Results for #singlepayer

https://twitter.com/hashtag/si…

Results for #vtpoli

https://twitter.com/hashtag/vt…

Dick Cheney came out slugging in response to the Senate report on torture.  Despite his advancing years, this is classic Cheney: the incarnation of inhumanity that earned him the nickname “Darth Vader” while still in the Bush White House.

As he nears his own Day of Reckoning, one might have expected a glimmer of self-doubt or remorse even from a Neo-con. Instead, unrepentant, he has doubled down on the brutal self-righteousness.  

No Macnamara moment of humble reflection for him!

If he is a “believer,” perhaps it is his plan to storm the gates of heaven and take it by force.

Cheney be damned (as he well might be), this public embrace of the most heinous interrogation practices serves as an excellent reminder of how poorly our national interests were served under Bush stewardship.

And Cheney, himself, hasn’t spared his boss, insisting emphatically that GW knew all about the torture.  

The former President would like us to believe him an innocent, the victim of false information.  Cheney will have none of it; if he’s going down, he’ll be arm in arm with George Walker Bush!

With a third Bush considering a run for the roses,  resurrection of the undead Dick Cheney can be nothing but good news for Democrats.

Republicans can rail against the evidence (and there are mountains of it) but the takeaway will continue to be that the Bush White House did a VERY bad thing.  

The more they protest, the longer the spotlight will shine on that ignoble fact; the longer that conversation dominates the news, the more surely Dick Cheney’s unsupportable position will brand the Republican Party as it tries to broaden its base for 2016.

According to the New York Times, Cheney is more concerned about defending his “legacy” than confronting the truth.  

He didn’t even bother to read the full report before launching an attack on its validity.

When asked repeatedly on Sunday’s Meet the Press  about the use of torture on prisoners who were later determined to be innocent, Cheney refused to address the issue until he finally said:

“I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective.”

Only we didn’t, as the former Vice President knows all too well; unless that objective was to recruit more susceptible young men to jihad.

Athough the U.S. is highly unlikely to hold him accountable for his crimes and taxpayers will continue to pay so that he may live out his days in luxurious lockdown, even a delusional Cheney must recognize that, with this Senate report, he cannot escape the infamous label of “war criminal” as he passes into history.  

No Reagan-esque mantle of revision will drape over his tomb.

Even Republicans won’t be sorry once he’s gone.

( – promoted by Sue Prent)

I’m going to admit, I kind of like the song “Habits (Stay High)” by Tove Lo. Guilty pleasure pop songs rarely have anything to do with politics, but I’ve been on a bit of a mental roadtrip and I think I’ve found a connection between the YOLO zeitgeist (represented here by Tove Lo) and the decline of the American Middle Class that’s important to explore.

Why do so many of us feel the need to “stay high all of the time” like Tove Lo? Hm.

I’ve also finally gotten around to reading Elizabeth Warren’s A Fighting Chance which reminds me so much of elements that were in Fareed Zakaria’s book The Future of Freedom. Isn’t it strange that ten years after Zakaria was describing in plain English how the banks were hosing us all (and even after the economic meltdown) there still hasn’t been a mass movement to overthrow the bankers and the people who have propped them up (#Occupy=#failure)? Odd that the party who took control of both houses of Congress in November just pushed through a budget with measures deregulating the banking industry so they can gamble with complex derivatives and mortgage-backed securities all over again?

Who needs a drink?

So how does this have anything to do with Tove Lo? I’ve been trying to decide if I’m a really bad person/parent for liking this song. “Staying high all of the time doesn’t solve anything!” I want to say. Binge-eating twinkies and mourning failed romantic relationships is keeping Tove Lo and so many of us young and young-ish irresponsible people from voting- let alone rioting in the streets to fight against the unfettered greed that has kept wages low, left so many people in foreclosure and/or medical bankruptcy (thanks for explaining that one better, Sen. Warren), and kept the people at the top getting richer while everyone else gets… well, like, you know.  

There’s another way to see Tove Lo’s song, though. If you take it at face value it’s a predictable YOLO formula: “Look at me! I’m sad, gotta get high. At least I look good doing it.”

But WAIT! She doesn’t look good doing it. Look at the video.

http://youtu.be/oh2LWWORoiM

She looks miserable. Not just a little miserable. She’s tired, pounding Alka-Seltzer, having no fun partying. Maybe she’s trying to secretly tell all of the kids something that’s been eating at me since I stopped partying and tried to act like a grown-up. Maybe she’s hidden a pearl of wisdom in her pop anthem for anyone who’s ready to scratch the surface and see how messed up it is to encourage the behavior she’s espousing in this dreadful song.

