Life is easier if you’re a pacifist.

No, really. Pacifism is a one-size-fits-all, absolute moral code. No warring, no-way, no-how. No cost-benefit equation, risk analysis, or elaborate moral criteria required. You can spend absolutely zero time hung up on the value of a given conflict and move on to other things.

I’ve never been a pacifist. Sure it’s appealing as a philosophy, but violence is – well – just one of many things that people do from where I sit, so the question to my mind is how does it fit within a moral framework. To the pacifist, it simply doesn’t.

When the first Gulf War was Bushed on us, I wasted no time signing up to assist potential young draftees with conscientious objecting, should it come to that. I stood on street corners in Lexington Kentucky protesting against the war to the jeers of many passersby, and I was appalled by the reports of so many supposed lefties who supported the effort.

That’s not to say I wasn’t sympathetic to the feelings that Saddam was a nasty, evil territorial aggressor that should be stopped – I was. The war just seemed like a bad solution on many levels.

Flash forward to Afghanistan. We knew who was behind the 9-11 attacks, and we knew where they were operating from. I couldn’t, in good conscience, not support a military strike against those locations to eliminate (or at least seriously retard) their ability to repeat the attack. And yes, you read that right – I used the word “conscience.” I did, however, feel profoundly uncomfortable with the expansion of that strike to include a mission of full-on regime change in Afghanistan-proper. Like many, I had asked myself whether or not the Taliban’s horrific actions against women merited military intervention. It seemed clear to me that it merited more international intervention of some sort than had been undertaken up to that point, but slipping it in as a freebie under what I saw as a more appropriate use of military force was not the way.

And then, of course, there was the Iraq War, god help us…

So here we’re faced with involvement in Libya. You’ve got a dictator who is legendarily brutal facing a truly homegrown resistance motivated by a desire for basic rights and freedom. The very motivations that have brought about so much of what is good in the human world. This resistance has started getting pummeled by the dictator who is using his considerable wealth to bring in outside mercenaries with whom he has cultivated long-term relationships with. ANd the resistance has spoken with unusual clarity to outsiders, specifically the US; please give us air support, but no ground troops.

Again, this is not an issue for pacifists – and I don’t say that to exclude them from the discussion, just to make the point that it’s a fundamentally different discussion to them. But for the rest of us anti-war lefties who can conceive of the concept of a “just war,” where does that leave us? Where does this Libyan engagement fit into that?

It helps a bit to look at history – I think most of us would consider the Civil War and World War II to be, at least to some degree, “just” wars. But again, it only helps a bit.

If you’re building a moral equation, there are a lot of variables to fit together:

• Is it a defensive or an offensive war?
• If it is waged in the defense of others, is it fundamentally an offensive or defensive war, or something else – and what would the moral character of that “something else” be?
• Can we rely on the information we are receiving with which we use to make our judgements of the action’s relative “justness?”
• What are the long-term consequences of a given degree of engagement?
• What do we stand to lose as a nation, or as a group of individual communities (separate things)?
• If it’s “right,” how moral is it to consider the various consequences?
• If there is a degree of “just” military engagement, what if we cannot trust our government not to engage further to an “unjust” degree once that door is opened? Should that matter in deciding on a morally acceptable degree of violent intervention?
• What about financial cost? Should that enter into a moral calculus?
• What is the moral quality of those we purport to intervene on behalf of? How much does that matter?
• How confident should we feel that our engagement would lead to an improvement in the short or long term if we choose to intervene?
• Do we, as a nation or culture, bear some responsibility for the situation that is now creating violence?

I feel like I could go on forever now that I’ve started, but I’ll just stop there and turn it over, because I don’t have any easy answers. I’ll admit, I’m not entirely sure how to feel about this engagement in Libya. I know that will horrify folks, but the situation itself seems morally clear – what is less clear is what the consequences of our involvement could be, and I’m still trying to work that out – as well as work out how much that matters, in a case where the good guy/bad guy equation really does seem so clear cut.

