crossposted to Rhetoric 101]

The so-called “No Knock” ruling that emerged from the Supreme Court this week is a lovely delicacy that could only be the result of very dry powder.

By paying careful attention to the hydration of powder, the Senate judiciary committee changed the face of the court to ensure the majority would rule in favor of stripping the 4th Amendment from the Bill of Rights, that little section of the Constitution that protects us from the dictatorial habit of deciding people are guilty until proven innocent.

How has the 4th amendment been stripped, you ask? Well let’s turn away from the powder keg and look at the big picture. 

Supposedly “No Knock” simply  means that police officers no longer have to provide a suspect (aka a person who might be associated in some way with a crime, but has not been found guilty of any crime) with warning that they’re entering their home. In addition, they no longer have to identify themselves as police officers.

OK, so what’s the big deal?

Well, that’s where the big picture comes in. You have to look at this change in combination with two other features of our current system of government – FISA (a special provision that allows for retroactive search warrants for government spying) and that dry powder special we all know as the Abuse a Patriot Act.

You see, now, a person can come into your home, with no warning, and no probable cause. They can fish for whatever they think might constitute “evidence” and then go to a secret Abuse a Patriot Act court to get a retroactive warrant against you under FISA rules. And NOW, they can use the evidence gathered in the formerly illegal search against you, even if you’ve done nothing wrong.

There is no longer a reason for law enforcement to take any steps to protect your Constitutional rights as an American if they don’t feel like it. Heck, they don’t even need to pay lip service to your rights, because those rights are effectively gone.

Maybe you won’t miss them, but then again, maybe you will…

So just what happened on Saturday? It truly was a very impressive meeting, filled with respectful and impassioned statements by people from all over the state. The public statements were overwhelmingly in support of the Rutland Resolution – with the “Rule 603” wording intact. The committee was divided, with the majority focused on the need to win the upcoming elections, and concerned about the potential impact of the Rutland Resolution being plunked into the laps of the legislature this late in the season.

So, was it a Victory? A Defeat? Were the “Rule 603” afficionadoes “had”?

Let’s start with the last question: being “had” would have required going into the meeting blind to the fact that there were folks actively hoping to reduce the result to a statement of support for the existing Feingold censure – if that much. No, we were too aware of the resistance to be “had.”

That leads us to the victory/defeat balance.  No one walked out of the meeting with what they really wanted.  Impeachment was not quashed, and the Rule 603 lever was not added to the Congressional toolkit.

So, I’d say it was a draw, but a very promising draw. It is a draw that means the grassroots, including both long-term party regulars and newly minted activists, were able to swing the party from “no” to “yes” in 6 short weeks. The “yes” wasn’t quite the “yes” we wanted, but it was a sea change in the party’s official viewpoint. And that is a good thing.

In the mean time, others are meeting, and voting. Some in the Democratic party, some in other parties. Some in VT, and some in other parts of the country.

When a thunderstorm forms, the big mass of cloud is built up from smaller bits that collect over the course of the day. As the heat builds, the cloud heightens, the winds strengthen, and then the refreshing rain washes away the heat of the day, often leaving the world awash in the golden glow of late afternoon sunshine. If you listen closely, you can hear the distant rumbling of democracy. Our little bit of energy has been added to the brewing storm.  The rain will come, and we will have been a part of making it happen.

It’s still early in the day, and the rain is a ways off, yet.

We are called to continue this journey. Called by those who fought for the freedoms granted by the Constitution, by the innocents who have died and are dying in an unprovoked war, by the children whose future has been mortgaged for folly, by the victims of torture being done in our names. And sometimes, the call comes from things that are less obvious and more personal – such as the flyer that used to say that there had been no FBI requests for information at the Bradford Public Library.

(Promoting – promoted by mataliandy)

There must be something about the name Taylor that generates extra spine.

First we heard about Jeffry Taylor of Rutland, who took that small, first step toward holding our President accountable for his actions.

Now we hear about Harry Taylor of Charlotte, North Carolina, daring to stand up and speak the truth directly to the President, despite being surrounded by people he believed were hostile to his ideals:

I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I’m saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.

Tomorrow is a potentially historic moment for Vermont.  The Democratic Party State Committee will hold vote on several resolutions designed to hold the President accountable.