Or maybe she’s just saying, “High is as good as it gets.” Might as well stay high if your love is gone, your job is gone, there’s no one to protect you, the cheap crap you eat is making you fat, you can’t afford the debt that’s eating you and your neighbors alive, etc.

I’m not sure, but it’s catchy… and that video really got me thinking.

You’ve just gotta love the fact that Bernie Sanders has been named by Democrat Harry Reid to be the Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee.  

As you are probably aware, Bernie voted “no” yesterday on the DOD budget, and has vowed to register a “hell no” on today’s budget vote, thus joining Vermont Democrat Peter Welch whose vote in the House repudiated a $1.1 trillion budget that would weaken banking regulations and further corrupt  the election process.

The next Congress should be a doozy of a match up, as Bernie faces off against likely Budget Chair, Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions…arguably one of the meanest men in the Senate.

Sessions was one of three Senators who opposed increased funding for the VA, something that must have infuriated Bernie who has long been a champion of veterans’ health and welfare.

An opponent of abortion rights, immigration reform, and same sex marriage, Sessions wants to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

He once opined that the NAACP and the ACLU were “unAmerican” for forcing “civil rights down the throats of people.”

A class act all the way.

With Sessions hand upon the purse strings, they won’t be readily parted in aid of the disadvantaged.

Senator Reid knows that whoever takes the Democratic helm as Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee will have a thankless job ahead of them.

As a nominal “Independent,” Bernie was a shrewd pick who can be relied upon to take the budgetary battle right up to Session’s comfort zone in the most forceful way without concern for political blowback.

His constituents will love him all the better for championing the interests of vets, students,  the elderly, the poor and the disadvantaged.

With Bernie in opposition, Sessions, who has shown little interest in compromise will be matched toe-to-toe by the most articulate of verbal duelists.  It seems likely that Bernie’s artless candor will at least win the media battles; maybe even shutting down some potential defections from the DINO seats.

I would guess that there is a cynical side to the appointment, as well.  Good Democrats first and foremost, Reid and company may figure that budgetary battles could bloody Bernie’s nose and steal some of his potency for a 2016 presidential bid.

They could be right, but I doubt it.  As Bernie has demonstrated time and again, he is a force to be reckoned with.  If he determines it to be a worthwhile endeavor, nothing will quash his voice in 2016.

A morsel of outrage that has recently bubbled to the top of discussions among energy watchers deserves special mention on Green Mountain Daily:

In the spirit of a brisk holiday sale season, the value of life for American ratepayers appears to have been discounted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in order to ease the path forward for the industry over which, in the public interest, they preside.

“If you wrap your new car around a tree beside the interstate, the U.S. government values your life at $9 million. If you’re at risk from a nuclear accident, you’re priced at just $3 million.”

The $3-million figure was established twenty years ago by the NRC,  and they have  chosen to maintain that figure rather than increasing it to keep apace with other federal agencies that now peg the value of a human life at three times that figure: $9-million.

And why, pray tell, would the Nuclear REGULATORY Commission do such a thing?

“Using this low value has a significant effect on nuclear plant license renewals and new reactor approvals,” said Ed Lyman, a Washington-based physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Nuclear plants are not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.”

That’s right folks:  the value of human life has just been officially reduced so that nuke operators don’t have to over-think our safety.  ‘Just another example of our government working for the guys who pay the freight to Washington.

You can almost imagine Uncle Sam paraphrasing Bob Dylan:

“When you ain’t worth nothin’, you got nothin’ to lose.”

Nuclear energy providers expect the American public to forget about their filthy and dangerous fuel sourcing practices; ignore their still more dangerous waste product with its potential for terrorist exploitation; pass over the burden that taxpayers have borne so that corporate operators could construct their facilities; accept the continued need to absorb risk to keep nuke operators’ insurance costs in check; and sympathize with their complaints that clean renewables are enjoying too much support in the energy marketplace.

Not content with its current privileges, now that holding a federal golden ticket isn’t enough to make nuclear profitable, nuclear energy giant Exelon is taking its Cry Baby act to the Illiniois legislature.