In all such things, I am primarily morally moved by the Golden Rule, and I do find myself wishing that, if the tables were turned, someone would intervene for me and mine.

Did I join the military when I was of age, though? Thought about it – but decided I would not join a force that was so regularly used for political purposes that I did not agree with. I always said if there were a military branch I could join that would only engage itself with the defense of our borders, I wouldn’t simply sign up, I would feel morally obligated to. But given that stand, do I have any business pretending to support any military intervention outside our borders at all?

Tricky stuff, and I bring it up to spur discussion, and fully expecting a range of viewpoints (or maybe not – what do I know?).

What do you think?

I’m sitting in the overflow room at the David W. Curtis awards, which is the big annual fund-raising event for Vermont Democrats. Turns out I have the media table to myself. Whodathunk?

It’s an interesting time to attend the annual see-and-be-seen event in Burlington. For the first time in a decade, Dems have it all; the House, the Senate, and the Governorship – and yet, it’s times like this that really bring the breadth of this party – for good and ill – into focus. In attendance is the Governor who steadfastly refuses to consider new taxes on wealthy Vermonters before looking at social service cuts. Also in attendance are the Democratic legislators who, despite the Governor’s position, are looking to new, progressively-taxed revenue to protect Vermonters from those cuts. And all of them working to bring universal health care to the state. Blue dogs are here, as is newly minted Democratic Senator Anthony Pollina. It brings the brave new political world into political focus.

Honored tonight are award winners Michael Obuchowski, Barbara MacIntyre and Arthur Berndt. Without question a worthy crop of recipients. All were ably introduced by David Curtis’ son, Vermont Legal Aid attorney Chris Curtis, who gave a great intro speech. I am among those who hopes Chris develops political ambitions. Great guy.

Below the fold for liveblogged observations as they come, including keynote speaker Al Franken…

7:52: Senator Leahy is up. made reference to Vermont showing up all the media who predicted early in the last election cycle that we’d elect a Republican Governor in 2010. Clearly he doesn’t read GMD enough. We predicted a Dem would emerge from that primary and be strengthened by it, ultimately being victorious.

Leahy is introducing Al Franken.

7:55. Bummer I left my flip camera in my car when I jumped in Caoimhin’s truck to come up here. Franken promised a Bernie impression.

Franken just told us how glad he was to be in Vermont “the state that borders both of the States where the shot heard round the world was fired.” Ha! Making fun of Sarah Palin never gets old.

He’s continuing with layers of comical a-history, leading up to a comment about how it all explains how we “know that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.”

8:00 Franken relates a list of similarities between Minnesota and Vermont, after noting VT Dems propensity for having Minnesota Senators speak at their fundraisers (Sen. Klobuchar was last year’s guest). List of comparative similarities ends with this laugh line about our shared tendency to elect folks outside the 2 party system: “How can you not gasp at the similarities between Jesse Ventura and Bernie Sanders.”

8:04 In the midst of being serious, he starts making jokes about running into Sen. Leahy at dead shows in the 70’s. Says he met Pat Leahy at a Boston Garden show in the early 70s when Marcelle Leahy was known as “Mountain Girl.” Big laughs.

8:07 References to the Wisconsin situation. He also encourages boos at the mention of “Citizens United.”

As far as Wisconsin goes, he states that passing the anti-worker law there broke the law.”

Also gets in a thank you to AFT, saying “efforts to build the foundation of a healthy early education for children … through expanding collective bargaining is commendable.” Much applause. Lots more comments promoting early childhood education. Beats up on Republicans for cutting Head Start.

8:17 “It has to be Democrats.” “It has to be us.” “It has to be us here in this room” to stand up for what’s right. Makes jokes to Bernie about how to categorize him… “you know, I don’t know your culture… I don’t know quite what to say about Bernie, here, but I’m gonna do an impression when I’m done here.”

8:19 Wraps. Does Bernie impression to much laughter. Can’t believe I left my flip camera. It’s pretty damn good. Little too gruff, but good.

