All posts by odum

Massive Antarctic Ice Shelf About to Break Loose

An Antarctic Ice Shelf the size of Connecticut is getting ready to come loose, dumping tons of water into the oceans as a result of global warming.  The Wilkins ice shelf would be the biggest Antarctic ice shelf to come down yet. Perhaps its time to stop referring to “global warming deniers” and start calling them “giant state-sized iceberg deniers.”

This is the sort of melt that raises the sea levels, as well. (not so, as mydog pointed out from the same article… the “ice shelfs” are purely sea based already… my bad… makes this another big warning bell rather than the actual diaster). Arctic ice is frozen sea ice, so its melt – while environmentally significant – won't add extra water to the oceans. Ice from the Antarctic continent and Greenland will.

So enjoy those trips to the cape and islands while you can, because I don't think they're gonna be there for your kids to appreciate in their adulthood, the way things are going, at least not as we know them today.

In which I defend the honor of the innernets

I was on Vermont Edition today, talking with host Jane Lindholm about the iBrattleboro case and defending the judges decision to dismiss from a blogger’s perspective. It was fun, and is only about a 6 or 7 minute listen. Give a hear and weigh in, if you’re so inclined:

You can also click here to hear the whole show from vpr.net. Thanks again to Jane & VPR for having me.

Obama’s message on race probably not what some of his white supporters wanted to hear…

The Wright controversy seems to be settling, and Obama’s poll numbers nationally are beginning to rebound in what seems to be the natural course of things, helped along by a solid speech and the changing of the subject in recent days. While Obama still seems to be in the driver’s seat, it would be incorrect to say that no damage was done, and in fact, the continuing bitterness in the primary seems to be affecting the eventual nominee’s overall chances against John McCain.

But with racial issues now front and center, Obama has – as was inevitable – lost some support as a result, but I suspect not just from the people you’d expect. Although it’d be impossible to track, I’ll bet there is a subset of his educated, liberal backers who have also become disenchanted.

MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong, whose passionate distaste for Obama has come to mirror the irrational zealotry of the candidate’s most extreme boosters, actually found that rarest of creatures – an African American activist who shares this particular view – to make the point:

Michael Meyers, Obama blew it, really nails it, on what Obama has missed making happen, not only in his speech, but in his campaign message about race:

I waited in vain for our hybrid presidential candidate to speak the simple truth that there is no such thing as “race,” that we all belong to the same race — the human race. I waited for him to mesmerize us with a singular and focused appeal to hold all candidates to the same standards no matter their race or their sex or their age. But instead Obama gave us a full measure of racial rhetoric about how some of us with an “untrained ear” — meaning whites and Asians and Latinos — don’t understand and can’t relate to the so-called black experience.

It’s very unusual to hear this line from an African American, but not at all uncommon to hear it from white people – especially educated ones; let’s call it the idea of post-racialism.

By post-racialism, I’m referring to the sentiment excerpted above that usually manifests itself in a liberal, educated voter who right away wants to tell you that they “don’t see race,” – or, even more often, by a repetition of the fact that race has no biological component, is therefore illegitimate, and therefore does not exist. The implication, then, is that if everybody just recognized that the concept of race was inherently phony, racism would be over. It sounds nice.

The problem is, of course, it’s completely and utterly wrong.

It takes only the tiniest bit of consideration to break down this whole idea. Consider first the notion of heritage. I, for example, am of Irish descent, and have never encountered anyone who would suggest that my Irish roots, given the lack of a biological distinction with people of, say, Burmese ancestry, are irrelevant. In fact, people are encouraged to identify themselves through such European heritages every day, and in celebratory ways.

And they (we) are right to do so. Irish ancestry may not tie me to the history and shared experience of the Irish people in any way that shows up on a genome (my pale skin notwithstanding), but as any anthropologist, historian, psychologist or even spiritualist will tell you, that hardly makes it irrelevant or illusory. Racial characteristics indicate such a shared tradition, and arbitrarily specifying that such a distinction in that case should not be acknowledged (let alone embraced), is – well, it’s anything but arbitrary.

It speaks to the continuing discomfort among many in the white majority – and perhaps the unresolved alienation felt by some in the black elite. Many educated Caucasians want badly to leave the entire concept of race behind because the concept of racism puts them at a disadvantage they don’t entirely understand. On the one hand, they’d like nothing more than to shed themselves of the cultural “original sin” of the white power structure and it’s ugly history. On the other hand, there is increased frustration – even in liberal circles – of the very concept of affirmative action, which would seem to compensate for a sort of systemic discrimination that liberal whites of means may not see in their own day to day lives (either because its not there, or because it’s inconvenient to acknowledge).