Exelon must think it holds a good hand for blackmail, since it operates six reactor facilities in the state, employing thousands of sensitive voters.   It’s threatening to close three of those facilities if it doesn’t get a mandated bump in  consumer pricing.

As the market price for their product has declined, coincidentally, uranium has begun to climb.  Now Exelon wants the Illinois legislature to bail them out…or else.

But that piteous tale of corporate need has another side.  Apparently,  the cavalry has already quietly ridden to the rescue.

PJM Interconnection, the Valley Forge, Pa.-based regional power-grid operator for all or parts of 13 states including northern Illinois, on Dec. 3 approved changes to the way electricity generators are compensated for their promise to deliver during peak-demand periods. The changes, which are subject to approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, will benefit Chicago-based Exelon more than any other power company in the 13-state region, analysts say.

Put simply, for the privilege of operating five of its six reactors in Illinois, Exelon will take $560. Million in extra revenue just in 2018, when the change takes effect.

Cry me a river, Exelon!

Disclosure:  I am proud to be a non-technical member of the Fairewinds Energy Education crew.  The opinions expressed by me on Green Mountain Daily solely represent my own views on a variety of topics, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fairewinds.

The most bizarre reaction to come out of Tuesday's release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's torture report has to be the calls, mostly from liberals, for Obama to pardon everyone involved.

Yes, I'm not kidding. I suppose we must take it on faith that the people making these claims are not just doing it because they support the use of torture, but it's hard to see any other sensible rationale for this position.

Here's a sampler:

In the Times, ACLU national president Anthony Romero says: The spectacle of the president’s granting pardons to torturers still makes my stomach turn. But doing so may be the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again.

In Slate Jamelle Bouie makes the same point: Besides, if we’re trying to keep this from happening again, we don’t want punishment as much as we want to restore the consensus against torture. With explicit pardons, you can send the message that torture was illegal (and as Romero notes, signal to those “considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted”) without taking legal action against the architects. And, as Bernstein argues, you can give generous pardons and lessen the officials’ “reputations as bad guys.”

And also in Slate, Eric Posner says: But Obama’s best argument for letting matters rest is the principle against criminalizing politics. This is the idea that you don’t try to gain political advantage by prosecuting political opponents—as governments around the world do when authoritarian leaders seek to subvert democratic institutions. Of course, if a Republican senator takes bribes or murders his valet, the government should prosecute him. But those cases involve criminal activity that is unrelated to the public interest. When the president takes actions that he sincerely believes advance national security, and officials throughout the government participate for the same reason, then an effort to punish the behavior—unavoidably, a massive effort that could result in trials of hundreds of people—poses a real risk to democratic governance.

Before we consider these arguments, let's just review what the CIA and the Bush administration did in their torture campaign:

They subjected five detainees to forcible anal rape in the guise of nutrition and hydration, resulting in lasting physical injuries.

They killed a man by stripping him, chaining him to a concrete floor in freezing conditions, and leaving him there until he died of hypothermia.

Beginning the evening of March 18, 2003, KSM began a period of sleep deprivation, most of it in the standing position, which would last for seven and a half days, or approximately 180 hours.

They repeatedly lied about what they were doing and its effectiveness to Congress and the American public.

While it's to be expected that Republicans will rush to support the most vile crimes committed at Bush's behest, and they have, it is beyond inconceivable that Democrats or civil libertarians should take the same position.

Cross posted from Rational Resistance. 

I had hoped to post this yesterday, the ninth anniversary of Rational Resistance, but some kind of attack temporarily knocked both Rational Resistance and Green Mountain Daily off the air last night. Nevertheless, the release of yesterday's torture report by the Senate Intelligence Committee is way too important to overlook.

The shortest summary I can provide goes like this: everything we said about torture by the Bush administration was true, and everything they said about torture was a lie.

They did it all the time, without regard to need.

It didn't work.

Other, non-torture approaches to interrogation did work.

We've been talking about torture by the Bush administration for almost the entire nine years we've been here, so it's almost hard to believe there is anything new to say about it, but that's just not true. Mother Jones and other sources have reported on new outrages that none of us would have anticipated.

For example:

 The CIA used previously unreported tactics, including “rectal feeding” of detainees (p. 100, footnote 584):

The administration spokespeople, including now federal judge Jay Bybee, lied to Congress about the nature and effectiveness of the torture program.

