( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Last week, when a box was left alone on the sidewalk on Langdon Street in downtown Montpelier, it was occasion for us to witness the full resources of the State of Vermont’s capacity to respond to the specter of an immanent threat to the safety of her people.  City police closed off a full city block on Main Street, area businesses were told no one could come in or out*, and the State Police bomb squad was called in to handle the situation.  As I understand it, first a robot took an x-ray of the suspicious box- which confirmed there was no bomb inside.  But from there, apparently, the various police agencies involved (presumably including Federal) decided that since they’d gone to all the trouble of being there, the thing that made the most sense was to continue to keep a large section of downtown closed off and use their robot to fire at the box and open it.  The whole incident took something in the order of three hours, perhaps a hair more.

*Curiously, while the block was closed a few hundred feet towards School Street, and a lessor distance towards State Street, police personnel lingering on Langdon Street itself- including the Bomb Squad’s truck- seemed significantly closer to the theoretically dangerous cardboard.  Even more questionable, from the perspective of protecting ordinary citizens, is that businesses within the closed off block were not evacuated, but merely told no one could enter or exit.  Clearly this speaks to the level of danger that authorities understood the situation to entail; and if not that, then a level of ineptitude in protecting us that should be called in to question.

Of course, no reasonable person would suggest there is certainty to the idea that no one would ever find occasion to leave a random bomb in a box on a sidewalk in a sleepy town of 8,000 nestled in what, by the standards of the vast majority of the population, is the middle of fucking no where.  At various points in history it was nearly impossible to imagine an end to the reign of the Tsars in Russia, or for a human being to walk on the moon, or for a million other things.  The point being that we’re better served, perhaps, by looking at what’s possible in terms of probability rather than certainty.

With all this in mind, those we elect to lead us and shape our society (and subsequently those who they put in charge of things such as our “security”) take quite seriously the possibility that someone, for some reason, at some point, could be interested in leaving just such a bomb in just such a random location.  For exactly this reason the Bomb Squad was called to Montpelier last week.  Yet it seems that at some point during the events of May 2 in Montpelier these police forces knew with some degree of certainty that there was no threat (the box ended up containing a pile of books).

I’ll detour for a quick second here to lambast that continually easy target: the media.  They have dutifully reported the facts of the incident (who, what, where, when), but as for what I’ve seen, have asked not a single question regarding the logic of what transpired.  This strict obedience to the Official story, and unwillingness to engage the population in a manner which asks us to question the actions of the State or even- god forbid- question the logic of our fearless leaders and institutions, is a complete betrayal of the very concept of a free press.  And without the diligence of the Forth Estate to educate and antagonize, I’d suggest the very possibility of a free, (a progressing, growing and maturing society) is practically dead in the water.

But yes.  Protecting the people.  This is, of course, the very premise of the police and “security” for society.  But I can’t help but use the “bomb scare” in Montpelier (um, I have yet to talk to anyone who was actually scared or believed the box contained anything likely dangerous) (but perhaps some of our more conservative friends would take this time to opine about the dangers of some books- these were, after all, something called “The Vermont Parent’s Home Guide” or something like that- could be some commie BS) as an opportunity to question where and how we allocate our resources.  If nearly anything is possible, and just comes down to a matter of probability, it would seem we would be best served to direct and consentrate our limited resources towards areas in which we know there to be higher instances of actual danger to society.  Here are some things far more likely to kill a U.S. citizen than a terrorist attack.  In fact, we’re eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist(1).  If we have a societal interest in protecting ourselves (which, of course we do) then our trust of the police is far, far less rational than our fear of terrorism.  If we have limited resources, shouldn’t we prioritize addressing things that are more dangerous over things that are less likely?

While it’s just hearsay, the only word on the street I’ve heard regarding how this lonely box of books became victim of police robot violence involves a vague and random threat/utterance from a mentally unstable person (Montpelier seems to have more then its fair share of such folks wondering around the streets).  It’s not worth harping on, since it’s not a known fact that this is true, but perhaps a sharper focus on resources to aid and care for people with mental disorders or deficiencies would be a smarter- and more efficient- use of than all the bomb squads and police robots.