Finally, there’s the inconvenient truth that many – probably most – whites, even the affluent, educated and liberal ones, still do carry around prejudice. Even if its simply the “typical white woman” (as Obama said) inclination to tense up if a black male is walking down the street. Is this not the definition of prejudice – a “pre judgement” based on someone’s outer characteristics, even if it is so autonomic as to amount to cultural conditioning?

These are all things that make the educated liberal white person uncomfortable, because they suggest a need to turn their judgment within rather than without, and to face complexities of human nature that defy bumper sticker new age sloganeering. Much easier to define the whole concept as obsolete and irrelevant, and eagerly place themselves in the world of the post-racial where such questions are only the purview of the less enlightened.

Many people have projected many things onto Obama’s candidacy and public image, but this projection of post-racialism in particular has taken a big hit – not from the Wright controversy, but from Obama’s solution to it.

From Obama’s speech:

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own…

…For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs – to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny…

…In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination – and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past – are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

So, Obama has not responded at all with what the post-racialists want to hear; that race is all a big collective illusion that we should ignore. Obama has stated the truth; that race is very real, and its impact and implications need to be dealt with openly and honestly. He rightfully notes that those implications change over time and over generational experiences, but that certainly not the same thing as saying we’ve moved beyond it.

Race is real because people of different races share unique histories, experiences and perspectives. Shared histories, experiences and perspectives are what define culture, and culture is one of the things that define us as people. There may be no biological component differentiating cultures, but that doesn’t make them illusory. In fact, the very suggestion is absurd, and we should be very leery when we hear that suggestion made, as it probably masks the suggestor’s discomfort with cultures different than their own, at least at some subconscious level.

Obama takes it to this next level – the really distasteful one to the post-racial crowd – by celebrating both his white and black heritage; he says that such racial and cultural identification is not something we should move beyond. That racial and ethnic heritage and experience is something to be looked at square in the face – but in doing so honestly and openly, we have an opportunity as a society to become greater than the sum of our parts.

It’s a message well outside the comfort zone of the post-racialists, and I have little doubt that several of his supporters who have projected such  visions onto his candidacy in the interest of institutionalizing their own racial comfort zones have dropped off as a result (although there’s no way to gauge how many).

But it was the right and true message to send, regardless.

GOP Contributor-Owned Company Tied to Candidate Passport Data Breaches Holds Vermont Contract

( – promoted by Brattlerouser)

The news is spreading quickly that Stanley Inc. was one of the State Department contractors whose employees illegally accessed the passport records of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and, as it also turns out, John McCain. It’s CEO, Philip Nolan is, naturally, a big GOP contributor. Certainly there are eyebrows a-raising, but no smoking gun yet. I imagine, though, that bloggers and citizen journalists are leaving no stone unturned in the quest for one, so if there is hanky-panky, I suspect it won’t be long before we start seeing what shape it might take.

In the meantime, though, Stanley Inc. – which earlier this week had received a 5-year, $570 million contract with the federal government – is a big player in Vermont as well. Only a few months ago, Virginia-based Stanley took over the management of visa and citizenship applications in St. Albans. It arrived with a bang just last November, dramatically slashing the pay of employees in a period where such applications are on the rise, and during an ongoing government-promoted narrative of the danger of terrorists crossing international borders into the US. Many employees under the previous contractor who have found their jobs renewed were greeted with pay cuts of 12% just before last Christmas. This from a company lauded by Fortune Magazine as the 100th best company to work for (yeah, that sounds about right). In some cases, employees who had been making $20 an hour, saw that hourly wage drop down to $13.

All of which would seem to fly in the face of the Service Contract Act, which guarantees prevailing wages and benefits to federal contract workers. At the prodding of Senator Sanders, the US Department of Labor opened an investigation last year. You know – the Department run by the wife of the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell. Adjust your expectations accordingly.

Not content to hang their hats on the sterling record of fairness and adherence to law of the Bush administration, the employees moved with blazing speed towards unionizing with United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, receiving encouragement in doing so from Bernie’s office. Earlier this month, elections resulted in St. Albans employees of Stanley subcontractors Choctaw Archiving Enterprise and Northrop Grumman Technical Services Inc being represented by UE. Employees at another subcontractor and at Stanley proper did not vote to unionize, however.

