This month we're seeing observances of the fortieth anniversary of the end of the American war in Vietnam. Or, to be more accurate, of the defeat of the United States in its war of aggression against Vietnam.

Conservatives have done everything they can to rehabilitate the war and those who perpetrated it, from the phony POW-MIA flags you see all over the place, to Rambo, The Deer Hunter, and other revisionist movies, to the excessive celebration over more recent military veterans, born in part of a guilty national conscience, retroactively valorizing those who fought in a losing and profoundly evil war.

On this anniversary Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker revisits his reporting on the massacre at My Lai, making clear that, far from an aberration, mass murders of civilians were the policy of the United States. You might think that after almost fifty years later there is nothing more to learn, but you'd be wrong. Of a return visit to Vietnam, Hersh writes:

The message was clear: what happened at My Lai 4 was not singular, not an aberration; it was replicated, in lesser numbers, by Bravo Company. Bravo was attached to the same unit—Task Force Barker—as Charlie Company. The assaults were by far the most important operation carried out that day by any combat unit in the Americal Division, which Task Force Barker was attached to. The division’s senior leadership, including its commander, Major General Samuel Koster, flew in and out of the area throughout the day to check its progress.

You should read the whole article. We must not forget.

Cross posted at Rational Resistance.

Patriotic Betrayal: The Inside Story of the CIA’s Secret Campaign to Enroll American Students in the Crusade Against Communism by Karen M Paget

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

When I was growing up in the 1960’s my parents used to tell me stories about their activities in the National Student Association in the late 40’s and early 50’s. Liberal Democrats, they would tell us about parliamentary tactics deployed by Communist members to try to take control of the organization (late night quorum calls, for instance) and the efforts of anti-Communist liberals to prevent the organization converted to one whose activities would be dictated by the Soviet Union. I haven’t seen his letters (one of my brothers has them) I believe my father was at the organization’s constitutional convention in Madison in 1947.

What I’m sure they didn’t know at the time was that, while the NSA was devoted to spreading democratic values around the world, and especially in nonaligned countries emerging from colonialism, and despite the fact that the NSA followed democratic forms and procedures for the elections of officers, the actual activities of the organization were determined and funded by the CIA, with help from the Catholic Church to promote its own conservative agenda. Each year the elected president would be taken to a mysterious and secret meeting in which they were brought into the fold, told to sign a security oath, and, in the parlance of the organization, made “witting”. It was only then that the president and other top officers of the organization would be taught that the CIA was making the decisions, funneling money for travel and other activities through pliable charities, and truly acquainted with the shadowy older men–former students–who seemed to have hung around the NSA far beyond the time that most people would be interested in working with an organization for college students.

The secret was maintained for twenty years, until a few courageous officers and a major investigative effort by Ramparts magazine revealed the extent of CIA domination of this allegedly democratic organization. During that time the NSA was used to provide scholarships for promising foreign student leaders to study in the United States and to disrupt conventions staged by a rival, Soviet-dominated international student organization for propaganda value.

The husband of the author of Patriotic Betrayal was elected vice-president and made witting, and the author followed within months. Consequently, the author has a wealth of personal information about the inner workings of the NSA, which she supplemented by over 150 interviews of other participants in the events recounted here and research documented in the 100+ pages of end notes.

In the pages of Patriotic Betrayal we meet characters familiar and unfamiliar and, in most cases, whether they were in on the CIA factor. For instance, my parents’ friend and former liberal Congressman Allard Lowenstein (they called him Al) was considered to be an obstacle to CIA domination when he was president in 1950-51, although it is not known whether he was witting. Tom Hayden, working with the SDS, also tried to push the NSA to the left, while Gloria Steinem was working for the CIA when she directed CIA-funded activities in the late 50’s and early 60’s. We also see appearances by people who would later become important nationally or internationally, including Fidel Castro,  future Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, and notorious right-wingers Howie Phillips and Richard Viguerie.