All things considered, there are countless threats to the safety and health and wellbeing of us all.  We come together, as a social species, specifically to bring our resources together and provide for a more plentiful and safe and fulfilling world for all of us.  The question remains though, in what manner should we allocate said resources? Where are they most effective for creating the greatest outcome for the greatest number of us?  Blindly acting out of fear, instead of thoughtfully considering what are in fact the most realistic and most dangerous threats we face, and then focusing our efforts accordingly, would seem to me to be highly questionable manners of behaving.

(As we are all still processing this tragedy, I expect many will share here when they are ready. Here’s a start.   – promoted by JDRyan)

I know this isn’t necessarily the very best place for this, but I just have so many thoughts and feelings after the shooting yesterday in Connecticut and I’d like to get them out.  Maybe it’s because I live in the Northeast, or because I grew up in Connecticut not far from where the shooting happened (and still have a lot of friends and family down there) but the outpouring of grief and shock (and really reactions of almost every kind) that I see over Twitter and Facebook seems extraordinary.  Seemingly this event, in my little world, has affected people more than any other in recent memory.  

The sickness in so many of our hearts right now makes sense to me.  While I’m sure there are details coming out that I do not yet know of (I’ve stayed away from the news coverage, and have pretty much just been on Facebook and Twitter), the random and senseless killing of so many small children- and so many people in general- in a place that we tend to think of as safe (an elementary school) is just heart breaking.  The needless loss of something so innocent and precious as a child’s life is heavy enough, but then one thinks of all that these family’s will be enduring, and even more heartbreaking, during a time of the year when so much of our attention is on joy and sharing and being with family and loved ones.  To be honest, my heart is just so heavy thinking of it all, thinking of the needlessness and pointlessness of such suffering.  Then I think of the trauma that the surviving children, and teachers, and parents, and the community will have to try to process and move through.  My stomach was churning all of yesterday, and last night as I watched my own daughter it all just brought a near numbness to my entire being.  Hundreds of miles away, and yet, will I ever thoughtlessly (stressless-ly) drop her off at pre-school again? Is there any sense in feeding the anxiety’s that appear when one begins to go through all the possible nightmares that await around each or any corner?  Is it possible to ignore such feelings? The tears that well-up are the only softness that dulls desolation.  Yet hopelessness and despair and fear are never the most fitting response- to anything- and were likely the very seeds that began this tragedy, so I try my best to watch those feelings arise, recognize them for what they are and the trouble they bring with them, and I wait patiently for calm and clarity and strength to slowly re-warm by body and my thoughts.

So many will, or are, saying “Now isn’t the time to bring up political issues”, “Do not politicize this tragedy” and the like.  There seems to me no appropriate “politicizing” of someone’s individual experience; their loss and the tremendous suffering of those directly involved.  Yet aren’t politics specifically the results of everything we do or allow? or at least our reactions to the events around us?  It seems most obvious that when someone choses to act in such a vicious, horrific manner such as this it’s exactly the time to ask where and how such a person can or should have access to the kinds of weapons he used to carry out the mass murder of so many people, so many children, and to ask what can we do in our communities and our society to identify and provide help for people with such homicidal notions.  Political decisions allowed this person access to the kinds of weapons used to murder 20 young children.  Political decisions perpetuate a system of health care which is incapable of preemptively identifying people with severe mental illness and has a poor record of providing quality services and aid to help such people cope with their troubles.  It is our politics itself which defines a world in which anyone feels not only the urge to act in such a way, but feels that urge strong enough to act- feels that such an action is somehow justified, and right.

The people in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Iraq, and Gaza (and so many other places) live with this very same kind of fear and anxiety, and grief and heartache for lost loved ones- lost children- continually.  What’s the difference between a soldier carrying out the orders of sociopaths who have no regard for the lives of others in the pursuit of their aims and someone who behaves such themselves alone?  Is it really reasonable to be devastated when such violence comes to our own communities yet to allow and accept that in our names our government regularly commits the very same kinds of violence against innocent people?  If you begin to answer this question with some kind of justification for our own “safety” from supposedly violent terrorists or sociopaths bent on “killing Americans”, I’m afraid it may be that your own self-interests aren’t too far from the very feelings that led the killer in CT to act in exactly the same way- to justify the murder of innocent lives to do what he believed best served his own interests.  Perhaps that is why our nation has lived through this kind of event before, and will live through it again (just as the communities in Pakistan and Gaza and elsewhere will too).