As Sanders has correctly noted, the St. Albans wage situation alone should raise serious questions about the rush to contract and privatize what are by anyone’s measure, clearly fundamental governmental responsibilities – and the passport breaches call the question even more dramatically, wherever that storyline may ultimately lead.

86ing the 802

While the greater Vermont journalism world noted the retirement of columnist Peter Freyne, of even greater impact to the teeny Vermont blogosphere (political and non-political) was the retirement of Seven Days’ 802 Online by longtime blogger (and Seven Days online editor) Cathy Resmer. Cathy’s blog has been an electronic foundation, of sorts, that the developing weblog ecosystem in the state has grown from, on, and around over the past few years.

Unlike Freyne, however, Cathy isn’t going anywhere. Rather, she’s simply retooling the way she manages and develops the newsweekly’s rapidly developing online presence, continuing to do an extraordinary job of interfacing the traditional media outlet into the realm of new media. Nevertheless, the passing of 802 Online suggests the passing of an era for Vermont bloggery, and for that reason, we tip our collective hats to Cathy and 802, looking forward to what comes next.

Herald/Argus, Reformer, WCAX: All dressed up for the Supreme Court, with nowhere to go

Thanks to Christian for posting the breaking news that iBrattleboro has been dismissed as a target in their high-profile defamation suit. You know the one – where iBrat was sued over the content of a user comment? The one that got national attention for its free speech implications? The one that legal analysts across the country dismissed out of hand? (from the Citizen Media Law Project):

This is not even a close question… Moreover, immunity exists even if a defendant edits comments (so long as the edits do not materially change the meaning of the statement) or otherwise exercises discretion in selecting which comments to post or remove.

(That’s for the very reasons Caoimhin discussed here, for those paying attention). The same suit that was dismissed as bunk by virtually every media observer?

Yeah, that suit. The one that Brattleboro Reformer editor Randy Holhut had this to say about:

“…”If what gets published or what gets posted or what gets aired doesn’t meet the standards, then you’re legally liable for it.”

This quote coming after the Reformer’s comparably-toned editorial the Citizen Media Law Project specifically referred to as “odd” and “simply wrong as a matter of law.”

But of course, the Reformer piece was nothing. The Times Argus and Rutland Herald (who, on occasion, needlessly make little offhand pokes at the blogosphere and citizen journalism) apparently had truly unique wisdom. Grandiose wisdom, in fact (emphasis added):

It hits at the center of a gray area in electronic law, and as such, may well wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said and done.

…well, almost unique, as WCAX ridiculously agreed:

It targets a gray area of media law and could potentially end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Good grief. Putting aside the borderline plagiarism on display between those two quotes above – there was no “gray area.” Why did everybody else in the known universe seem to understand that? Now that this nonsense has been unceremoniously tossed out of the courthouse on its ass (as everyone predicted), these “professionals” should be ashamed of themselves, waxing excited as they were over a meritless assault on the free speech rights they themselves depend on.

And now that there’s a little egg on their faces (egg not shared by their more even-keeled, rational counterparts in the other traditional media outlets from Seven Days to the New England Press Association), maybe they can take the media envy somewhere more appropriate: to a therapist.

Freyne Stepping Back

Among those of us who frequent the Vermont blogosphere, who hasn’t been wondering if the reason we haven’t heard from longtime Seven Days political columnist (and blogger) Peter Freyne for more than two weeks was that his cancer had returned?

Given that, today’s news from Freyne land was a bit of a relief, if still disappointing: he’s simply done, and will be stepping back from his role as columnist to focus on other projects. From Freyne Land:

Life is short. As my ol’ pal Mike always said, “We’re not here for a long time, we’re here for a good time.” And as I’ve come to realize, one cannot begin that new chapter of life until one closes the page on the current one. It’s a big step to take, a risky one, but until one takes it, the misery reigns supreme.

Health-wise, things haven’t been this good in Freyne Land in decades. And the writer within – the non-political columnist – has a whole lot of material that’s been waiting much too long to get out.

Stay tuned.

It’s unclear how much he will continue blogging, but he suggests that he will keep Freyne Land going.

Best of luck Peter. I daresay over GMD’s 2+ years, there is no member of the fourth estate we have cited with near the frequency as we’ve cited you (and despite a couple high profile frustrations of late, I’d guess no columnist approaches your rate of positive citations on this site, either).

