All posts by Sue Prent

About Sue Prent

Artist/Writer/Activist living in St. Albans, Vermont with my husband since 1983. I was born in Chicago; moved to Montreal in 1969; lived there and in Berlin, W. Germany until we finally settled in St. Albans.

Right-wing Nationalism gets an all-American makeover

Donald Trump remains hugely popular among the Republican base, despite the fact that he advocates for forced deportation of eleven-million of our neighbors.

There is an odd disconnect involved in that popularity.

Republican extremists have grown almost casual about invoking the memory of Hitler’s atrocities when opposing Obama’s healthcare initiatives, sensible gun control or just about any aspect of government administration they’d like to eliminate; yet, these same people seem completely unaware of the uncomfortable parallel between Trump’s mass deportation plan and the Third Reich’s final solution to the “Jewish problem.”

His principle rival for the nomination, Ben Carson, insists that “religious freedom” must be protected for those who would obstruct a same-sex couple’s right to marry. That concern for “religious freedom” apparently ends abruptly when it comes to the rights of people other than Christians.

Carson has actually said that being Muslim should disqualify a candidate for president.  He doesn’t think mass deportation is such a good idea, but only because it would cause a “hardship”  for the employers of this cheap labor force.

Judging by Trump and Carson’s popularity, Republicans don’t particularly want their ranks to grow if it means accepting people who hail from different cultures and belief systems. That’s because we are the best country in the world and our ‘greatness’ should be  reserved only for the chosen elite.

Way back in my high school Sociology class, we learned all about “nationalism.” It wasn’t a nice word or a pretty story.

The Nuremberg Tribunals were still fresh in the horrified public consciousness. It was clear at the time that the German people had paid a terrible price for being susceptible to nationalistic overreach and xenophobia.

Where were people like Donald Trump, Ben Carson and their followers when those lessons were being taught?

(BTW: Does anybody teach Sociology in high school anymore?)

How is it that they can even think they have a greater right to live on U.S. soil than do the 11 million people who would be displaced? Europeans forcibly took this land from the indigenous peoples so recently that their great-grandchildren are still actively seeking redress.

I lived in West Berlin for a couple of years, barely thirty years after Hitler’s death. Older neighborhoods were still pockmarked from war, and rubble remained a common sight.

The towering walls of Tempelhof Airport, pride of the Third Reich, bore crudely chiseled scars where giant stone swastikas had been unceremoniously removed. You could almost imagine the rows of gigantic red, white and black flags swaying overhead.

Berliners whom  I met there (at least those who could be persuaded to talk about it) recoiled from the nationalism of their country’s recent past.  We heard young people wonder aloud about their parents’ past; and when the wine flowed freely the sad question of peripheral culpability was inevitable.

I learned to regard showy displays of patriotism with discomfort; and when I turned a corner recently in St. Albans to suddenly face a forty-foot American flag, I involuntarily shuddered.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the myth of American exceptionalism, with all of its nationalistic trappings, was dusted off and given a new coat of patriotic paint. We immediately forgot about our slave-owner history, Hiroshima, the McCarthy Witchhunt, Segregation, Wounded Knee, the My Lai Massacre and Watergate.  We were the good guys; anyone who wasn’t with us was against us.

Fourteen years later, what has all the neo-con swagger gotten us: an exponential growth in global enemies and the resurgence of prejudice, fear and ignorance at home.

If we are to believe the polls, at least a third of American voters are prepared, as German voters once were, to endorse the xenophobic ravings of a narcissistic sociopath who promises them greatness.

Terrifying.

Updated: Climate Courage (and foolishness)

Yesterday, while environmentalists  were focused on the much trumpeted Keystone XL decision,  the White House apparently held a stealth ‘Summit on Nuclear Energy’ to which only proponents appear to have been invited.  The upshot is an administration commitment to greater reliance on nuclear energy.  There appears to have been no interest spent on the toxic stockpiling of nuclear waste that will be our nuclear legacy.

This is a variation on the ol’ bait and switch move: using the Keystone XL decision as protective cover for a decidedly less attractive agenda.   ___________________________________________________________________

We can’t let this day pass without commenting on President Obama’s announcement that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline on behalf of the American people.

For all of my differences with  Mr. Obama’s foreign policy decisions, I have nothing but respect for this further demonstration of his determination to reclaim  a bit of the progressive mantle in his final two years as president.   No ’lame duck’ he!

In the long run, it is quite possible that this will become the most important decision of his presidency.

Deprived of this cheap form of transport through the U.S., and in combination with plummeting oil prices, will tar sands oil deposits become less attractive for exploitation?  It is just possible that failure of the pipeline will have an inhibiting effect on the industry; long enough, one might hope, for Canada to come to its senses about the environmental calamity the practice represents.