It seems to me that the vast majority of people the world over are not interested in killing and destroying the lives of others.  It seems to me the vast majority of people the world over want to live peacefully, with the comfort of clean water and healthy foods and warmth, with a sense of safety among loved ones which allows us each to enjoy our brief time on this planet.  Yet we accept a world in which the small minority who feels it OK to kill with no regard for the lives of others, in pursuit of goals which have everything to do with the enrichment of themselves only, are allowed to do so.  We accept a world in which a small number of people are given the resources and weapons to carry out senseless murders- even of children- and all with the justification of protecting us from people who would be willing to carry out senseless murders.

One of the most disheartening responses that many will have isn’t that we should question a government which drops bombs and fires guns to solve it’s problems (and teaches us all to do them same)- many will say gun control or strengthening our mental health services won’t diminish such tragedy’s, because, they say, people are “evil” or are “assholes” or are “greedy” and as such this will just happen.  But we live in a world where there is more than enough food, and resources, and wealth so that each and every one of us could be afforded to live a healthy and comfortable life, free to enjoy ourselves and the world around us- yet we accept a way of being that denies these things to the vast majority, allows massive excess to sit in the pockets of just a few, and then call it “human nature” when despair and desperation overwhelm and push some to behave with disregard for the lives of others.

So we should be talking about not only a world in which guns are so readily available; we should be talking about why our mental health services aren’t capable of identifying and aiding people in such dire situations.  We should also be talking about a society which the news media will go full tilt in obsessive coverage of this tragedy in order to maximize ad dollars as we look to them for answers and information to help us all understand what just happened.  We should be asking why it is that we live in a culture where the random killing of innocent people seems like a legitimate means towards one’s goals or solution to one’s problems.  To what end and for what purpose have we handed over the entire fabric of our lives to the hands of a few who care not for any life but seek only their own personal gain? Through the media and our schools we internalize their sociopathic logic and become defenders of it ourselves, awakening briefly when the viciousness of this way of life rears its destruction close to us.  But we live it ourselves in our work, in our relationships, without a thought of it because it is often all we know.  How can we know a different way? this is what we’ve been taught, and this is how we’ve lived and watched our parents and friends and neighbors live for all our lives.  I fear that until we are able and willing to recognize and question these things, we will merely continue to suffer through completely senseless tragedy after completely senseless tragedy.  We will have no choice but to continually morn the violent death of innocence and hope for as long as we accept a world which produces such things, and for as long as we collectively believe that no other world is possible.

(A good, in-depth analysis of last week’s protest in Burlington – promoted by JDRyan)

Vermonters of all stripes have taken on the task of reviewing, considering, spinning, and judging right or wrong the actions of both protesters and police outside the New England Governors and Eastern Premiers Conference in Burlington on Sunday, July 29th (“J29” in the parlance of what was once commonly called the “anti-globalization movement”) (see what they did there? clever).  There are three particular aspects to this conversation that I’ve seen given very, very little thought- particularly in the press but in the casual conversations I’ve heard and facebook posts I’ve seen- and I’d like to note them here.

First, the behavior of the police.  The Burlington Police Department and their sympathizers (both in the public and, most importantly, in the media) have been in high gear all week spinning the actions and events in front of the hotel, where protestors attempted to block a driveway and keep Conference attendees from leaving (which prompted the BPD to use both physical force and the firing of “non-lethal” weapons against the demonstrators).  First we were told that a protestor attempted to punch a cop, which prompted the BPD’s aggressive response.  When that allegation fell apart like a perfectly cooked pork rib we were then told that actually a protestor attempted to reach for an officer’s baton, which prompted the BPD’s aggressive response.  No sooner had BPD Chief Schirling made this allegation when he (and the press) were provided with a photo from the incident that showed with no uncertainty that no such attempt to grab a baton took place.