Good luck with your next thing, and thanks for the years of good work.

The Speech

Although I find some of the internet gushing nigh-near intolerable, there’s no question Obama’s speech was a good one. Great, even. What I find even more impressive than the honest, and at times truly nuanced content, was the strategic thinking behind the speech (which can be read here).

The Wright thing was hardly a killing blow in and of itself, but it clearly stopped Obama’s renewed momentum cold. White support in Pennsylvania was further slipping, and Obama was looking at a long slow downward slog to the PA primary, which Clinton has successfully defined as the only thing that matters. Obama needed to take back the conversation definitively. Making such an honest, bare-your-soul speech (and building it up as well as his campaign did) was an attempt not simply to re-take the spotlight, but to make his current weakness into a strength, and in the process innoculate himself from further loss of support.

Going the confessional route, though, was the truly brilliant part. he took a big issue, expressed sympathy with most people’s various perspectives, but made it about himself as well. It was a bigger Oprah moment for him than any of his actual moments with Oprah.

But it was also a risk. Clinton’s approach feeds racial divisiveness and animosity. Obama makes an appeal to rise above that. But we’re not above that as a nation. Obama’s gamble in going with Clinton’s attempt to put race front and center, but taking some positive control of the discussion, is a gamble on the better nature of enough voters to make the difference.

I’m dubious about whether or not it’ll work, but even if it results in a wash that simply stabilizes the current status quo, it should be enough to carry him through to the nomination. We’ll see, I suppose.

xx

Representative (and “Hill” blogger…?) Peter Welch, for those who were watching, voted against the House FISA bill that (unlike its Senate counterpart) did NOT provide retroactive immunity for telephone copmpanies assissting Bushco in breaking domestic spying laws. Yes. that’s the much lauded House FISA bill that, after many rumors and wringing of hands – did NOT knuckle under to bullying by the President, the Vice President, the Republican caucus and Senate Intelligence Chair Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

So – why not? Was Welch supportive of telco amnesty?

Yeah, right.

Oddsmaking: The Three Paths to Defeating Douglas (for now)

As I see it, we’re currently looking at three possible paths to defeating Douglas, given the bizarre election season we’re heading into.

1. The Pollina Unity Candidacy. Assumes no Dem enters the race, except possibly a ballot squatter. Assumes Pollina and the Progressives really can address the Democrats’ concerns enough to build a genuine coalition. Assumes Pollina can convince enough Dems who wrote him off long ago to change their minds and allow him to win the old fashioned way – getting more votes than Douglas. Odds of success: 10 to 1.

2. Forcing a Left Wing Primary in a 3-Way Race. Galbraith or some other Dem runs. Following up on Pollina’s supporters’ plans to write him in on the Dem ballot, a comparable plan is undertaken to write the Dem in on the Prog ballot (given that Pollina accepting the Dem primary as “the” primary for the left would be a non-starter). If somebody loses both, they’re out. This would give the drama of a primary (and an unusual one at that) which would keep the media’s attention, and would give the winner an added boost. Odds of success: 3 to 1.

3. A 3-Way Race With A Legislative Showdown. The plan here is to keep Douglas below 50%, forcing the final vote into the Legislature, where lawmakers give the nod to the number two vote getter. To make this work, the logic would have to be promoted ASAP and steadily, in order for it to gain exposure in the press and legitimacy among the public. The reasoning would be similar to the logic behind IRV, which the public has already been somewhat primed with. The winner should have a majority. If a majority rejects the Governor, the third place candidate agrees to essentially recuse themselves from the running and throw their support behind the second place winner – and by extension, their electoral support follows. The legislature then has a consistent rationale for picking the number two.  Odds of success: Even. If the powers-that-be committed to this and got buy in from legislators, its a better than even chance that Douglas can be held below 50%. If the narrative is out there in the media over enough time to gain legitimacy, the third place winner wouldn’t even have to buy into it – although it would be preferable if they did, to give the rationale as wide acceptance as possible (and at that point, if the third place candidate didn’t play along, they would truly and literally embrace the role of spoiler, regardless of which party they came from).

And in case you haven’t noticed, options 2 and 3 require two leftist candidates. In fact, short of a major player on the Statewide stage jumping in (such as Markowitz, Spaulding or even Racine), at this stage of the game, we’d all need Pollina in this thing, either to play winner or third place.