8:22 Now Bernie’s up. Says he’s going to do a Franken impression (it was just a joke… at least that’s what I assume!). Thanks Chair Judy Bevans for doing a great job. Thanks crowd for “years of service in the democratic process, both big ‘d’ and small ‘d’.” Still blows my mind a bit to hear that from Bernie Sanders.

8:34 Losing battery…. gonna wrap soon. Sanders gets the crowd going. Warns of the barrage of advertising we can expect in this state as single payer advances, as big right wing interests want to scuttle it.

Unexpectedly, he calls for Yankee to be shut down, coupled with a renewable energy push.

After teasing the crowd again about his Franken impersonation, he closes by saying he’ll save it for next year.

8:37 Bevans introduces Peter Welch. He notes the huge turnout (definitely biggest ever…. people are pretty crammed in.)

Welch covers a lot of issues, spends a lot of time taking Republicans to task for attacks on Planned Parenthood.

10:58 – final update Back home now. Sorta got turned around there at the end with computers and web access and such. Shumlin spoke after Welch, then I slipped out. Good times, and we may have some video after all. Cross your fingers. Also, I’m trying to get a copy of Franken’s comments to post. Cross your other fingers.

At least a couple hundred early childhood education and care professionals are descending on the Statehouse today in support of H.97, which would empower them to form a non-traditional union to negotiate directly with the state on early care and education policy (such as subsidies, regulations, etc). Despite the fact that it seems like the bill should be a fairly straightforward act of fairness, there is some opposition to it.

So the message is positive, but there’s also some pushing back on the phony opposition claims in circulation about this bill, the biggest whopper of which is this idea that the bill would make early educators into public employees (as if the thousands of small business owners promoting this legislation would get behind that, good lord – if you’re gonna make something up about the bill, at least make something up that’s plausible). This legislation does one thing and one thing only; creates a structure that would allow early educators to organize if they choose to. It’s all about options, and about trusting professional people to have a say in their own destiny.

Here are some snippets from the greeting in Room 11 from Governor Shumlin and Speaker Smith, both of whom have been outspoken in their support of this effort (Once again, full disclosure: I’m doing some professional consulting on this effort).

UPDATE: Okay, so I was too busy to do much blogging, but I got tons of video which I’ll get out over the next couple days… after the flip is Senator Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) speaking at the press conference in favor of the bill.

Bernie Sanders, who sits on the Senate Budget Committee, held a press conference today to lay out in stark terms how some of the proposed budget cuts would impact Vermonters. He also used the opportunity to promote his bill that would close tax loopholes and create a 5.4 percent surtax on income over $1 million to provide for an “Emergency Deficit Reduction Fund.” It’s hard to imagine such legislation getting through, but it’s critical that such an approach continues to be part of any conversation on taxes and spending.

Here’s some information from the press release out of Bernie’s office:

The House-passed budget bill would throw 336 Vermont children off of Head Start and cut or eliminate Pell grants for 13,000 Vermont college students. The average Vermont college student would see their tuition assistance fall by $700.

In addition, some 37,000 Vermonters would lose access to primary health care because of a $1.3 billion cut to community health centers.

In cold weather states like Vermont, where temperatures sometimes fall to 20 below zero, home heating assistance is critically important.  Republicans would cut $400 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. They also would chop nutrition funding through the Women, Infants and Children program.

Joing Sanders at the presser were Hal Cohen, executive director of Central Vermont Community Action; Paul Behrman, Head Start director for the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity; Karen Madden, director, of academic support services at Johnson State College; Rebecca Ryan, director of health promotion at the Vermont Lung Association; and Dr. Stephen Reville, chief medical officer of Springfield Medical Systems.  