To me, this constant re-editing of the facts shows exactly what happened: the BPD reacted with un-justifiable force on regular citizens and are merely trying to spin a narrative that protects both their image as well as their (possible) legal defense should their victims take up a civil suit against them.  There were actual people behind all that riot gear; if there were a reasoned, justifiable story behind their actions we could just ask them “what prompted you to begin firing munitions at near point-blank range on unarmed citizens exercising their Constitutional right to free expression and political speech?”

Which brings up the latest spin from Battery Street: Chief Schirling now says

he believes protesters arrived outside the hotel intending to provoke a confrontation.

“There are a variety of things that seem to point that way,” Schirling said Thursday. “At the scene in front of the driveway at the Hilton there are people dressed in black bandanas wearing goggles. There are people that have milk, which was eventually used to decontaminate folks who had been sprayed with pepper spray. That’s a tactic that we’re familiar with from watching other protests unfold.” (VPR, 8/3/12)

OK, lets think about this, Chief.  The tactic of showing up to political demonstrations dressed in black or wearing a mask over one’s face began in Germany in the mid 1980’s and today is used in nearly every corner of the globe as a means of concealing one’s identity in order to avoid police harassment, intimidation and repression for those engaging in political activism against the State (such as the alleged visit to Burlington area activists by the FBI just days before the #J29 demo).  That activists arrived at the protests wanting to conceal their identity for purposes of protecting their political safety or prepared for the possibility of tear gas being deployed on them (which it was) is in no way a predictor of what they were or were not prepared to do as part of the protests.  It just means they were aware of the possibilities and prepared for them.

Or, maybe not.  Maybe we are willing to say that arriving at a protest dressed in a certain manner points to exactly how one is planning to behave.  In which case we can look at the BPD arriving in head-to-toe body armor and carrying rubber bullets, tear gas and batons and predict exactly what they were planning to do as part of the protests as well.  Personally, I’d guess that the BPD either had marching orders from higher up (likely a federal agency like the FBI or DHS) to react to protestors in such a manner, or they simply found themselves with all these fancy toys in their hands and jumped at the earliest provocation. It would seem that either they entered the situation intent on using such force or they reacted to the situation in a completely un-justifiable manner.  Either which way, the BPD clearly over-reacted and are now merely trying to cover their asses.  Completely typical and predictable, if we look at any other comparable protest situation.

Secondly, the reality of what the meeting itself actually is.  Completely absent from any of the coverage or analysis I’ve seen in the mainstream press (and often in alternative press as well) are any questions what so ever about the validity of representative’s of the State (supposedly working on behalf of the public good) in private, closed door meetings with corporate interests (certainly working on behalf of private, profit-driven interests) in order to plan and map out economic, environmental, social and political maneuvers.  The conference attendees have worked tirelessly (and it’s been merely repeated, rather than analyzed, by the press) to frame the meeting as a means towards addressing major social and political issues for our region.  This, of course, is the same line as all these international summits (WTO, IMF, EU, WEF, etc).  But if the purpose is for the greater good of society, and if the premise is that we’re living in a free and open society, for what purpose should such meetings be behind closed doors?  Do we not have public record laws and expectations of accountability and transparency? The basic assumption that the meeting itself, and it’s secretive format, were inherently legitimate is not only a fallacy but a complete and total failure on the part of the press, which is supposedly acting as a Fourth Estate in ensuring the strength and vitality of our supposedly free political system.

Without questioning the underlying assumptions of the very nature of the meeting itself the press proves itself inept at accomplishing their task of informing and the population at large proves itself incapable of basic critical thinking skills (no matter what conclusion one finally draws about the validity of such meetings).

Finally, the success of the demonstration itself.  More often than not, the narrative has been “environmental activists protested a possible tar sands oil pipeline through New England”.  While it is true that many, if not all, of the people at the #J29 protest were against said pipeline, and environmentally focused groups such as 350.org were a part in organizing the demonstrations, it is also true that people from throughout New England who are part of the #OWS movement, as well as indigenous peoples from Quebec, striking students from Montreal, and social justice activists of all kinds were who was protesting in Burlington on that Sunday.  Every time a “journalist” reported on “environmentalists” as the defining characteristic of the protestors they either willfully or ignorantly wrote an incorrect story which completely failed to keep us informed and educated on the events of the day.  And, in my opinion, they are important events; that over 500 people from throughout New England and Quebec come together in Burlington speaks to not only the building strength (some 13 years after the Battle of Seattle fired the opening shot) of a social justice movement that aims for a more equitable, more democratic, more free and more sustainable world but of the rich diversity of issues which passionately move people from different locations, different ages, racial and economic backgrounds to come together, to act in solidarity with one another and to speak with a singular voice against the status quo of violence, greed, oppression, and personal gain.