It’s a small climate victory, but the President’s framing of the decision gives one hope that we can look forward to more progress on climate change initiatives.

I was disappointed to read that none of Vermont’s gubernatorial candidates will support  carbon tax legislation. I think that is a real shame. It would take courage to do so, but I, for one, would have supported the brave candidate who stepped up to that responsibility.

Cultural Mysogyny and the Defense of Norm McAllister

Well it appears that Norm McAllister may soon face his fellow Senators in an expulsion hearing initiated by fellow Republican Senator Joe Benning, who makes a very effective case for expulsion in this editorial.

It’s fairly clear from Senator Benning’s words that he appreciates the over-arching issue that too many still seem to ignore: Mr. McAllister admits to having sex with his teenaged employee.

That is just plain wrong.

The wrong is amplified by the fact that Mr. McAllister has sworn an oath to serve and protect his constituents, one of whom is that child.

Others, including his fellow Franklin County Republican senator, Dustin Degree, say they will support the expulsion, but only because Mr. McAllister, having earlier been stripped of his committee assignments, has lost his ability to effectively represent the interests of his constituents at the Statehouse.

Beyond that, Sen. Degree and others say that Mr. McAllister is “innocent” until proven guilty of the charges in a court of law.

That position ignores his own admission of having violated someone whom most of us would readily regard as a child.

Mr. McAllister apparently debates the exact age at which he began forcing himself on her, insisting that she was “at least sixteen;” but does that make it any less an act of abuse?

This reluctance to judge Mr. McAllister in the court of public opinion is very puzzling to me, since it is routinely done to less influential individuals under far less damning circumstances.

As a woman, I cannot help but wonder whether or not, if the young victim were male rather than female, outrage concerning the magnitude of Mr. McAllister’s admitted violation would be greater.

If Mr. McAllister had violated a sixteen year old boy who worked on his farm, I suspect he would have been publicly shunned as soon as the news became public.

As things now stand, Mr. McAllister feels free to stroll around the county fair as if nothing had happened, insisting on his innocence.  According to online comments, some people apparently wish to see him completely exonerated; they’re talking about ‘poor Norm McAllister’ and the injustice of it all.

Because his victim was a female there seems to be a question in some people’s minds as to whether or not what this 70-year old man did could technically be regarded as rape.

Something in the culture suggests to them that sixteen-year-old girls can give their consent to violation by employers who are old enough to be their grandfathers.

What that says about some of my neighbors I find truly disturbing.

Trying on Juanita Jean’s

I promised myself a while back that once Green Mountain Daily had completed its makeover, I would share a delightful discovery with our readers:

 Juanita Jean’s: The World’s Most Dangerous Beauty Salon

Juanita Jean’s is a progressive Texan blog site that gives conclusive proof that not only are there actual liberals living in latter day Texas, but they’re way funnier than Vermont liberals.

I have our own local shaminal, Norm McAllister, to thank for this discovery; because I found it in a Google search for any mention of that accused sex-offender, way back last summer.

Since then, I have visited Juanita Jeans’ almost daily, just to cheer me up.

Think of all the times you’ve heard some right-wing Texas nut job talk about seceding from the Union.

If you, like me, have found yourself ruefully wishing for the same, Juanita Jeans’ may give you second thoughts.

The best comedy always comes from the edge of absurdity, and Texas liberals have that in spades!

Case in point: Fun With Guns: What Was You Thinking Edition

If the folks who have survived drought, tornadoes and  Tom Delay still have their sense of humor, maybe we smug Vermont liberals could spare a few more laughs.

Secretary Condos’ Third Transparency Tour is on the road

Republican gubernatorial hopeful, Bruce Lisman likes to style himself a big proponent of transparency in government, but well before Lisman fledged in the Vermont political sphere (rather UN-transparently as a ‘non-partisan’) Secretary of State Jim Condos (D) had that advocacy niche all sewn-up.

Condos is now midway through his third Statewide Transparency Tour, in which he brings the principles of open government right to the local public officers who are charged with upholding those principals and the citizens who depend on them to do so.

Being a veteran attendee of two of these tours, I can tell you that the subject never grows old for me, and there continues to be a pressing need, at least in my county, to revisit the subject over and over again. ‘Wish that weren’t so, but there it is.

To quote Secretary Condos:

“Good government is open and transparent government! The tour will not only allow me to assist Vermont’s public officials who must abide by these open meeting and public record laws every day, but also explain these laws to citizens who are looking to hold their governments accountable.”

There is an opportunity for questions, and answers and for public discussion. Ever questioned the decision-making process in your town? This is your opportunity to speak up.

I hope we’ll see more elected officials in attendance this time around.

If you haven’t had a chance to hear Condos on one of his transparency tours, I urge you to take advantage of the remaining opportunities in the current schedule:

(All events run from 6-8 PM)

Tues. Nov. 3 at the St. Albans Town Hall at 579 Lake Rd.