The two primary differences among the resolutions are process-related. Do the people of Vermont ask their legislature to transmit articles of impeachment to the US House, or do we ask the legislature to support existing legislation already in committee at the national level.

I have never wavered in my opinion about which to support.  In fact, I was the one “no” in my county last night when the county voted to support what is known as the Grand Isle resolution (amended for Orange County and to add the Vice President). This resolution begins by stating clearly that the President has committed impeachable offenses, but concludes by asking for an investigation into whether he has committed impeachable offenses. It says we support the work already being done at the national level, but leaves it at that.

My concern with that approach is that it removes a very powerful tool from the hands of all members of Congress who feel that the President must be held accountable: the power of privilege.

Here’s how it works, certain types of bills are granted special rights according to the rules of the house.  Impeachment is one of those.  These rights, called a “point of privilege,” allow any house member to bring a resolution or bill to the floor, to be read into the record. A privileged resolution can be brought to the floor at any time by any member. It can be accompanied by a statement relating to it. So for example, the member could simply ask that the request of the people be honored by initiating a full and independent investigation of the charges listed in the resolution, to be followed by impeachment should the charges be proved by the investigation.

It can be brought to the floor again if any time any foul offense of the administraton is revealed.  The Rutland Resolution gives the power of privilege to the US House, specifically because it calls for impeachment. Calling for an investigation does not gove the power of privilege.

US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has used privilege to call for investigation of House ethics rules very effectively. Getting the House cover-up into the Congressional Record over and over again (11 times so far).  The Rutland Resolution will allow the same to be done regarding the President’s high crimes and misdemeanors and the associated cover-up.

In addition, a resolution passed up to the US House from  a state legislature, at the behest of the citizens of that state, sends a very different and powerful message than a resolution that says “stay the course.”

My position is guided in part by President Teddy Roosevelt, who once said, “Walk Softly, but carry a big stick.”

I hope that tomorrow’s vote will be a vote for accountability that also hands the “big stick” of privilege to the Congress, since they already have “walking softly” down to an art form. The future of my children – and our country – may depend on it.

No matter what the outcome of tomorrow’s vote, it will still be a vote for accountability, and for that, I am grateful. It makes me proud to be a Vermonter.

(Can’t let John have all front page space! – promoted by mataliandy)

[Cross Posted on Kos and elsewhere]

I’ve been involved in the Rutland Resolution portion of the impeachment process in Vermont and thought it would be a good time to share what we’ve learned over the last 6 weeks or so, for any of you who might want to give it a “go” in your own states.  

While all of us have been relatively politically active the last couple of years (a couple of us have even managed to become members of the Democratic State Committee), for the most part we’ve never really done much more than send emails, sign petitions, maybe blog, and hold signs on the sidewalk.

As a result, this has been quite a crash-course in the political process!

Join me below the fold for a taste of how it has worked (so far) here in Vermont.

First off, why the Rutland Resolution version of impeachment process instead of directly asking our US Representative to write an impeachment bill? We prefer the Rutland Resolution method (the version that leverages US House Rule 603) because John Conyers already has a top-down bill in committee in the US House, using the normal procedural process.

Our effort is meant to be a tool for creating bottom-up, ground-level support and for bringing the discussion into the public square, the two necessary elements for any impeachment proceeding to get anywhere at the national level. This work is complementary to both Conyers’ impeachment bill and Feingold’s censure bill. If you have not already pestered the bejeebers out of your US Rep and Senators, please do so. Ask for co-sponsorship of Conyers’ bill from your Representative and for co-sponsorship of Feingold’s Censure resolution from your Senators.  It doesn’t matter what party they’re in! The US Constitution is not a partisan issue.

On to the tips…

Parties

1. The established parties are scared to death of this, so it seems to work best if you bring it around from the bottom up. In VT it started with towns and counties. One county voted on and approved one resolution (Rutland). One town voted on another resolution (Newfane). Both resulted
   in publicity.

   If you’re going to try to work through official party committees, look for your state committee list on line. Most have something on the official party web site in your state.

   
   When you find the list, see if you can find the ones who are more willing to try new things (hint: if they have an email address, they’re slightly more likely to be more willing).