Patriotic Betrayal goes into exhaustive detail of the inner workings of the NSA from year to year, and often from week to week. While this level of detail establishes the breadth and depth of the author’s knowledge, it could be debated whether she has trimmed enough of the details from what the author has told us was earlier even much longer. The author does successfully give us the final conflict as a real-life spy thriller, with insiders trying to wrest control from the CIA and expose the CIA’s role in the NSA, the CIA and its agents trying to block the effort and to punish the organization for these efforts, and a ragtag band of journalists and activists literally risking assassination to get the story into print.

At fifty years’ remove from most of these events it’s hard to imagine so much effort and money invested in an organization of student governments to make sure the Commies’ student organization didn’t gain the upper hand. It’s almost Spy v. Spy stuff. It’s also ironic, of course, that the CIA’s idea of promoting democracy in even this voluntary group was to install its own men into positions of power, fund them, and tell them what to do. Ultimately this is the most important lesson: the dangers of secret government setting up secret activities to subvert democratic institutions. When Ramparts broke the story the secret government and its allies in Congress cooperated to squelch or neutralize the revelations. Patriotic Betrayal is an important revelation of these Cold War events.

View all my reviews

About 600 people, maybe 700, on the State House Lawn today.  That’s NOT GOOD.  Considering what Shumlin and the Legislature are doing to the working class and working poor.  Considering what’s going on in Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle, etc.. And considering that our Legislature is looking to eliminate state tax deductions on charitable donations under $5000.00 to non-profit and activist groups who assist the poor, the disabled, the underpaid, the environment, the people, it seems to me that whoever is responsible at the Vermont Workers Center and other groups to get the people out is really doing a terrible job.

I was talking to my friend Duke Forcier, a guy my age who used to run Blouin’s here in Montpelier years ago.  We agreed that May Day turnout, instead of increasing over the last few years, is now in an anemic phase, and getting worse.  We both were underwhelmed by the crowd today, and wondered WTF is going on with the so-called activists who are supposed to be getting the crowds out so the media will do bigger stories and the politicians will take notice.

Duke and I are both 66.  Having been active with Leftie groups myself since the sixties, and having organized Marches and rallies and forums here in Montpelier since ’98, I put THE BLAME squarely on the backs of this younger White Semi-Yuppie generation of activists who think everything can be done electronically.  That sending out an email and phoning the same people who already got the email is enough.  IT IS NOT!  Young and Dumb!  Duh!

You need MEDIA!!!  You MUST have PSAs on the radio stations, stories in every paper, announcements in every community calendar, phone calls, emails, faxes AND personal contact with news people from WCAX to The Montpelier Bridge and The World. And I mean over and over again right up to the day of the event. 600, 700 people on MAY DAY???  Should be 6 to 7000.  Some people are not doing their PR jobs.  Or else activism in Vermont has become an INSIDER thing–an Elite ‘Feel Good’ Club.  Today’s May Day turnout would shame the TEA PARTY.  It should certainly shame you new generation of activists

Call VPIRG and every other activist group and get them to pitch in with mailings and phone calls.  Duke suggested you could call on Ben & Jerry, or some other RICH Lib-er-al to donate a few thousand dollars for a media blitz.  Get on VPR and WDEV.  Where was the front page story in the Main or State section of the Times-Argus this morning?  What The Fuck do you youngsters think?  That ‘word of mouth’ will do your job for you?  That people will come out because they like you?  I don’t much fucking like you now, and haven’t for years.  Since ’98 here in Montpelier, I’ve seen the lazy half-assed approach you have to organizing and publicizing a political event.  There was an old joke in SDS in the sixties:  “The Left could fuck-up (or be late for) an ambush.”  Well, yes, we had our fuck-ups back then, but nothing as DISGRACEFUL as today’s non-event.

I shook hands with you, JAMES HASLIM, just before the rally started, expecting, I guess, more people to show up.  I should have given you SHIT about the turnout then.  Cause it didn’t get any better.  And WHERE was the Workers Center post on THIS blogsite?

A spade is a spade.  You people maybe need to sit down and go back to March & Rally 101 from the sixties.  And, for Christ’s Sake, PLEASE don’t pat yourselves on the backs for today’s event.  It was a LOSER!

This is why the RICH and the Republicans are WINNING!!!  SHAME!!!

Peter Buknatski

Pissed-off in Montpelier, Vt.