Wed. Nov. 4 at the Stowe Free Library, 90 Pond St.

Mon. Nov. 9 at the Brattleboro Town Hall, Selectboard Meet. Rm, 230 Main St.

Tues. Nov. 10 at the St. Johnsbury Middle School Auditorium, 257 Western Ave.

Thurs. Nov. 12   Lisley Public Library, Community Room, 43 Portland St. Midlebury

Mon. Nov. 16 at the Bennington Fire Facility, 130 River St.

Tues. Nov. 17 at the Rutland Free Library, Fox Room, 10 Court St.

Will McAllister Get the Heave-Ho?

Finally, someone within the Republican Party is stepping up to demand expulsion of their disgraced Franklin County Senator, Norm McAllister.

Citing disappointment that McAllister does not appear willing to live up to his promise to resign voluntarily by November 1, Sen. Joe Benning (R-Caledonia) says he will file a motion seeking McAllister’s expulsion on this coming Monday, November 2.

My first question is: why has it taken so long for anyone to show true leadership on the McAllister situation, when shockingly straightforward evidence that he violated community standards as well as his oath of office has been a matter of public record for months?

Almost equally pressing is the question of why it was left to a Republican from Caledonia county to administer the coup de gras.

Since McAllister’s indecencies were committed against Franklin County constituents and his refusal to resign made collateral victims of all Franklin County citizens, most especially Franklin County women, it was up to the Franklin County GOP to force McAllister out of the Senate without delay.

For Franklin County Republicans to just stand by for six months, wringing their hands ineffectually, speaks volumes about the leadership void the County suffers under Republican domination.

Franklin County’s only other state senator, Republican Dustin Degree was quoted in last Wednesday’s Messenger as saying he would vote to expel McAllister if it came to a vote.

The reason he gave had nothing to do with the fact that McAllister had sexually victimized at least two vulnerable women, nor that he had admitted to having sex with his teenaged ‘intern.’

“For me, it’s really about insuring the folks up our way have the representation they deserve, that they are constitutionally entitled to.”

The very next day, to Vermont Digger, Degree seemed to be singing a slightly different tune.

Degree revealed that he had opposed stripping McAllister of his committee assignments last spring in the wake of the freshly laid charges.

As for his constituents? Degree seemed largely ignorant of the disgust and outrage that I personally have witnessed percolating through the community among Democrats, Republicans and those who would bring a pox on both their houses.

“It’s a topic of conversation for some people, and there are certainly folks who are vehement on both sides,” Degree said. “I think a majority of folks are reserving judgement and seeing how the process plays out.”      

                                                                                                                                                                                
I have heard a lot of sound and fury about how he should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and lacking conclusive public evidence of his violations in the form of recorded admissions of guilt, I would have certainly agreed.

However, we have that conclusive evidence from the telephone conversations recorded by States Attorney Jim Hughes in which McAllister discusses the acts and circumstances with two of the victims.

McAllister’s trial isn’t expected to take place before spring, and could very well be delayed even longer. That is no reason to hold the population of Franklin County hostage to diminished representation in Montpelier for an indeterminate length of time.

It is a complete misunderstanding of the difference between Mr. McAllister’s right to a fair trial on criminal charges, and his service as a State Senator under the rules of the Legislature. The two are completely separate matters.

As I have said over and over again, McAllister has no ‘right’ to his senate seat. He has had the privilege of occupying that seat at the behest of Franklin County voters who retain all of the rights associated with elected officeholders.

Once Mr. McAllister has been duly ejected, it will be time to look a little deeper into the matter of who knew what and when about the teenaged ‘intern.’

With two other legislators sharing McAllister’s living accommodations, where other legislators probably dropped by on occasions, it defies belief that no one ever remarked on the extreme youth of Mr. McAllister’s companion and the fact that she disappeared into the same room with the 70-year old legislator to sleep at night.

Anyone who is so uncurious or unobservant is arguably unsuited to representing the people’s interests at the State House.

Interlude 2: Shameless Self-Promotion 1

I’ve just got to share a link to “Searching for Bernie,” a new podcast series that promises to track the Bernie Sanders phenomena as it unfolds on the campaign trail.

http://searchingforbernie.us

The “shameless self-promotion” part is where I will be featured in one of the upcoming segments.

A couple of months ago, I received an email request for an interview from journalist Alan Mairson, who describes himself thusly:

I’m a freelance journalist, a former staff writer and editor for National Geographic magazine, a husband, a dad, and a lifelong Boston Red Sox fan. I’m also not much of a Lefty or a progressive. I’ve never considered myself a democratic socialist. I tend to be suspicious of large groups of people who gather under a single banner, any banner, to do virtually anything. I’m not a big joiner, and I’m certainly no revolutionary…

Alan had come across one of my GMD diaries discussing Bernie’s appeal, over the years, to Vermonters, and he asked if he could interview me over Skype for his podcast series that was then in development.  

