You may not have noticed, but this is Banned Books Week. It's the week that the American Library Association celebrates the commitment of libraries across the country to free thought and free speech. They are doing a display at the Kellogg-Hubbard Library, so you can visit the finest public library in Vermont and see the kinds of things that have been suppressed at various places across the country and around the world.

As vicious as these book-burners and censors are, one of the things that always interests me about Banned Books Week is the absurdities, like the banning of one of the Where's Waldo books because one of the pictures of one of the tiny people on the beach is of a topless sunbather. I stopped by the Library yesterday and I was looking at the collection, and I saw that one of the banned books was Froggy Went A-Courtin', which was placed in a restricted area because of Froggy's  nefarious activities, including burning money and speeding away from  the cat police.

So what does that have to do with us, and politics in Vermont?

Well, the thing is that we observe Banned Books Week because we think we know better. We're the people standing up to the censors. That's what we do. At least, that's what we're supposed to do. And we have to do it even if the speech we have to defend is offensive, or just kind of silly.

That's what I think of Move-On's Petraeus/Betray-us ad. I think it was stupid for them to do something like this, and it changed the focus from the substance of their criticisms, all of which were true, to whether they were acting in bad taste by making fun of the guy's name. The Republicans capitalized on it, but Move-On handed them the opportunity.

But still, what the hell is Peter Welch doing voting for the resolution condemning this ad?

The resolution probably didn't violate the First Amendment, since it wasn't a law abridging the freedom of speech. On the other hand, it comes in a category of issues, like appointing a poet laureate, that seem generally offensive to the spirit of the First Amendment because it establishes official government approval or disapproval of the content of artistic or political speech.

Odum's right–it's bad when our people are the ones getting attacked, but it's just as bad when the government is deciding to singe out the other side as a disfavored political speaker. 

But in addition to that, passing the resolution did nothing–absolutely nothing–to deflect the Republican attack on Move-On and the entire antiwar movement. It did just the opposite. It weakened our friends and strengthened our enemies, and the Representative that the readers of this blog helped to elect shouldn't have helped the Republicans do it.

Report: Brattleboro police chief needs to go

September 21, 2007
 

Associated Press

    BRATTLEBORO — Rank-and-file police officers have lost faith in their chief and patrol captain, and the two leaders should be dismissed or reassigned, a consultant has told town officials.

“It does not seem to me that the majority within the department have faith in the current chief's and patrol captain's abilities to resolve current issues and set the stage for future success,” wrote Tad Dwyer, an organizational consultant based in Keene, N.H. “This would make it very difficult for them to succeed within the police department, at least in those roles.”

The report doesn't address the chief's emulation of Reddy Kilowatt, but it's hard to believe that the trigger- and Taser-happy practices he has fostered had nothing to do with this. 

It's the day after Petraeus's first appearance in Congress and all three members of Vermont's congressional delegation have given their reactions. Here's what they say:

Welch:

“The conclusion I reached as a listener is that Gen. Petraeus came in on behalf of the administration requesting a sixth and seventh year of the war,” Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., said in an interview. “But the fundamental question that Congress and the American people have to ask is whether a military approach to refereeing a civil war is wise and effective. There has never been a situation where a third party successfully refereed a civil war.”

Welch said the federal government should begin withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.

Sanders:

 “I will continue to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of our troops, a withdrawal which should be completed within the next year,” Sanders said. “Although we must continue to support the Iraqi government and their military so that they can defend themselves, the time to begin bringing home our American troops is now.” 

 

 Leahy:

“Six years ago, our troops had cornered Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan,” Leahy said. “Then the Bush administration diverted our military resources to Iraq, and he slipped away. He remains on the loose today, and terrorism has increased worldwide. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, squandering hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars. The president wants to keep the pedal to the floor in this war, dumping the Iraq mess onto the next president's doorstep.”

Keep your eyes on what they do, but Welch isn't acting too conciliatory to the administration at present. 

Central Vermont energy activist Carl Etnier has been doing a series of interviews with various voices on the state energy scene.

Guests have included Matt Cota of the Vermont Fuel Dealers' Association, 
Blair Hamilton of Efficiency Vermont, and Jerome a Paris, an 
investment banker and energy blogger in Paris, France.

You can listen to the interviews here. 

No, just yell it.

What the hell is wrong with the Democratic leadership that they would even consider rolling over for Bush once again?

Here's what I'm talking about: Democratic leaders have signaled they are open to a more bipartisan approach to Iraq that would force the Bush administration to begin publicly planning for troop withdrawals but would stop short of requiring a firm timeline.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he could drop his demand for a firm troop withdrawal next spring to win GOP votes. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said this week that she will allow a vote on bipartisan troop legislation that, without requiring a redeployment, would force the administration to begin publicly planning for a withdrawal.

It was big news when the Democrats took over Congress last year. We knew there were a lot of reasons for that, and we knew that the margins were slim in both houses, with some of the new members on the edges being somewhat squishy. Still, it was a change, and we had reason to take heart.