‘Just got my first ‘ask’ from the Sanders campaign, so it’s official…“Bernie for President in  2016!”  

I reached way down in my moth-eaten pockets to throw a bit in the kitty because Bernie’s entry into the race means that all of the important issues at risk to be sidelined in the 2016 debates will now have to find a place in the conversation.

So, even as Hillary Clinton attempts to be neither too far too the left nor too far to the right, and all the Republicans scramble their claws in an effort to crowd as far to the right as possible, at least one contender will be standing squarely where he always has: for unbranded equity, justice, compassion, environmental responsibility and transparency.

The admirable Elizabeth Warren insists she will not run this time, and the only other Democratic contender so far is distinctly to the right of Hillary, making him barely a Democrat at all.

It’s up to Bernie to carry the standard for the poor, the elderly, the disenfranchised and the vulnerable.

I am of the opinion that it is up to us to support that effort in any way we can. I expect many will disagree vociferously, and that’s okay with me.

He’s running as a Democrat rather than risk blame as an independent “spoiler,” as proved to be the kiss of death for Ralph Nader’s credibility.

Bernie isn’t young and he isn’t female; but he carries the standard for Vermont values like none other.  

Maybe he doesn’t stand the chance of a snowball in hell.  Back in 2007, that’s what the “smart money” said about one Barack Hussein Obama.  

However things shake out, it will be a glorious battle to reclaim democracy and I wouldn’t miss that for the world!

No candidate will be perfectly in sync with my every policy wish, but Bernie comes pretty damn close.  So that’s where I personally feel my loyalty will be best spent over the coming year.

This is an unabashed and unsolicited pitch for the underdog, and if GMD isn’t the place for that, I don’t know where that place would be.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it a little disturbing the way the news outlets are filled with happy talk about the mother boxing her sixteen-year old son’s ears and chasing him down the street in order to stop his participation in the Baltimore vandalism.

The New York Post calls her “Mother of the Year,” and the talking heads on CNN can’t heap enough praise on this ‘intervention.’  Representatives of the police appear to be particularly enthused, wishing that more parents would emulate this feisty inner-city mom.

We are told that she is a single mother with a number of children but only one son.

She looks young enough to be his sister, so it isn’t difficult to imagine her being wholly unprepared for parenthood and trapped in what any of us might find to be an impossible situation.

What TV cameras captured that day was most likely the nature of her relationship to her only son from the moment he was big enough to run away from her.  

In fact, he probably ended up throwing rocks in the street as much because of her default to brutality in raising him as any other contributing factors.

Girls tend to be a whole lot easier to manage than boys, at least when they are little; and as the only male in a household of females, this kid was probably destined to act out if only to assert himself.

When you add the critical lack of support resources, or even good nutritional options in their neighborhood, his mom must have come close to the breaking point more than once.

She maintains control over her brood, and especially her son, through the only means available to her…fear.

…And white middle American media celebrates that because it somehow makes us feel safer.

“If only more mothers would discipline their kids like this!” they say.

So now, in addition to incarcerating young black men at a feverish rate, we want their mothers to aspire to be brutal jailers, too.

Nevermind the fact that the violence and vandalism that has exploded again in Baltimore is symptomatic of systemic injustice that we have only managed to sweep under the rug since the late 1960’s so that Republicans could claim we live in a “post-racial world.”

There is real, justifiable anger simmering out there.  It’s long been relegated to the back-burner, but in 2015, it’s come to a boil again.

This kid isn’t the problem and beating him into submission isn’t the solution.  Rock-throwing won’t be anywhere near the worst violence we see in the streets if accountability in the police culture doesn’t change, and do so quickly.

We have taken absolutely no lessons away from the upsurge in ISIS recruitments.  

Republicans still think we can keep tightening the screws on minority rights and opportunities and they will never have to give up any of the wealth and privilege they themselves enjoy on an unprecedented scale.

I heard one (white) police analyst on CNN this morning discounting the role that community organizers played in suppressing violence in Baltimore last night.  He thought it was the presence of even more police and the military that did the job.  That’s the formula that fits his expectations and bias.