The protests in Burlington for #J29 were not a ‘success’ in that the meeting was stopped, or at least opened up to public participation or scrutiny; but they most certainly were a success for their small piece in the continued resistance that is happening everyday, throughout the world, against greed and global capitalism.

This coming Sunday, July 29 through Tuesday July 31 Governor Peter Shumlin and Quebec Premier Jean Charest will be hosting the 36th Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Premiers in Burlington.  While the political and economic elite of the Northeast sit down behind closed doors to map-out secret, profit-driven, greenwashed resolutions for trade, energy, climate change, transportation, and infastructure issues, hundreds or possibly thousands of people from across the region will be taking to the streets in Burlington to voice their opposition to the very nature of the Conference, as well as its neoliberal profit over people approach.

An ad hoc group of local activists and organizers, the Governor’s Conference Welcoming Committee, has set up a useful website with a schedule of events, some basic background information, resource guide, and more.

Beginning Saturday and lasting through Monday, a Welcome Center with more information about events, resources and the like will be set up from 9am to 9pm in a back building of the UU Church at the top of Church St.  The main actions begin Sunday with a rally at noon in City Hall Park that will take to the streets on a spirited march to the Conference Center on the Burlington waterfront.

Untold numbers of people from #OWS, the indigenous Innu communities of Quebec, the Quebec student strike, and dozens of other social justice movements and organizations from throughout Vermont, New England and the Eastern Provinces will be descending on Burlington.  A human oil spill, regional gathering of Occupy New England, and student bloc are just some of the displays of resistance being planned.

See you in the streets!

According to Dick Morris (who just took time from his  busy schedule to call me, personally) the nation is counting on me, as “one of the top conservatives in (my) area”.

He also bothered to note both Obama’s “socialist agenda” and his “liberalism” which is destroying America.  Of course, there’s where I started to get confused, as a) “socialism” is an entirely different political current than liberalism, and b) America is- and was founded as- a “liberal democracy”.  Sure, within a liberal democracy there is a long, long tradition of both conservative and progressive views, but my mistake might have been bothering to ponder such things, as it turns out Mr Morris is pushing a platform not dis-similar to what was, throughout the 1990’s, known generally as “neoliberalism”.  It’s all a bit confusing, even for a “top conservative” such as myself.

He also said a word or two about some new book of his that I should buy- which these guys always seem to do.

Either which way, I’m torn about whether I find these GOP push-polls that I get about once every 4-6 months entertaining and slightly informative (of their stances, not of any “truths”) or if I just find them extremely annoying.  I’m definitely very, very curious what I did that got me on their list, as almost all these calls identifies me as a “good conservative” or “active conservative” or some such.  Even when I’ve waited through the auto message and spoken to a real person (the way these polls are always set-up) and told the person on the other line under no uncertain terms that I’m either a socialist, communist, anarchist, libertarian-socialist, or (that one time) “so far to the left I’m sure you’d execute me personally if you had the chance”- they seem to insist on keeping me on their list.  That’s a well run organization, as far as I can tell.

(Good 1st person account from a different perspective. – promoted by JulieWaters)

I was one of 300+ Vermonter’s who braved late February temperatures to rally at the Statehouse in solidarity with the brave working people of Wisconsin.  The turn-out was solid, the people were a diverse-by-Vermont-standards mix (meaning ‘diverse by socio-economic standards or sexual identity’, not so much racially) who genuinely seemed focused singularly on the issues of labor rights and economic justice and equality.  And most pungent in the air was a sense amongst some that “our moment has come”, and that we were there because of something bigger than ourselves.