Think it’s too early for us to consider the 2012 election season underway? Not so, sez self-described “Republican Newspaper” the Caledonian Record. The same paper that warned us of the creeping Greenpeace hordes among us has, on March 11 of 2011, decided to make it’s first endorsement for election day 2012. From today’s editorial entitled “Salmon vs Sanders – Courageous, Shrewd, or Both?” (ooo… tough choice, almost as tough as “George W. Bush – Great president, or the greatest president?”):

We thoroughly approve Tom Salmon’s candidacy to replace Bernie Sanders. It has been painful for the past 12 years to know Vermont interests have had no representation in Sanders, first in the House, now in the Senate. Electing him and re-electing him has been a harmful exercise in political naiveté for Vermont. Replacing him with Tom Salmon will be an announcement that Vermont is back on the national scene.

(Note: Publisher Smith doesn’t approve of a Salmon candidacy, he simply “approves” it… guess it’s a go, then!)

This is truly teh awesome. It’s early March of the year before the election, and the Broken Record isn’t wasting any time, endorsing a candidate who hasn’t even announced a decision to run! I’m sure the meetings of the endorsement board were riveting exercises in critical thinking and cool, intellectual journalistic professionalism.

But in all seriousness, the Broke-Rec should be applauded for its efficiency and prophetic foresight. No doubt in coming weeks we can see more time-saving endorsements, such as:

• Thomas Lauzon, Governor 2012
• Sarah Palin, President 2012
• Sarah Palin, President 2016
• Bristol Palin, President 2020
• Ronald Reagan’s cloned brain, housed in a nuclear-powered bionic exoskeleton, President 2024

The NRC has voted to renew Vermont Yankee’s operating license. Frustrating, sure, but nobody seriously entertained the possibility that it would go any other way. The big fight will come with Entergy’s court challenge to the Vermont legislature’s power to regulate the licensing itself.

Here’s the to-the-point statement from Vermont’s Washington delegation on the relicensing:

“It should surprise no one that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has voted to extend Vermont Yankee’s license for another 20 years.  The NRC has never denied a nuclear plant an extension, and in fact has granted 62 straight license extensions.  We believe that Entergy should respect and abide by Vermont’s laws, which require approval from the Vermont Legislature, and then the Vermont Public Service Board, for the plant to continue to operate beyond 2012.”

No doubt some will level scorn, but I find this reassuring, if for no other reason that it sends a message to potential challengers that the incumbent Governor has no intention of sitting on his electoral laurels (electaurels?).

In the not-likely-coincidental-timing of only days after Barre Mayor Lauzon made noises about a potential gubernatorial run, Team Shumlin got out the following fundraising email just this morning, sent under the name of the Governor’s daughter, Becca. Click below the fold for the text (and then to discuss whether our nickname for the Governor should now officially be “Dad”… heh…).

Dear John,

There we were, as my dad would say, “Two kids from Putney” at the White House with President Obama and Michelle Obama. We had to pinch ourselves. When you helped elect my dad last November we knew things would change, but I didn’t believe change would come so quickly and I am not just talking about trips to the White House!

In his first 60 days in office, he has been focused tirelessly on the economic security of all Vermonters. Governor Shumlin sent the legislature a bill to stimulate manufacturing jobs, provide extensive job training and internships for young Vermonters, support efforts to strengthen healthy downtowns and create and protect good jobs for Vermont’s veterans and the long-term unemployed. This important action also combines efforts in the Agencies of Agriculture and Commerce for the first time so our important agricultural industry is finally part of our economic vision.

In addition to the jobs initiative, Governor Shumlin proposed a balanced budget that sets Vermont on a prudent fiscal path, and laid out a plan to provide broadband and cell phone service to all Vermonters by 2013.

And not least, he started tackling the biggest impediment to economic security and job growth facing our state: out of control health care costs. Shortly after taking office, my dad introduced a single-payer health care bill that lays the groundwork for controlling the skyrocketing costs by making our health care system simpler, fairer and more affordable. I can’t tell you how many times we have heard: “You can’t do single payer. You’ll never get the waivers from Washington.” Well recently, President Obama made his commitment clear when he announced his support for giving states the flexibility Vermont needs to implement our health care reforms by 2014. We’re making great progress!