To afford those community members the dignity they deserved for organizing themselves into a physical blockade would be outside of his enforcement comfort zone and give them far more credit toward self-determination than it serves his best interests to do.

It’s so much easier to think of poor minorities as uncouth and undisciplined, over whom it is the right and responsibility of a deputized elite to ride herd in the interests of the tentative majority.

Keep it up and, like the mom-whipped teen, we are all destined to get what we probably deserve.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is in the U.S. this week to schmooze with the president and other leaders, but he’s getting a lot of unwanted attention as well.

Most of the hostility is due to the ongoing issue of Japan’s failure to officially acknowledge its wartime exploitation of Korean women as sex slaves, often referred to as “comfort women.”

Though the PM and some of his predecessors have made apologies around the issue, there has been a conspicuous reluctance to fully own-up to Japan’s culpability, and many feel that adequate reparations have yet to be offered.

Those bad feelings have accompanied the Prime Minister on his visit to the U.S. and threaten to damage prospects for President Obama’s Asian trade agreement.

While this conflict claims the lion’s share of press, there is an undercurrent of hostility to the PM’s visit from nuclear safety advocates who cite Abe’s close ties to the Japanese nuclear industry and his rush to restart the island nation’s reactors following the Fukushima disaster as reason enough not to welcome him to our shores.

Yesterday, the advocacy group, On Behalf of Planet Earth held a vigil outside Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in Boston to remind the world that Fukushima remains an unresolved catastrophe of growing environmental impact. That local crisis is being compounded for the entire nation and beyond by irresponsible waste management practices and the growing suspicion that Fukushima radiation is finding its way into the food chain.  A government corrupted and captive to the nuclear industry enables this dangerous situation.

“On Behalf of Planet Earth” shared with passersby a letter recently sent to Prime Minister Abe on the occasion of the fourth ‘anniversary’ of the commencement of that nuclear disaster, and released a statement that reads in part as follows:

“Listen Shinzo Abe: Do You Hear the Cries of the Children?”

As we stand outside the John F Kennedy School of Government, let us remember Kennedy’s words: “The number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural health hazards. But this is not a natural health hazard­and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even one baby­who may be born long after we are gone­should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent.”  John Fitzgerald Kennedy, July 26th, 1963

By continuing his support for nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. as well as a dubious new trade agreement, President Obama risks finding himself on the wrong side of history, just as Prime Minister Abe has repeatedly positioned himself to be.

That would indeed be a regrettable legacy.

(Note: I am a non-technical member of the Fairewinds Energy Education crew, but the opinions I express here on GMD are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fairewinds).

The headline over Vermont House Minority Leader Rep. Don Turner’s “Legislature is Anti-Jobs” could just as easily have read “Legislature is Pro-Worker” in Monday’s Saint Albans Messenger. In it, the leader of the House GOP railed against last year’s increase in the minimum wage, using payroll taxes to shore up medicaid reimbursements and paid sick days.

“State government should not decide what benefits are most important for employers to offer and by doing so we remove the flexibility that Vermonters and their employers have.” – Rep. Don Turner

What about the flexibility for a working mother to choose to stay home with a sick child? What about the flexibility for a food-service worker to stay home instead of toughing it out and serving it up when they should be home sick? What about the flexibility of being able to afford to buy a few more groceries, and maybe eat out once in a while because you make $9.50/hr instead of $8.75?

I owned a coffee shop and bakery for six years, and I always paid my employees more than minimum wage. I had better, happier, more productive employees. I’ve never bought the argument that racing to the bottom and creating low-wage, low-benefit policies is going to be good for Vermont’s economy. I know it wouldn’t be good for the lowest-paid workers in our state.

Rep. Turner wasn’t the only House Republican to churn out anti-labor, anti-worker rhetoric yesterday.  

My own Saint Albans Rep. Corey Parent’s latest legislative update bemoaned the relegation of one of his favorite bills to “legislative purgatory” on the committee wall.

One of the most pressing issues I’ve heard from many of you is the need for our Department of Labor to define better what it means to be an “employee”.  Currently, the State of Vermont considers an independent subcontractor that does similar work to the contractor that hires them for a job an employee of the contractor.  That means the contractor has to pay unemployment and workers compensation insurance for the services performed by the subcontractor.