I remember up to a year into the Iraq-Afghanistan wars, regular rallies at the statehouse pulled a minimum of a couple hundred and on occasion drew a few thousand people, but the Vermont anti-war movement (and Vermont progressives) (not at all that the groups are one in the same- they’re just 2 groups that I tend to gravitate towards) have really done little in terms of public rallies for several years (as far as I know, anyway).  It was exciting to see some old friends and faces, and it was exciting to finally be rallying around causative issues (economics) rather than reactionary rallies against symptoms (war).  Maybe I’m just projecting my own feelings here, but this was a sense I genuinely felt around many of the two, maybe three dozen folks I spoke with as well.

There was something even more universal amongst the two or three dozen folks I spoke with: boooo on the politician speakers.  It was gross, and anti-theoretical to the rally, as far as I’m concerned.  We gathered to stand in solidarity with the people in Wisconsin who are turning up in the tens of thousands every single day to say “no” to attacks against the rights of workers, and we gathered to tell Governor Shumlin, Speaker Smith, and President Campell that the fiscal crisis in Vermont will not be balanced on the backs of working people and those most vulnerable amongst us who must look to the state for the basic means to survive.  I mean, Gov Shumlin?  Isn’t he asking the state employees to sacrifice more?  Isn’t he refusing to even consider asking more from the few among us who have millions of dollars in order to provide support like heat in the winter, and food in times of want?  Refusing to look to those (of which he is one) who have more than they need to provide the resources so that our disabled neighbors may have adequate services for their care?

While stand-in representatives read notes written by our Washington politicians (“we stand with you that workers should have the right to collective bargaining”- gee, how bold a position) my sense, and the murmurs I heard around me, was that no one really gave two shits what Peter, or Pat, or Bernie had to say.  There was no more than 50% of the crowd who cheered enthusiastically for the Governor, and many of the, er , less polite, people I know showed up after Peter’s speech.

An exception for me, personally, was Anthony Pollina, who I think gave an absolutely, to the point, no-fucking-around speech.  One person standing near me said sarcastically “I think he’s going off script” when the Washington County Senator bluntly called for taxing the rich to solve the budget problems that America, and increasingly our leaders in Vermont, are asking the working people to pony up for.

Indeed, the energy in the crowd was palpable.  I could hardly contain myself from shouting “no more politicians” as yet another one was introduced; or better yet, “it’s warm inside!  It’s warm inside!!!”  Yet I didn’t because I had 1:00 responsibilities (FYI, my daughter apparently has a deep-seated fear of stethoscopes, as her check-up was a bit rough).

But maybe I’m being too cynical; maybe there’s not much for Vermont’s working families to be too concerned about.  Maybe, as their presence and their speeches on the Statehouse steps suggested, the Governor and Speaker and our Senators and Congresspeople and numerous other elected officials all stand together with labor.  If so, the budget short-fall caused by the greedy inclinations of the wealthiest among us won’t be carried on the backs of working Vermonters (either through lost salary, benefits, or services); school districts won’t be forced to consolidate based on the absurd notion that “Vermont doesn’t deserve to have one of the best school systems in the country”; early educators will be allowed the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to unionize (don’t forget, the Early Educators Bill that’s up for consideration isn’t about letting them be a union, but just giving early educators the option of forming a union) (kinda like “allowing” collective bargaining); and for certain, a system of universal access, regardless of one’s means, to quality health care can be designed, passed, and paid for without delay in an atmosphere of such universal solidarity with the plight of working people.

I guess if this is what the 2011 Legislature is going to give us, we have little need to be back at the statehouse, except for maybe the occasional rally of solidarity with those that are struggling elsewhere.  If, on the other hand, all the political speeches we were force-fed on the steps of the statehouse were mere politicking- pandering- well, I’d like to think we’ll be back.  And if we do have to return, the Governor and the Legislature should be on notice that we will not be standing around idle as the VNEA organizes a round-robin of talking heads- we will be passed listening to politicians, and we will be heading inside, where it’s warm.

I was immediately taken aback to see this quote from Rep Mike Pence (R-IN) in this morning’s headline article- behind a paywall- (House Cuts Spending, Regulation) in the Times-Argus:

It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion.