Olivia and I think Dad is doing a great job; what do you think? Please reply to this email to thank Dad or tell him what you think about his first 60 days in office. His favorite part of being governor is meeting with Vermonters that have great ideas and stories to tell. If you are frustrated, let him know. If you have an idea, express it. Dad knows Vermonters involved in our political process make this state even stronger and all of us successful!

Thank you,

Becca Shumlin

P.S. I am also proud that Dad got McDonald’s to start using real Vermont maple syrup in their stores. Sometimes it is the little things that make a big impact. Just ask our sugarers!

“[fill-in-the-blanks] deserve better” is one of those phrases that’s become so hackneyed, it should be banned from political press releases. It was on display again from the Vermont GOP lamenting the fact that Governor Shumlin has gone on vacation to an “undisclosed location.” Apparently, “Vermonters deserve better” than to not know where there Governor is…at… any given moment…?

What-ever. It’s the “Vermont GOP,” which is sort of like being the “McDonald’s vegan director” these days, so I can’t begrudge them going for something. All Vermonters-deserve-better silliness aside, though, it does make one wonder. Why would Shumlin withhold details of where he’s going on vacation? Not even Presidents, Kings and Prime Ministers feel the need to do that, after all. I mean, what – he’s afraid of roving bands of nomadic woodchuck paparazzi?

All I can figure is that there must be something he finds embarrassing about the destination, so he preferred to keep it to himself… and if that’s true, the mind just boggles, don’t it? Hmmmm…

A Star Trek convention, perhaps? Nah, I don’t see it (sadly). Maybe Pete’s a high roller and is hittin’ the tables in Vegas? Maybe he’s vacationing in Iowa (and we all know what that means)? On the other hand, maybe he’s going to pop up visiting the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan with no warning, as his predecessor did. What do you think? What destination would our Chief Executive like to keep to himself?

The following was testimony recently given to the House Human Services committee on H.97, the bill that would allow early education and care providers in both centers and private homes to organize as a non-traditional union that would bargain with the sate directly on policy relating to pre-K and their profession.

The testimony was delivered by Dawn Gieseke, director of Rainbow Playschool in Woodstock. (Again, full disclosure: I’m doing consulting work in support of this bill, which would be a huge step forward for labor and working folks in Vermont, just as they are under attack in other parts of the country):

I feel the need to define early childhood educators. We have often been referred to as babysitters (I am not sure if that reflects a very high opinion of babysitters or a very low opinion of early educators!) We are educated and experienced people working for the families in the communities of Vermont. We have a high work ethic and value what we do. In my center, every person holds a degree and meets or surpasses regulation for continuing education. We know quality, the people we work with, and the families we work for. We can provide the information that is essential to effective and productive decision-making. We need to have a voice at the table

About seven months ago, I received a visit from an AFT representative who told me that organizers would be coming around to learn about what Early Childhood Educators wanted to achieve in Vermont. At first, I was very skeptical. They used that word “Union” and it made me nervous.  I eventually met a few organizers. My skepticism quickly vanished as each one visited. I listened to them – listening didn’t mean I had to commit to anything, nor did it cost me anything. The organizers were always respectful of my time and answered all my questions. I was impressed by the fact that they all had the same answers and they were all on the same page. I didn’t feel that anything was being kept from me (they were not trying to get anything past me.) I attended some meetings with other providers. I realized that this growing group was more than just a professional organization getting together to discuss issues of the trade. The energy, commitment, and expertise of this group really had the power to effect change in our state – to improve the quality of child care in Vermont. If H.97 passes, then we will be able to come together and really effect change – not just make suggestions, but really have the power to make decisions that will benefit the children by improving the delivery of child care and education services.

Challenges of the Profession

There are many challenges that we face in our profession. Having a voice at the table can help us work to overcome those challenges.