Really? He’s heard from “many” constituents that they want to make sure the people who hire them don’t have to pay for Worker’s Compensation insurance and unemployment? I find it hard to believe that working people are advocating for a decrease in benefits. I find it easier to believe that this kind of policy-which erodes the supports for a strong labor force and middle class- is right out of the ALEC playbook, and not coming from Vermonters.

The Democrats took a bit of a licking in 2014, primarily over dissatisfaction (on both sides) about the progress of healthcare reform and the rising cost of education. Being the party in power, it makes sense that we bore the frustration. Vermont’s Republicans, at least in the House, say that they have listened to those frustrated Vermonters. Why does it seem like they heard a Scott Walker speech instead?

Vermont has a lot to be proud of, and one of those things is a tradition of strong support for working people. I think if Reps. Turner and Parent listen harder they’ll hear Vermont workers asking for better wages and better jobs. At least, that’s what I hear.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

I attended the Legislative Breakfast in Enosburg Saturday 4/11 and heard all about the large shortfall in the state budget. The legislators were talking about where to make cuts and of course, social programs were the main target. It’s easy to look around and see scarcity and failure and no way out but to tighten down and cut.

My comment to the legislators was: I feel hopeless and frustrated because my country, and my state, are afraid to address the true cause of the increasing poverty and suffering experienced by more and more people. Our country has great wealth and resources, concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and corporations. We do have the resources to solve all our problems, but we don’t have the will.

If sustaining programs that are vital to the wellbeing of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and children at risk means that my taxes might go up a little, that’s OK with me.

I grew up in relative poverty in Sheldon, but my parents instilled in all of us the belief that we could not turn away from helping those in need. As well, the poverty of that time was nothing like what exists now. There were decent-paying local jobs – the Pulp Mill, the Railroad, Fonda, Energizer. I could leave home and support myself on an entry-level waitress job.

There were no corporations masquerading as “persons” so that they could use vast amounts of money to influence elections.  CEO-to-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965; now it is 331-to-1. There were 12 billionaires in the US in 1965; now there are 536. US federal corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP is one of the lowest in the world at 1.6 % today, despite record-breaking profits. Income inequality is obscene and it is strangling the life of this country. This IS fixable, if the will to do it is there.

Who are “We”? Who gets pushed off the boat, who gets abandoned, who is disposable? Mahatma Gandhi said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” Let’s all take a good look at that.

The VT Young Democrats are back, and if today’s well-attended convention in Montpelier is any indication there is a lot of enthusiasm as we look toward 2016. Vergennes native William Northrop chairs the reincarnated VT Young Dems. The executive board put on a program that was light on business and heavy on speakers who talked about the past and future of the Democratic Party in VT.

Senator Patrick Leahy kicked off the event with the story of his first election, commentary on the long road to normalizing relations with Cuba and a quick word about his cameos in the Batman movies. He pointed out the importance of the Dems’ ground game saying

“They have a lot of money, but we have people- and you can’t buy people.”

Rep. Kesha Ram spoke about spending her entire 20s in the VT House and that it’s never too early to get involved in public service. VT Dems’ Chair Dottie Deans talked about her early interest in politics during the Kennedy/Nixon election.

Secretary of State Jim Condos talked about how many of his “colleagues” in other states are entertaining or pushing for photo ID laws that suppress the vote. Even here at home these ideas are being discussed seriously in committees, and even on the Senate floor, in spite of the total lack of evidence that voter fraud is an issue.

Chittenden County State’s Attorney TJ Donovan talked about his teen years working in a mom-and-pop store in Burlington that was a hub of the community. There he learned about service and respect, and the core constituencies of the Democratic Party: poor, working-class and middle class people that need government to work for them.

Has the Democratic Party lost its way and forgotten these core constituencies? This legislative session leads me to believe that we may be in the middle of an “identity crisis” in Vermont. That said, there’s nothing like spending a few Saturday hours with dedicated teens, twenty and thirty-somethings to remind me who we have to serve if we are going to win elections and refocus our vision for the future of our state.