How shockingly right Mr Pence is.  It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of anti-war Americans and use them to wage war, or to fund the building of war machines.  It is also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of non-racist, non-discriminatory Americans and use them to build walls and military installations along our borders in order to keep out people who are merely seeking a means to provide for their families (their own economies destroyed by trade policies which were designed in favor of our ruling elites).

The problem for Mr Pence is that he probably never took- and certainly never passed- a college level class on applied logic.  Because if we apply Mr Pence’s logic universally, instead of just towards issues which fit his own personal beliefs, we find that the entirety of ‘the state’ is impossible.  Name any single action or function of the government and undoubtedly we can find scores and scores of American taxpayers who are against it; which means if we apply Mr Pence’s logic universally and fairly (a requirement of what is “logical”) there would be no place for a government at all.

A conclusion I personally support.  Of course, each community (and community of communities) have no shortage of things which must collectively be accomplished for the personal and social betterment of all.  Thus, by definition of our existence as social animals we must pool our resources to accomplish that which ensures our lot.  A problem, however, in a model which says “we’ll do our thing and support those services which we believe in and you do yours” is that over time we’ll find people leaving places which don’t provide things in favor of communities which do.  Imagine, if you will, that South Burlington took a radical free-market approach to it’s community while Burlington took a radical communalist approach.  Over time, those left out of prosperity in South Burlington (a reasonable conclusion we can assume, given the evidence of history) would seek support and refuge in Burlington.  Such a scenario would leave Burlington over-crowded and unable to meet the service needs of a population far larger than the community was designed to provide for.

Making such a design unsustainable.  We cannot simply say “if those are your beliefs, you’re free to be over their and have a society which does this, that and the other” while doing likewise ourselves.  We must remember that providing for all people, everywhere, the means and support to ensure their own material and intellectual survival and prosperity is the only sustainable path towards our own.  That, unfortunately for Mr Pence, means offering services and freedoms which we may ourselves not like or agree with, but that we recognize others do.

I was immediately taken aback to see this quote from Rep Mike Pence (R-IN) in this morning’s headline article- behind a paywall- (House Cuts Spending, Regulation) in the Times-Argus:

It is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund organizations that provide and promote abortion.

How shockingly wrong Mr Pence is.  We are all, of course, free to our own opinions.  That’s the supposed point of liberal democracy and Constitutionally protected freedom- you can be for against a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her body and her family and her life, you can be for or against limits in campaign contributions, you can be for or against tax-subsidies to this or that corporation or industry; you can even believe and practice whatever religious rites you want to (or don’t want to).

However, the function of the government is to take the resources (tax revenues) of the nation and provide support and services that benefit everyone, regardless of any one individual or group’s own particular belief in this, that or the other thing.  Most importantly, said function should be particularly focused on providing for the needs of the most vulnerable, the least fortunate, and least able of our society.  It is the government (and to be clear, I’m not a fan whatsoever of ‘the state’ but I use it in this form as the present-world function of the collective “will of the people”, as it supposedly is) which steps in to make sure the needs of the citizens are achieved.

There are any number of things which I do not like or agree with- yet my neighbors have needs which are different than mine, and if they find themselves un-able to accomplish those needs which generally provide for their own health, wellness, and prosperity than it is certainly my job (through ‘the state’) to provide for such.  If my needy neighbor is left to fail and suffer, the negative impacts upon me, my family, and our own health, wellness and prosperity are exponential.

The typical conservative retort would be that it is not, in fact, the role of the government to provide things for people which they are not capable of achieving themselves; that “true democracy” is a free-for-all, a survival of the fittest sort of anarchy out in the marketplace.  Such empty rhetoric is easily exposed as mere doublespeak from the mouths of the rich in their never-ending class war against the working and impoverished among us.  These very same conservatives who demand government “get out of the way” are happy to enact laws which deter or prevent people from forming unions, and set rules which favor bosses over unions.  These very same conservatives throw massive heaps of subsidies and “tax breaks” (giveaways) to certain industries (big agriculture, war toys, pharmaceuticals, oil-coal-nuclear) while declining to do so for others (local agriculture, clean technology, health care, clean energy).