But what the hell good does it do if they're going to vote like Republicans?

This is the time when we all have to stand up, contact our congressional delegations, and make sure they hear us: the way to oppose the war is by opposing the war, not making nice to the people who are making war. If we lose a vote, or ten votes, or a hundred votes, we can still tell voters across the country that we stood up for something, and the only way to get anywhere is to elect more Democrats who will fight for what the people want.

What can we tell the voters if the Democrats we elect won't stand up to the Republicans?

I sure was disappointed when I heard Larry Craig was announcing his resignation from the Senate. What could improve the chances of picking up a Senate seat in Idaho than running against him?

 Now we may find out.

Craig Reconsiders Decision to Resign

The Associated Press
Tuesday, September 4, 2007; 9:30 PM

BOISE, Idaho — Sen. Larry Craig is reconsidering his decision to resign after his arrest in a Minnesota airport sex sting and may still fight for his Senate seat, his spokesman said Tuesday evening.

“It's not such a foregone conclusion anymore, that the only thing he could do was resign,” Sidney Smith, Craig's spokesman in Idaho's capital, told The Associated Press.

It's kind of like the question about concession speeches. The answer there is clear: a concession speech has no legal effect, so if someone mistakenly concedes and then it turns out he won, he still gets to take office.

I don't know if Craig has signed a letter of resignation, but if all he has done is to say publicly that he will resign his position at some point in the future, he could certainly argue that he has not actually resigned.

I hope that's what happens. 

From today's Times Argus:
 
September 3, 2007
 

By John Curran Associated Press

    WAITSFIELD — Every time a GI goes down in Iraq, a flag goes up in Vermont.

The memorial — in a field of wildflowers along a rural two-lane road — was established by a group of peace activists intent on reminding people about the bottom line of war. Its caretakers add a flag and change the numbers on the sign to reflect the new total — 3,723 as of last Tuesday — as the death toll grows.

Let those other big-time bloggers cover the serious stories, like Fredo's last stand. Hey, he didn't even have the decency to tell us he was quitting to spend more time with his family, so where's the entertainment value there?

Still, when so many things are going badly, it's good to have everyone's favorite guilty pleasure to fall back on, so, partly at the request of my brother, here's a Top Ten of sex scandals and peccadilloes by our political enemies. It's not that Democrats are always pure and Republicans are always corrupt. It's not even that I think other people's sex lives are our business, unless those same people are taking a more than healthy interest in the sex lives of their fellow Americans.

When it comes down to it, it feels so much better when the guys who are hollering the loudest about those icky people and their icky practices get caught engaging in those icky practices themselves.

And, as much fun as that is, what makes it all the more fun is watching the explanations they really seem to believe will get them off the hook.

So, here we go, although this Top Ten does not come from the home office in Wahoo, Nebraska:

Number Ten–John Jenrette, D., S. Car. His downfall in Congress was probably the result of his bribery conviction, but what really catapulted him into glory was when he had sex with his then-wife, Rita Jenrette, behind a pillar on the steps of the Capitol Building.

Number Nine–Jack Ryan, R., Ill. He was married to TV star and former Borg Geri Ryan, but his campaign for the U.S. Senate ran aground when her divorce filings revealed that he had taken her to sex clubs in New Orleans, New York City, and Paris, where he had begged her to perform sex acts with him in front of other attendees of the clubs. Jeri Ryan described one as “a bizarre club with cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling.” Brack Obama was eventually elected after Ryan was replaced in the Senate campaign by Alan Keyes.

Number Eight–Jeff Gannon. You may know him by his real name, James Dale Guckert, or you may just remember the guy who got preferential treatment by the Bush Administration for being just their kind of conservative wack job, at least until they figured out that he was a male prostitute masquerading as a journalist.

Number Seven–Ted Haggard. Before his scandal broke you had probably never heard of him, but he was a big name in the world of evangelical mega-churches. Too bad he got caught spending church money on the services of a male prostitute. He said it was just a massage, the prostitute says it was three years of sex and amphetamines. Buh-bye, Ted.

Number Six–David Almond, R., N. Car. He may deserve a higher spot on the list, except you've probably never heard of him because he was only a state legislator and he had the decency to step down as soon as he got caught. Still, what can you say about the family values politician who exposed himself in front of a female employee and chased her around the room yelling “Suck it, baby, suck it.” ? Oh yes, in true Republican fashion Almond was the vice chairman of the House committee on children, youth and families.

Number Five–Paul R. Balach. A top aide to former Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, Balach was forced out of his job when he  admitted “he had procured male prostitutes and was subjected to blackmail threats by one of the call boys.” Thanks, Washington Times, for driving this particular scandal to new lows.

Number Four–Robert Bauman, R., Md., another conservative extremist who served in the Congress from 1973-1980, where he received a perfect 100 on the Christian Voice Morality Rating. Too bad that was before he got caught interfering with young boys in a public toilet.