2. We then brought the Rutland Resolution to the next state committee meeting – not to be voted on, which would require all sorts of machinations to comply with by-laws and would have been killed before it went any further, but just as a point of discussion.
3. We used our personal email lists and made it a Democracy for Vermont project (it helps that some of us are on the DFV steering committee, but the important thing is for an established organization in the state to adopt it). We also used phone trees, and personal cajoling to get an overwhelming grassroots turnout at this meeting (in most states, it’s usually hard to get event the committee members to show up for meetings, this time the room was filled). The committee may be less likely to try to quash it if they have to do so in public.
4. When the meeting ended and people were milling around preparing to leave, people talked to the committee members from their own counties in person and ask for a special meeting to be called for their county to discuss and vote on it.  In addition, there was a county chairs working group immediately after, so we discussed it there, too. Not all counties chose to hold special meetings, but the majority did. The reticent counties may be more likely to vote in favor due to not wanting to look out of step.
5. After the meeting, we called and/or emailed all the county committees and asked for the date their committee would be meeting to vote on it and put together an excel spreadsheet to track county/date/result. After we had a few counties’ results, we pushed the results out through a couple of email groups.
6. Every week, we’ve sent out new results, with more words of encouragement to the remaining counties.
7. Simultaneously, we got the rules on how to require a new state committee meeting.  We’ve dotted all the i’s nd crossed all the t’s, and a special meeting is scheduled April 8, specifically to discuss and vote on the Resolution.  Barring either a blizzard or a 70-degree spring day that just can’t be ignored, the committee meeting is likely to be well-attended and some national press is planning to show up, so we hope the tendency to try to kill it by procedural means will be limited by the brightness of the spotlight.
8. Not resting on that, we know the state legislature is not going to take it up willingly, so, we’ve been working on candidates for various offices this coming November, trying to bring them around (a very slow process). We have also been chipping away at the current House and Senate membership, finding out who leans which way, and trying to get people who support it privately to agree to support it publicly if it gets there, while trying to get those who are wavering to at least agree not to stand in the way.
9. PLUS, we’ve put together a petition for redress to force the legislature to take it up once it gets through the committee. Note: If you are a Vermont resident and want the URL to the petition or a copy of it, send an email to bringvisibility*at*charter*dot*net. I’m not publishing the link here, because it’s for Vermont residents only.

——————-
Other Groups

1. Introducing non-binding resolutions at town meeting has been very powerful.  Many of these were entirely independent, uncoordinated efforts in different towns.  Many towns and cities in other states are likely to have town meetings/council meetins/whatever coming up over the next several weeks. Check the Secretary of State’s web site in your state for information on town and city governance and how voting occurs.

   The power of these meetings comes from the presence of the local press. One trick is to find towns where it is likely to be popular, and only bring it up in those, so press coverage is consistently about passage of the resolution. We haven’t had to do that in Vermont. I don’t know if it’s the strong independent streak among Vermont voters, but it seems they don’t like what they’re seeing and aren’t buying the Administration’s line.

   By-laws for the different towns and cities in your state will vary – some will allow non-binding resolutions, some won’t so you’ll need to mobilize a couple of people to call around to friends and relatives to figure out which are the friendly towns (in MA, Concord & Lexington might be a good start, for example), then find out from the town clerk or town moderator which of those will allow a resolution to be brought to the floor.

2. Any other kind of group at all: Treat the resolution somewhat like a petition and get members of various groups to adopt it – Quakers, Unitarians, and UCC churches, peace & justice groups, arts guilds, libtertarian groups (a big source of supporters), unions, etc. This is unlikely to get a lot of publicity, but will create “buzz” on the ground and build a broad support network.
   

   Note: you must be EXTREMELY careful working with non-profits.  This cannot be done as an organizational activity or they could lose their non-profit status.  Ask individual members of various organizations to ask their friends who are also members of those organizations to support the resolution. Depending on the specific form of legal organization, the organization itself may not be able to support it, since it is specific to a candidate: George Bush, and thus is a partisan activity. It’s best to play it safe. You can be just as effective.

   One way to do this is to hold an informational session nearby after one of their group meetings and have one of the group members announce to the group that the session will be taking place.