He explained that he and his teenage son, Caleb, who will be a first-time voter in the 2016 election, were setting out on a shared experience in practical democracy, pounding the boards on the campaign trail in Iowa.  

After hearing Bernie speak and “Feeling the Bern” first hand,  they signed on to ring doorbells and make phone calls as campaign volunteers.  At the same time, Alan would be collecting and editing interviews for the podcast series.

That series has just premiered with the ‘Welcome’ and first interview episodes, which are very professionally framed, edited and presented with stirring impact.

The production schedule is apparently lagging a bit due to the other commitments that have emerged for the two volunteers; but any of us who have ever volunteered for Bernie know all about how that goes.  One quickly comes to appreciate how much of the success of this aspirational campaign rests on the shoulders of committed individuals.

My own interview with Alan was a delightful experience for me, and I hope it will bring something of use to his undertaking.

It made me feel that I was able to play a small role in capturing the excitement of this audacious attempt to move mountains of well-oiled political machinery using just the collective will of the people.

Look for my interview on Searching for Bernie, sometime in the coming weeks (months?), and keep checking Green Mountain Daily for it’s upcoming makeover and re-boot.

Interlude

We interrupt this brief sabbatical to say a word or two about today’s announcement that perennial GMD amusement, Bruce Lisman will enter the governor’s race as a…(drum-roll please)…REPUBLICAN!

Yes, Mr. Non-Partisan has finally traded his dog-whistle for a bright red soapbox; surprising no one.

We all knew what his tepid speechifying was leading to; ‘when’ was the only question.

Phil Scott’s presumed lock on the Republican nomination not withstanding, 2016 is really the best opportunity that Mr. Lisman will have to enter the arena, in the foreseeable future.

And what about that lock by the Lieutenant Governor? Could Lisman sense that Franklin County bad-boy Senator Norm McAllister’s refusal to go gracefully has party regulars up for a bruising in 2016?

As a political newcomer, Lisman can present himself as the clean-slate Republicans should flock to in the wake of Phil Scott’s demonstrated lack of leadership over the McAllister affair.  (No pun intended.)

In a year when Trump-fueled crazy has taken a decidedly anti-Wall Street turn in the Republican Party, it would not seem beneficial to have as one’s primary credentials, executive service at Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Global Equities; but I never could understand how the Republican denial factory works, anyway.

Republicans should have an interesting 2016, as Lisman squares off with Scott and the Franklin County GOP is forced to face their own inaction with regard to McAllister and all of the social hypocrisy that is involved.

Make no mistake about it, even though the citizen-led effort to unseat McAllister has so far been deliberately non-partisan in tone; come campaign time, the gloves are off!

Republicans have had ample time since the end of April to put their house in order.

Wherefore Donald Trump?

I freely admit that I watched last week’s Republican debate for the same reason that much of America did: to witness the spectacle that is Donald Trump.  We were not disappointed.

But in the post debate kerfuffle over DT’s predictably offensive behavior, one rather incisive observation that he made has been completely overlooked.  That is a shame because, in context, it held the seminal truth about our twenty-first century “democracy,” and he deserves credit for acknowledging the elephant in the room.  No pun intended.

I can only paraphrase because the words came out in his signature fountain of incomplete thoughts and hyperbole; but I cling to the hope that it was intentional truth telling and not just his id on overdrive once again.

He said something about giving money to “all “of the candidates, as well as to the Clintons and to “everyone”…because he is a businessman and that is how business gets done.  I believe he even said that that was exactly the problem in Washington, and why he is running for president.

Lord, let it be so.

Wouldn’t it be something if Trump’s candidacy wasn’t merely the whim of a rich, selfish media junky but an intentional act of social sabotage intended to graphically demonstrate how money buys elections and, ultimately, policy on Capitol Hill?

Why have those remarks attracted absolutely no media attention?  

True, they could have been just more Trump-style free-association, spit-balling for the cameras; but plenty of other things he said, apparently with no more measured consideration, have generated endless discussion, follow-up interviews and analysis.

Is the media so completely in the tank for spectacle that they can’t see a story of potential substance when it bites them on the nose?

Trump’s made noises many, many times over the years about joining the presidential cattle call; but only now, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, with sixteen other contenders on his flanks, does he actually enter the ring.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that Trump doesn’t actually think he’d make a pretty damned grand president; but he is first and foremost about always coming out on top.  It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if, once the RNC finally shows him the door, he doesn’t come back with a claim that he did it all to shine a bright light on the role that money plays in bending democracy into the mold of oligarchy.

I, personally, would applaud the effort if he did.