Number Three–Mark Foley, R., Fla. I guess the best he can say for himself is that he didn't actually have sex with them, but sending lewd e-mails to Congressional pages and asking them to send him pictures of themselves seemed just a tiny bit out of keeping with his family values and anti-child-pornography legislative positions. What puts him so close to the top here, though, is the way his sudden departure helped pave the way to a Democratic House majority in 2006.

Number Two–David Vitter, R., La., the first Republican ever elected to represent Louisiana in the U.S. Senate, family values guy, and early supporter of Rudy Giuliani. He got his start in Congress replacing Bob Livingstone, who stepped down as Speaker and resigned from the House after his own marital infidelity was exposed during Clinton's impeachment trial. Following in Livingstone's footsteps, Vitter has been implicated in the “D.C. Madam” case, with his number appearing repeatedly in her phone records.

Number One–Larry Craig, R., Id. It's just come out that he pled guilty earlier this month after he was caught in an airport men's room by an undercover cop. Larry made himself comfortable in a stall, put his briefcase down in front of the door, and began signalling to the man in the next stall.
“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area,” the report states.

“With my left hand near the floor, I pointed towards the exit. Craig responded, ‘No!’ I again pointed towards the exit. Craig exited the stall with his roller bags without flushing the toilet. … Craig said he would not go. I told Craig that he was under arrest, he had to go, and that I didn’t want to make a scene. Craig then left the restroom.”

His explanations and excuses are priceless:
“At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter. In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.” And Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine.”
Do I need to say it? A very quick check of Craig's record on gay issues turns up the fact that he  voted in favor of an Idaho Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and  also voted in favor of last year's Federal Marriage Amendment doing the same thing.

So come on, people. Let's hear it for those upstanding men and women–oops, men only, sorry–who are working so hard to uphold the values our nation was built on.

(Promoting for comments on the new developments in Michigan and Florida. Maybe I’ll have time to update this tonight. – promoted by Jack McCullough)

The Democratic National Committee has told Florida that it won't get any delegates to next year's national convention unless they back down from their calendar move, which puts the Florida presidential primary ahead of New Hampshire and other annointed states in the presidential race next year.

 The committee gave Florida Democrats 30 days to propose a primary date that conformed with Democratic rules prohibiting all but four states from holding their primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5. But Florida leaders, who seemed stunned by a near-unanimous vote and the severity of the punishment, said they were doubtful they could come up with an alternative.

This is something that's bugged me for some time. Not just the random fact that New Hampshire and Iowa have such a disproportionate role in the selection of presidential candidates, but more importantly, the obvious sense of entitlement that the residents of those two states, and especially New Hampshire, have, and the supine attitude of the parties in the face of this sense of entitlement. 

This year the rest of the country is catching up with this, and other states who have in prior years been deprived of any say in who the presidential candidates will be are trying to get in the game, but our party, which ought by nature to be the voice of the people, is trying to squelch these efforts.

There are two good alternatives to the current system, either of which would be immeasurably better than the current system. Probably the best known is a proposal for rotating regional primaries. Even though Holy Joe supports the idea, it makes a lot of sense, by creating regional primaries that will spread the primary voting over time and take away the advantage that the early winners in insignificant states now have.

Another appealing idea is called the American Plan, and it front loads the smallest states, so that candidates get started early and have to ask the voters of small states for their support before they get to the big states that will put them over the top. 

The American Plan is intended to correct these faults. First, it introduces a random element into scheduling while preserving the door-to-door politicking needed early in the race. Second, it arranges the schedule so that large “block” primaries take place at the end of the calendar, not the beginning. Finally, it condenses the schedule into a time span of 20 weeks that culminates with a large primary of both small and large states.

Here's how it works: The American Plan is designed to begin with primaries in smaller states, and grow progressively larger and more challenging as the nominating process advances. The schedule consists of 10 multi-state primaries evenly spaced over twenty weeks. The first primary would take place in a randomly selected group of states whose Congressional Districts total exactly 8 – for example, Alaska (1 CD), South Carolina (6 CDs), and Delaware (1 CD). The succeeding primaries would grow progressively larger – 16, 24, 36, etc. – up to the 10th primary, which would cover 80 CDs. A hypothetical sample schedule can be viewed here.

Both of these choices are obvious responses to the Super Tuesday system we have now, which has largely done what it was intended to do: advance conservative Democratic candidates (see, e.g., Carter, Clinton) 

Either choice makes more sense than we have now, and either choice would hopefully protect us from more news stories about some geezer in New Hampshire who's decided that nobody who hasn't slogged up to his general store and listened to his hilarious outhouse story is qualified to be president.

So come on, DNC. Let's get off this infatuation with New Hampshire and Iowa and move to a system that actually makes sense. 

From today's Times Argus/Rutland Herald: 

Lincoln vs. Douglas. Ali vs. Frazier. McKibben vs. McClaughry?

Ripton environmentalist Bill McKibben and Kirby economic commentator John McClaughry may not be household names in popular culture, but Vermonters clued into climate change know the two men for their ongoing debate over global warming.

 Right wing blather and bluster vs. reason and evidence from our own gubernatorial draftee.