The past 32 years, in fact 70 years, of American government as well as international governments (primarily European) show the absolute failure of the ideas of conservatism.  Left free to “the market” the rich get richer while everyone else falls further and further behind.  If the conservative notion of government “getting out of the way” where so right, over 250 million people across America would be left to starve, die of easily treatable and preventable health problems, and generally waste away their lives working for slave wages 80 hours a week just to try and care for their families; all while the top 10% or so of the population struggles to find ways to spend their vast and often un-imaginable fortunes.  Such a “society” brings in to question why humans would biologically be social animals at all, as no other social species works for the success of the few at the detriment of the many.

No, Mr Pence, it is not morally wrong to use the resources of the people of this country to provide services to the most needy.  It is morally wrong to deny such services based on part of the population’s religious (personal) opinion of right and wrong.

This isn’t so much an opinion piece (well, to the degree that a stubborn, opinionated S.O.B. like me can write such a thing) but more an observation and articulation of some questions which stem from it.

A recent piece written by odum about a pending Bill which would allow some 10,000 early educators across Vermont the right  to unionize and negotiate with the state (and some high-profile support for it) has, as of this writing, spurred zero comments or discussion whatsoever.

At the same time, another piece by odum, posted about 20 hours later, which is a completely non-political, personal ‘congratulations’ to some friends following the birth of their first child, has 2 comments.

Now, I’m not looking to take away from the latter- odum, as founder and publisher is perfectly within his right to use this forum for personal messages and the birth of a child is surely momentous enough to spur complete strangers to chime in on the ‘congrats’; but I’m curious about the lack of interest among GMD readers in the former.

Are GMD readers silent on this post because there’s no interest in labor issues? because the readership is universally supportive or excited and there’s nothing else to say?

My personal observation is that posts on GMD about labor issues tend to garner a very low level of conversation and debate.  Why?  Do readers of GMD have no opinions on the early educators efforts? of the high-profile support they’ve earned?  Do people perceive the issue has no relevance on their own lives, and so don’t have much of an opinion?  What of the various concern trolls that hang around?

Ugh.  I read the headline story in the Times-Argus today.  It’s behind a paywall, but if you have the ability to get there, the headline is “Reform Now, Pay Later” and it’s pretty much Shumlin saying “I don’t care about how we pay for it, we’ll look at that later, lets just pass a universal health care bill”.

To which I think you’d have to figure that either:

a) “passing single payer” is nothing more than a politically shrill move by Shumlin, who doesn’t really care about it or making it really work, but rather, just “getting a bill passed” in order to get it passed and hold the left in his  pocket for election season and support for whatever (decidedly un-left) things he wants to do

b) he’s got no political common sense whatsoever and is completely unaware of how the message of “we should pass a massive, currently illegal (by Federal law) social program the likes of which has never been done in the history of the country and we don’t even care how we’ll pay for it” plays to the tired Republican story of “tax and spend liberals” (by the way- isn’t that the definition of government? do Republicans not “tax” people and then “spend” the money they collected (and more)?).  One of the best arguments for single payer health care is the financial savings, why not talk about the funding?

c) whoever crafts his messaging is a complete idiot.  Biggest trouble with this possibility is that it still kinda requires option ‘b’ to be true; cause if a staff person told the guv “just get a Bill out their and tell em’ ‘lets not even look at the funding’ lets just pass the thing” Shumlin, if he had any political common sense whatsoever, should have said “are you nuts! we can’t promise all this without making clear how it would fund itself (or save the state money)!”

d) I’m totally missing something.  I mean, I’m up on the reports that were just issued, and understand the basics of the options, and frankly, the choices seem fairly straight forward; obviously there are important decisions to be made, but unless I was a coffee shy of coherency when I read this  morning’s paper, seems like there are real plans on the table and debating them and deciding on one is the next step- not just passing some kind of vague “lets do it and figure the money out later” Bill.  That Bill was already passed and it’s what funded the the study that brought the options.

e) OK, there’s also “e”- Shumlin is a political genius and the “add massive State program without thought about cost” message is going to somehow turn out to facilitate all sorts of great things.  

I think “a” or “d” seem the most likely….