At least one detainee died of hypothermia after being held in cold temperatures shackled to a concrete floor. And George Tenet directly lied about it when he was asked on 60 Minutes.

As I say, you should read as much as you can about this, and I guarantee that you will be shocked.

The fact remains: we were right, and everyone working for Bush lied about everything they said.

If liberals have one blindspot, it lies in our instinctive belief that, deep down inside, everyone wants peace, a healthy planet and a just society.  Even though there are constant reminders that this just ain’t so, we keep trying to appeal to that better nature that must surely be there.

No more fitting reminder of the authentic cynicism that’s out there can be found than in the plan for a luxury Survival Condo built inside a missile silo in Kansas.

Like any new real estate project fishing for buyers, the Luxury Survival Condo website has an enticing tagline:

Peace of Mind Comes With Being Prepared for Anything

Condo units range in price from $1.5-4.5 mil. and promise “security and peace of mind.”  

When construction has been completed, the repurposed silo will have a dome roof that the developers promise will withstand winds of over 500 miles per hour.  Just perfect for riding out the nuclear winter in cozy comfort.

If you are one of the lucky occupants, you don’t have to worry about maintaining the Jacuzzi jets at full power because the Survival Condo will be connected to the grid and also boast a wind turbine, 2 diesel generators and a battery bank for backup.  

(‘Wonder how well a wind turbine will hold up in that 500 mph nuclear wind!)

The first silo is apparently already sold out and work is underway on a second silo conversion.  

If you have an appetite for irony, you can check out the video that was posted by the Weather Channel.  The breathless soundtrack invites us to

Survive the nuclear disaster by riding it out inside a missile silo built to withstand a direct hit!

Now the One-Percent can avoid being inconvenienced by the ultimate consequences of their own hubris.

I guess the idea is to always keep the Land Rover gassed-up and ready to head to Kansas at the first sign of trouble.

When the radiation finally declines and the lid comes off, the only problem will be who’s left to take out the garbage and clean that Jacuzzi.

Dirk VanSustern’s column in today’s SUNDAY T/A was a nice profile of Peter Diamondstone who is currently a hospital patient in Brattleboro.  I’ve always appreciated Peter’s participation in Vermont elections and the perspective he brings to the discussion.

But I think this year may have been the first time I have voted for Peter (my husband did too).  In addition to not being able to stomach voting for Shumlin and finding Milne not up to the task – we felt Peter Diamondstone’s elemental assessment of where we’re at and why…and who we should be — was more accurate than the trendy-chic political nonsense that passes for political speech these days.  The man has solid convictions that he lives, as opposed to the charlatan we’re subjected at present.  

If you haven’t read this, give it a look.  Some of you may find his life’s stories refreshing even if you had thought you knew him.  And let’s give the man credit for participating rather than what too often is smug sniping from the sidelines .. which too often appears here and elswehere.  As for me, I’m grateful for Peter Diamondstone’s determined voice, and the authenticity that informs it.  

http://timesargus.com/apps/pbc…

If you want to look you'll find no shortage of disparagement of the Burlington Free Press around here, so I think it's fair to give them credit when they deserve it.

Today's paper featured a rare serious piece by Chris Bohjalian about the coverup of the Armenian genocide by the White House.

The facts are clear, and we've written about this before, but just to refresh your recollection, the Turks slaughtered a million and a half Armenians around the time of World War I in what is considered the first act of genocide of the Twentieth Century. 

I've been critical, both here and at Rational Resistance, the reticence chickenshit attitude of the U.S. government toward the legitimate grievances of Armenians and Armenian-Americans in this area. 

When he was running for president Obama was very strong on the issue, even referring to it as genocide, but came out much weaker once he was in office.

Bohjalian's piece incorporates his family history in a story of his visit to see a famous rug woven by survivors of the genocide.

 And so as I stood before the rug the other day at the Visitor Center, I was at once moved and enraged. I’m a descendant of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, and the rug’s existence is a reminder of that cataclysmic period in my people’s history when we were nearly erased from the globe. The rug in this regard will always hold totemic power for me. But I was frustrated by the censorship — at the way the rug was made a pawn in power politics. I was saddened that the accomplishments of Near East Relief were not celebrated.

I'm outraged, too. It's not that long ago that Nobel Prize winning author Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for “criticizing Turkishness” because he had the temerity to discuss and write about the genocide.

Here in the United States we're way more civilized: we just ignore you.

You should read Bohjalian's piece in its entirety.