· 40% turnover rate

o This is not just an economic issue for the individual providers who come into the high-pressure profession; it is an issue of quality education for the children. Consistency in care givers is extremely important. From my experience and contacts with child care workers, I know that part of the reason for the high turnover rate is the lack of respect for this profession. We have a lot of respect for each other (we know how educated, talented, and committed we are) – we need the respect from the rest of the community. A seat at the table will show us that the state knows what we already know – we have something of significant value to offer to the state in its role in policy-making decisions. We know the day-to-day challenges and successes.

· In 83% of Vermont families, both parents work.

o Child care is not a privilege, it is a necessity. The need for high quality child care has changed dramatically over the last several decades – the need has never been stronger than now. H.97 is very timely in that we, as early educators, can really make a difference by lending our expertise and knowledge to the policy process.

· We are connected to parents in our communities in a way that cannot be replicated

o One of the most important things that we bring to the table is our connection to the parents. We know what they are looking for in their children, and what the needs are of working families. We are there with the children everyday – that makes us the experts in this area. When given the chance, we will continue to make the children and families that we serve our top priority. It’s what we do already, but H.97 allows us to advocate for our families in a more effective way.

Examples of Changing Outcomes

If H.97 passes, child care workers will be able to effect change in many different areas of child care services. Here are some examples:

· Regulations – We will be able to contribute to the regulations under which we operate. Making them direct and clear to providers and parents.

o An example of where we could have been very effective involves a regulation related to napping. This is an area where there are 2 regulations that are in direct conflict with each other and they actually cancel each other out. This is something that could have been avoided if, in the development of the regulation, child care workers who are actually performing the day-to-day work could have been a knowledgeable and informative voice at the table.

· Professional development

o In 2009, charitable foundations in Vermont commissioned “A Study on Early Care and Education in Vermont.” The study found that “state-sponsored professional development efforts geared toward licensure and apprenticeships, while promising, also reach relatively small numbers of early childhood educators.” This is another area in which we can contribute to the decisions made regarding the professional development needs of our profession.

Speaking as a current Center Director and former Home Care Provider, it just makes sense to give us a seat at the table. It will only benefit the state’s role in regulating and supporting child care quality and services.

It’s Town Meeting Day, and there are no votes this year to secede from the third dimension, or defund the smurfs, or draw up a warrant for the arrest of Garrison Keillor (but that last one is only true ‘cuz I’ve had too much other stuff on my plate… man, am I tired of that guy). All of which makes for a less colorful than usual TMD.

Here in Montpelier, we do the ballot thing rather than a meeting, and on my ballot is a contest to fill the spot of retiring District 3 City Councilor, Jim Sheridan. Two candidates are vying for the office: James Merriam and Angela MacDonald-Timpone, both political newbies.

But whereas I’m usually thrilled to see new faces in the process, this time around I’m annoyed. Why? Because in a district of a town this size, somebody should have asked for my vote. Directly (via a door knock or phone call, or even email) is not necessary. A door hanger, or even a comment from a designated proxy would do. But I haven’t heard a thing, and at the risk of sounding petty, that bothers me. It sends any one of several possible messages – and none of them are good. Maybe the candidates felt like they didn’t have to bother, maybe they felt that they were entitled to the office, maybe they just didn’t take it seriously enough, or maybe the issue was just laziness. I really don’t know.

Part of getting involved in local elections is electioneering. It’s not enough to think the job would be cool, or even to think you’d be cool in the job. Campaigning is, simply, part of the job description. And it’s not just an inconvenience or a ritual, it truly is part of the job. It’s part of getting to know your constituents, part of keeping them informed and bringing them into the process. That need becomes even more pronounced when, as in this case, the two look to be ideologically compatible (to the limited extent there is information on them available online and in print).

But it’s also just about simple respect. Respect for the process, for democracy. You expect my vote, well, at least do something to tell me why you deserve it – something active. Something more than the easy stuff (e.g. talking to a reporter and showing up to a forum). You need to get retail.

One of these two is going to win today, and I ain’t gonna be thrilled about it either way. Maybe next election, whoever-it-is can let me have some sense of why I should be.