—————–
Publicity

1. Simultaneously, find a friendly columnist at a popular paper. For xample, in MA, in the Boston Globe, I bet E.J. Dione would be a good choice, or Mary McGrory, if she’s still there.  Peter Freyne at Seven Days in Burlington has been the one keeping this in the news in VT. He’s been including at least a little “aside” about it in most editions, if not devoting his column to it.
2. We’ve published several diaries on Daily Kos, occasionally coordinating with one another to try to get to the recommend list for at least a few minutes, and cross-posting to other blogs we might belong to.  Plus Green Mountain Daily, a popular blog in the state, has been running regular posts.
3. Get the folks who are most excited about it in each area to write letters to the editor of their LOCAL paper and the big papers. It’s the local coverage that will determine the flavor of articles in the big papers.  The more “pro” letters in the smaller (generally more conservative) papers, the better the coverage will be both in those papers and in the big ones.
4. The above combined is what brings the national attention: AP, NYT, Washington Post, Reuters, …

You’ll need at least 4 committed people to help you get this rolling and keep it on track.  You’ll need to divide up the effort and cajole each other to do your respective bits, despite the demands of your real lives.

—————–
Objections

We fairly consistently hear the following:

Practicality:

It’s impractical. It’ll never get anywhere, so your effort is wasted.

Response that seems to work:

Our legislators took one oath when they were sworn into office: to preserve and protect the United States Constitution. The oath said nothing about doing it only if it’s practical. It is our duty as citizens of this democracy to hold them to their oath.

Distraction:

It’s an election year, we don’t want to distract people from the elections. OR We have to focus on the people’s business, not some pie in the sky flight of fancy. (or equivalent)

Response that seems to work:

The people are bringing this to the legislature, because the people don’t think their representatives will do the job otherwise. Continuing to not do that job will make them put more energy into making it happen, not less. It’s better to let this train roll through the station.  Once it passes through, you can leverage all the networks that have been built to work even more effectively on those campaigns/issues/whatever.

Focus:

The focus is on Bush right now, and we want to keep it there. If we do this, the focus will shift to the Democrats (or impeachment, or …).

Response that seems to work:

Rove is going to do everything in his power to move the focus off of Bush no matter what. If we walk away from impeachment, he’ll focus on that.

So wouldn’t it be much better to use impeachment to turn the focus back onto the President?  When attacked, reply with something like: “Every patriotic American is deeply concerned about this President’s failure to uphold his sworn duty to the Constitution. It is a very serious matter and must be addressed.”

Let’s Just Support “x” Instead:

Conyers (or Feingold) already has something in the works, let’s just support that and get on with [whatever].

Response that seems to work:

Those are both great and we should support them as well, but this is an effort that gets the voters involved in the process in a way that gives them hope.  It is building strong coalitions, laying the groundwork for those other efforts to succeed, and is creating a volunteer base that can be leveraged at election time to get volunteers to help with campaigns – at least for those candidates that support it.

Administration Apologists
Here’s a three-fer.  The apologists have several primary reactions:

Frame = It’s Just Sour Grapes or Personal Dislike

“I don’t think we should be impeaching presidents because we disagree with them. Or something similar – the goal of the statement is to paint the impeachment movement as either childish, irresponsible, or cynical.

Response:

He is correct. But we should absolutely undertake impeachment when the President has violated the Constitution of the United States, admitted to it, and says he will continue to do so.

Frame = “It’s the Loonies”

This is being driven by “left-wing blogs and conspiracy theories. Or similar. The goal is to dismiss it as an out-of-the-mainstream concept.

Response:

When you’re as far right as this administration, of course everything looks like it’s from the left. But when the President himself admits to violating the Constitution, that’s an American problem, not a right or left problem. Every patriotic American knows that a President who fails to uphold his oath of office is not qualified to be President.

Frame = “There’s Nothing to See Here, Move Along”

Impeachment is “an extraordinarily serious action that they propose to take against the president of the United States in a time of war, based on actions he has taken to protect the United States from terrorism.” Or similar. The point of the frame is to imply that the current impeachment movement is a lark – rather than the deeply serious and gravely important action that it is.

Response:

The “time of war” argument did not work for President John Adams. It was James Madison, himself – author of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights – who wrote the Virginia Resolution in response to President Adams’ going too far. Thomas Jefferson joined Madison by writing the Kentucky resolutions.

Are they trying to tell us the Founding Fathers did not know what they were talking about?